It takes only 5 people to end gun violence in America.
It takes only 5 people to end gun violence in America.
Banning gun sales to those with mental illness is not effective enough
Background checks on criminals are not effective enough
Banning the sale of assault guns is not effective enough
Limiting the number of shells in gun magazines is not effective enough
Fences and locked doors on every public facility are not effective enough
Armed guards/teachers/doctors/salespersons/clergy in every public place is not effective enough
We rationalize limits on the 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech in the greater good.
- children's exposure to pornography
- adults shouting "Fire" in a crowd
We can rationalize limits on the 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms.
The US Supreme Court has made mistakes, and their decisions have been re-evaluated, and even reversed.
Our Forefathers envisioned domination by a foreign government's military.
Our Forefathers envisioned a "well regulated militia" for the common good.
Our Forefathers envisioned guns as flintlocks and muskets, not our modern guns.
Limiting gun possession to flintlocks and muskets is a "conservative" view.
Limiting gun possession to the maintaining of a militia is a "conservative" view
It only takes 5 Supreme Court Justices to end gun violence in America.
Y'know, I totally get that people wouldn't want a total ban on guns. Too many cultural associations, too much a part of growing up in some communities, and too necessary as a survival tool in some parts of the country.
But assault weapons? If you need a battlefield weapon that pumps out mega quantities of bullets to hunt a deer or a bear than ur doin it rong.
If all that lad had been abe to acquire was a simple shotgun or hunting rifle the death toll would have been significantly lower.
It is not, in my opinion, acceptable or desirable for people to be allowed to drive tanks down the public highway willynilly. They weren't made for use in that setting. Doesn't mean i want to ban all motor vehicles.
It is not, in my opinion, acceptable or desirable for people to be allowed to drive tanks down the public highway willynilly. They weren't made for use in that setting. Doesn't mean i want to ban all motor vehicles.
I like your analogy, Dana, and I agree with your balanced view on the subject.
Our Forefathers envisioned a "well regulated militia" for the common good.
It seems to me that if you are making the argument that guns are only protected under the Constitution for militias, then you need to allow machine guns. After all, they are military weapons for a military organization. So if we want to restrict guns that look like machine guns, what we need to do is to change the interpretation of the Constitution so that the Constitutional purpose of guns is not to arm militias. Ironically, the Supreme Court
did just that when they overturned the DC handgun ban and held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.
It only takes 5 Supreme Court Justices to end gun violence in America.
Just like it ended drinking in America? Just because something is made illegal doesn't mean it will automatically go away.
Is there actually any unbiased evidence that banning guns has an effect on lowering gun deaths? From the data I've seen, banning handguns in D.C, Chicago, etc. didn't really do anything when comparing against the national average. I could see it having an effect on suicides but that is preventable through other measures as well.
A few other points:
Most gun deaths in the US are a result from handguns, not "assault" rifles and every polls suggests that the majority of Americans are against banning handguns (myself included). I would be supportive of regulation measures, but not outright banning.
Second, while the argument has been mutilated by extremist in the NRA and too many people abuse their powerful weapons, a right to self defense is still a powerful argument. While guns result in many deaths, they do actually prevent robberies, property damage, attacks, etc as well. Those benefits cannot be quantified so it makes it difficult to make comparisons.
I would personally like to see more regulation with guns in general and restrictions on certain aspects of guns. For example, I'm don't see how low capacity high velocity bullets hold and weight in a self-defense or hunting argument. Instead of blanketing every gun death as "gun problem", we should look at specific aspects and how those specific aspects can be improved.
From the data I've seen, banning handguns in D.C, Chicago, etc. didn't really do anything
Think about that for a second. Were people free to leave DC and cross the bridge into Virginia where gun laws are lax? If there is a nation wide ban, would there be such an easy path around the law?
This post and the article it links to/draws from is fantastic, and talks about a side of this issue that's almost never discussed.
The eighth-grade students gathering on the west lawn of the state capitol in Sacramento were planning to lunch on fried chicken with California’s new governor, Ronald Reagan, and then tour the granite building constructed a century earlier to resemble the nation’s Capitol. But the festivities were interrupted by the arrival of 30 young black men and women carrying .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns, and .45-caliber pistols.
The 24 men and six women climbed the capitol steps, and one man, Bobby Seale, began to read from a prepared statement. “The American people in general and the black people in particular,” he announced, “must take careful note of the racist California legislature aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless. Black people have begged, prayed, petitioned, demonstrated, and everything else to get the racist power structure of America to right the wrongs which have historically been perpetuated against black people The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.”
Seale then turned to the others. “All right, brothers, come on. We’re going inside.” He opened the door, and the radicals walked straight into the state’s most important government building, loaded guns in hand. No metal detectors stood in their way.
It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement.
[…]
Opposition to gun control was what drove the black militants to visit the California capitol with loaded weapons in hand. The Black Panther Party had been formed six months earlier, in Oakland, by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Like many young African Americans, Newton and Seale were frustrated with the failed promise of the civil rights movement. Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were legal landmarks, but they had yet to deliver equal opportunity. In Newton and Seale’s view, the only tangible outcome of the civil-rights movement had been more violence and oppression, much of it committed by the very entity meant to protect and serve the public: the police.
Inspired by the teachings of Malcolm X, Newton and Seale decided to fight back. Before he was assassinated in 1965, Malcolm X had preached against Martin Luther King Jr.’s brand of nonviolent resistance. Because the government was “either unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property” of blacks, he said, they had to defend themselves “by whatever means necessary.” Malcolm X illustrated the idea for Ebony magazine by posing for photographs in suit and tie, peering out a window with an M-1 carbine semiautomatic in hand. Malcolm X and the Panthers described their right to use guns in self-defense in constitutional terms. “Article number two of the constitutional amendments,” Malcolm X argued, “provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun.”
Guns became central to the Panthers’ identity, as they taught their early recruits that “the gun is the only thing that will free us — gain us our liberation.” They bought some of their first guns with earnings from selling copies of Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book to students at the University of California at Berkeley. In time, the Panther arsenal included machine guns; an assortment of rifles, handguns, explosives, and grenade launchers; and “boxes and boxes of ammunition,” recalled Elaine Brown, one of the party’s first female members, in her 1992 memoir. Some of this matériel came from the federal government: one member claimed he had connections at Camp Pendleton, in Southern California, who would sell the Panthers anything for the right price. One Panther bragged that, if they wanted, they could have bought an M48 tank and driven it right up the freeway.
Along with providing classes on black nationalism and socialism, Newton made sure recruits learned how to clean, handle, and shoot guns. Their instructors were sympathetic black veterans, recently home from Vietnam. For their “righteous revolutionary struggle,” the Panthers were trained, as well as armed, however indirectly, by the U.S. government.
Civil rights activists, even those committed to nonviolent resistance, had long appreciated the value of guns for self-protection. Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in 1956, after his house was bombed. His application was denied, but from then on, armed supporters guarded his home. One adviser, Glenn Smiley, described the King home as “an arsenal.” William Worthy, a black reporter who covered the civil-rights movement, almost sat on a loaded gun in a living-room armchair during a visit to King’s parsonage.
[…]
Newton had discovered, during classes at San Francisco Law School, that California law allowed people to carry guns in public so long as they were visible, and not pointed at anyone in a threatening way.
In February of 1967, Oakland police officers stopped a car carrying Newton, Seale, and several other Panthers with rifles and handguns. When one officer asked to see one of the guns, Newton refused. “I don’t have to give you anything but my identification, name, and address,” he insisted. This, too, he had learned in law school.
“Who in the hell do you think you are?” an officer responded.
“Who in the hell do you think *you* are?,” Newton replied indignantly. He told the officer that he and his friends had a legal right to have their firearms.
Newton got out of the car, still holding his rifle.
“What are you going to do with that gun?” asked one of the stunned policemen.
“What are you going to do with *your* gun?,” Newton replied.
By this time, the scene had drawn a crowd of onlookers. An officer told the bystanders to move on, but Newton shouted at them to stay. California law, he yelled, gave civilians a right to observe a police officer making an arrest, so long as they didn’t interfere. Newton played it up for the crowd. In a loud voice, he told the police officers, “If you try to shoot at me or if you try to take this gun, I’m going to shoot back at you, swine.” Although normally a black man with Newton’s attitude would quickly find himself handcuffed in the back of a police car, enough people had gathered on the street to discourage the officers from doing anything rash. Because they hadn’t committed any crime, the Panthers were allowed to go on their way.
The people who’d witnessed the scene were dumbstruck. Not even Bobby Seale could believe it. Right then, he said, he knew that Newton was the “baddest motherf***er in the world.”… After the February incident, the Panthers began a regular practice of policing the police. Thanks to an army of new recruits inspired to join up when they heard about Newton’s bravado, groups of armed Panthers would drive around following police cars. When the police stopped a black person, the Panthers would stand off to the side and shout out legal advice.
Don Mulford, a conservative Republican state assemblyman from Alameda County, which includes Oakland, was determined to end the Panthers’ police patrols. To disarm the Panthers, he proposed a law that would prohibit the carrying of a loaded weapon in any California city. When Newton found out about this, he told Seale, “You know what we’re going to do? We’re going to the Capitol.” Seale was incredulous. “The Capitol?” Newton explained: “Mulford’s there, and they’re trying to pass a law against our guns, and we’re going to the Capitol steps.” Newton’s plan was to take a select group of Panthers “loaded down to the gills,” to send a message to California lawmakers about the group’s opposition to any new gun control.
The Panthers’ methods provoked an immediate backlash. The day of their statehouse protest, lawmakers said the incident would speed enactment of Mulford’s gun-control proposal. Mulford himself pledged to make his bill even tougher, and he added a provision barring anyone but law enforcement from bringing a loaded firearm into the state capitol.
Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control. Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”
The fear inspired by black people with guns also led the United States Congress to consider new gun restrictions, after the summer of 1967 brought what the historian Harvard Sitkoff called the “most intense and destructive wave of racial violence the nation had ever witnessed.” Devastating riots engulfed Detroit and Newark. Police and National Guardsmen who tried to help restore order were greeted with sniper fire.
A 1968 federal report blamed the unrest at least partly on the easy availability of guns. Because rioters used guns to keep law enforcement at bay, the report’s authors asserted that a recent spike in firearms sales and permit applications was “directly related to the actuality and prospect of civil disorders.” They drew “the firm conclusion that effective firearms controls are an essential contribution to domestic peace and tranquility.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/3/?single_page=true
Think about that for a second. Were people free to leave DC and cross the bridge into Virginia where gun laws are lax? If there is a nation wide ban, would there be such an easy path around the law?
I don't see much difference between a hypothetical gun ban in the US with prohibition on alcohol, weed, cocaine, etc. Would there maybe be some initial instability? Probably. However, if there is a demand for guns, I'm sure the black market would be more than happy to supply. It already does in many urban areas.
We have over 300 million guns in this country and only a very very small proportion of those are used to kill people. I would imagine that a ban on guns would greatly reduce the number of guns that are being used responsibility but have little impact on the number of guns being used irresponsibly. Any gun regulation needs to address this IMO.
Just like it ended drinking in America? Just because something is made illegal doesn't mean it will automatically go away.
Is there actually any unbiased evidence that banning guns has an effect on lowering gun deaths? From the data I've seen, banning handguns in D.C, Chicago, etc. didn't really do anything when comparing against the national average. I could see it having an effect on suicides but that is preventable through other measures as well.
Here is all the surprising, inconvenient, confusing, complicated, and non-soundbite-worthy evidence.
It's not simple.
http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.aspMight as well not make anything illegal.
Less than 24 hours after the killings, a local Convention Center had it quarterly gun show. Only hours after routine killing of children (this time in the same location), the gun show clearly had its largest crowd. Only a national dog show had a crowd as large.
Gun shows are where one buys the most deadly weapons and ammunition without even a background check. Dead kids promote more gun sales. Because those who most need guns are the same emotional type who make decisions based in fear and ego.
What to do with a kid who (according to his mother) had mental problems? Take him to gun ranges to practice with weapons once restricted only to trained soldiers. Keep him out of school because his emotional problems must be traceable to the school system. Does that make sense? Of course not. Decisions based in emotions explain why the mother purchased a large stockpile of assault weapons. And hundreds of rounds of ammunition.
Some people think like adults. They use reason rather than feelings. Others who need to entertain the emotion of a bigger gun to prove their adulthood. She was not a victim. If alive, she should be prosecuted as an accessory to the crime. But we still do not hold gun owners responsible for their actions. It would be a threat to their feelings. After all, the least adult among us need more guns. And hundreds of rounds of ammuntion only useful for killing people.
And so the gun show had its largeest turnout only hours after children were massacred. The mentality is strongly associated with those who most need bigger guns.
Here is all the surprising, inconvenient, confusing, complicated, and non-soundbite-worthy evidence.
It's not simple.
http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
James D. Agresti, the president and primary researcher, holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Brown University and has worked as a designer of jet aircraft engines, a technical sales professional, and chief engineer of a firm that customizes helicopters. He is the author of Rational Conclusions, a highly researched book evidencing factual support for the Bible across a broad array of academic disciplines.
Oh lord, here we go again.
7:00 Sussex County Creation Science Club, Sparta, NJ (Sussex County)
We will be hosting speaker, Jim Agresti, an author and creation speaker who will be speaking on the "Cosmos and a Super Natural Creation"
So the head researcher for justfacts is a 'creation scientist'? While this might give him a different viewpoint, sort of like inviting Jeffrey Dahmer to research a book on food safety, it argues against unbiased collection and interpretation of facts.
It seems to me that if you are making the argument
that guns are only protected under the Constitution for militias, then you need to allow machine guns.
After all, they are military weapons for a military organization.
So if we want to restrict guns that look like machine guns,
what we need to do is to change the interpretation of the Constitution
so that the Constitutional purpose of guns is not to arm militias.<snip>
Ummmm.... there are two issues here.
What was the wording of the original "2nd Amendment ratified by the States ?
To wit:
CONGRESS of the UNITED STATES
Begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday,
the
Fourth of March, One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-nine.
Article the first [Not Ratified]
Article the second [Not Ratified - until 1992, as the 27th Amendment]
Article the third [1st Amendment]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
Article the fourth [2nd Amendment]
[COLOR="DarkRed"]A well regulated[/COLOR] Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The laws passed by Congress
after the States ratified
the Constitution and Bill of Rights are worded differently.
A great deal is made of the Federalist Papers regarding the intentions of our Forefathers.
John Jay's writings there on the 2nd Amendment (before ratification)
specifically discuss the need to give up some "rights"
in order to gain other benefits gained from the new federal government.
The "militia" of our Forefathers is not one of individuals with guns,
but of independent (non-federal) communities formally calling up individuals,
even to the point of a draft to meet quotas, to defend against foreign forces.
---
Second, our Forefathers could not have envisioned the machine gun,
or much of any gun we now call an "automatic firearm",
which came 50 to 100 years after ratification...
from Wikipedia:
The History of the Firearm
<snip>
A repeating firearm or "repeater" is a firearm that holds more
than one cartridge and can be fired more than once between chargings.
Springfield rifles were among the very first breech-loading rifles, starting production in 1865.
The most well-known repeater is the American Springfield Model 1892-99
The earliest repeating firearms were revolvers (revolving rifles were sometimes called "turret guns")
and were "single action" in that they could only be fired one way: by manually cocking the mechanism
(drawing the hammer to the rear with the thumb) before each shot.
This design dates from 1836, with the introduction of the Colt Paterson,
The first successful rapid-fire firearm is the Gatling Gun, invented by Richard Gatling
and fielded by the Union forces during the American Civil War in the 1860s.
Thus, it only takes 5 USSC Justices to re-interpret "well regulated" to end gun violence.
Yeah, that's all interesting, but the Supreme Court
already removed the whole militia part of the 2nd amendment. So a new Supreme Court would have to change that ruling to bring militias back into it, and then go on to do what you suggest.
The Wikipedia summary of the Supreme Court's holding in D.C. v. Heller:
The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.
Oh lord, here we go again.
So the head researcher for justfacts is a 'creation scientist'? While this might give him a different viewpoint, sort of like inviting Jeffrey Dahmer to research a book on food safety, it argues against unbiased collection and interpretation of facts.
Great. Apart from your highly effective Ad Hominem attack what facts did you find, pertaining to gun laws, that were erroneous?
Nearly everyone has personal political views, especially those involved in policy research and journalism. In the interest of transparency, we think it is incumbent upon such individuals to straightforwardly disclose this information, despite the fact that they often fail to do so and claim that this lack of disclosure is a mark of objectivity. As is the case with any thoughtful group of people, the staff and board members of Just Facts have some varying opinions, but we overwhelmingly subscribe to these defining principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
In general parlance, we are conservative/libertarian in our viewpoints, but unlike many organizations and media outlets, this does not mean we give preference to facts that coincide with our opinions. Quite the contrary, we are committed to objectivity and will report any fact that meets the criteria below, regardless of the implications.
Standards Of Credibility
* Facts: Every effort is made to keep the facts as plain as possible and to use language that is clear and precise.
* Excluded Facts: The only "facts" excluded are those that are rendered pointless by other facts and those that do not meet the Standards of Credibility listed here.
* Accuracy: Just Facts does not use sources uncritically, and before citing them, we often perform investigative and feasibility studies to test their veracity. Just Facts is also committed to documenting the facts we publish far more thoroughly than standard academic practice requires. Hence, all of our research since 2001 contains footnotes with direct quotes and/or raw data from the cited sources. This allows readers to quickly verify that we accurately represent these citations. Our goal for every fact is 100% transparency.
* Estimates and Minor Discrepancies: These are handled by giving preferentiality to figures that are contrary to our viewpoints and by using the most cautious plausible interpretations of such data.
* Conclusions and Quotes: Every effort is made to keep quotes within context. Conclusions and quotes made by people with vested interests are excluded except to point out inconsistencies and hypocrisy.
* Incomplete Data: "Facts" that do not account for vital contextual information are not included in our research. Example: A study determines that under a certain proposal, "taxes for the average family will increase by $700 over the next four years." This would be excluded if the study did not account for inflation, which may add $300 to the average tax bill regardless of whether or not the proposal is adopted.
* Balance: Our goal is comprehensive accuracy, not balance. Press outlets often provide quotes from people on opposing sides of an issue. This, in our opinion, is a charade. First, there is nothing to prevent a news source from quoting the most compelling argument from one side and the weakest from the other. Second, such soundbites are often loaded with rhetoric and misinformation. Our purpose is to publish verifiable facts regardless of the views they support, not to circulate half-truths and propaganda.
Our Challenge
While today's news media can be entertaining, ask yourself, "Does it give me the information I need to make quality decisions in my life and in the voting booth?"
Make the effort to gather credible facts and ponder their implications. Your views and your vote impact not only your life, but the people around you. Refuse to allow misinformation and bias to restrict or manipulate your thinking. Form your own opinions based upon serious thought and broad knowledge.
Despite their wacky creationist viewpoints, they seem more open minded than you.
An example of a "fact" that didn't meet their standards of credibility:
"In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."[12] [13]
* Reasons for elimination: This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.[14] This study does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility because:
1) The study blurs cause and effect. As explained in a comprehensive analysis of firearm research conducted by the National Research Council, gun control studies such as this (known as "case-control" studies) "fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. ... Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized."[15]
2) The study's results are highly sensitive to uncertainties in the underlying data. For example, minor variations in firearm ownership rates (which are determined by interview and are thus dependent upon interviewees' honesty) can negate the results.[16] [17]
3) The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).[18])
Yeah, that really smacks of wacky creationist agenda.
For the record, I am adamantly opposed to semi-automatic firearms, and I think gun ownership requirements in this country are looser than lax. A bolt action rifle with a four round clip is all one needs for hunting.
Australia's rules sound good to me.
AND we need to address mental health care in this country.
There are some interesting points there, but I don't like two active threads about gun control. So I'm going to post all my replies in the original thread.
Guns Don't Kill People.I was thinking that they should be merged.
Please don't merge them. That is unnecessary. You wouldn't herd two circles of people at a party....wait. You wouldn't push together the tables in the pub where two groups of people were talking about the same headline story would you?
Would you then merge upsetting today/irritating today/scorching groove today/apprehensive today threads and other similar pseudo-groups?
I'm not going to merge them.
But tw is the only person to post in this thread and not the other. So it's mostly the same people having the same conversation but moving from table to table to do it.
But assault weapons? If you need a battlefield weapon that pumps out mega quantities of bullets to hunt a deer or a bear than ur doin it rong.
Please define "assault weapon" and explain the substantial differences with non-"assault weapon"s.
If all that lad had been abe to acquire was a simple shotgun or hunting rifle the death toll would have been significantly lower.
How so?
Gun shows are where one buys the most deadly weapons and ammunition without even a background check.
I snipped the portion of your post designed to elicit an emotional response but left one of your "facts". What types of weapons are we talking about here? Were you at this gun show to see them? How often do you attend gun shows?
For the record, I am adamantly opposed to semi-automatic firearms, and I think gun ownership requirements in this country are looser than lax. A bolt action rifle with a four round clip is all one needs for hunting.
What exactly
is a semi-automatic firearm? Why 4 and not 6? Is 10 too many? Why?
I'll take a stab at answering some of these.
I think by "assault weapon", Dana means an A-10 Warthog. I confirmed this with the inch who said, "The A-10 can shoot, like 300 million 700 caliber rounds a second." He is only nine and prone to exaggeration but he does have "the Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft" Though we can't really be sure he is actually reading it and not just looking at the pictures.
Merriam Webster defines Assault:
1
a : a violent physical or verbal attack
b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces
c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)
2
a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact — compare battery 1b
My suspicion is that non-assault weapons would be soft cushions, stern looks, and an angry letter to the New York Times.
Re: reduced death toll, How so?
Simple shotguns, (like the Benelli that Tom Knapp used to shoot) are only used for hunting geese and shooting clay pigeons, hunting rifles are used for small, medium, and large game and none of those things were present at the shooting therefore the shooter wouldn't have had occasion to use either type of firearm.
Gun Shows with most deadly weapons and ammo. Again, a quick glance in Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft shows that once again, Lockheed Martin has pulled another winner out of the bag with its F-22 Raptor. As for the deadly ammo, I would discount the missiles as being "ammo" and would vote for 20mm DU rounds as being the deadliest ammo.
I was not at a gunshow to see thse things, I lack any sort of security clearance. I have never been to a gun show.
A semi-automatic firearm is a firearm that extracts the spent shell, chambers a new round and cocks the firing mechanism every time the trigger is pulled and a round is fired. A fully automatic firearm does this with a single trigger pull (or squeeze or press) until the magazine is emptied or the trigger is let off. Selective fire firearms can switch from fully auto to semi auto.
My Marlin 60 is a semi auto .22 tube magazine. The government can have it when they pry it from my warm living fingers with a generous buy-back check that would cover the purchase of a sweet bolt action .22 like a volquartsen.That would apply sufficient leverage upon my fingers to release my grip on my semi-auto Marlin.
Why 4 and not 6 or 10? I just pulled that number out of my ass since 4 is the max # of rounds you can have in your gun during hunting season here in NY. Actually, I think it's 5. One in the chamber in 4 in the mag. So yeah, 10 is too many as far as the DEC is concerned. Big fines, loss of hunting privileges, peepee smacking. So 4 is the number.
Please define "assault weapon" and explain the substantial differences with non-"assault weapon"s.
How so?
I snipped the portion of your post designed to elicit an emotional response but left one of your "facts". What types of weapons are we talking about here? Were you at this gun show to see them? How often do you attend gun shows?
What exactly is a semi-automatic firearm? Why 4 and not 6? Is 10 too many? Why?
Demand a Plan
http://www.demandaplan.org/
This is our first task — caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.
And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children — all of them — safe from harm? Can we claim, as a nation, that we’re all together there, letting them know that they are loved, and teaching them to love in return? Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?
I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change.
Since I’ve been President, this is the fourth time we have come together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by a mass shooting. The fourth time we’ve hugged survivors. The fourth time we’ve consoled the families of victims. And in between, there have been an endless series of deadly shootings across the country, almost daily reports of victims, many of them children, in small towns and big cities all across America — victims whose — much of the time, their only fault was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law — no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.
But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that — then surely we have an obligation to try.
In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens — from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators — in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this. Because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?
I demanded reform of your face, but I was reminded of the Right to Scare Worms.
;)
Today the President announced that he is exercising the power of his office to reduce violence in America. The President will introduce Plan A in which he will ask Congress to appropriate funding to send for the Three Amigos whom he says will purge the nation of its EL Guapos and do it in an economically frugal manner.
Plan A is to be formally unveiled in a televised address to the Union. The President will again highlight the loss of "little lambs" [a reference to the offspring of American sheep] and rationalize the need for shepherding politicians to protect them as it would be unreasonable to expect sheep to avail themselves of existing means to protect their own. The President, who has a taxpayer funded force of armed bodyguards to protect his young, believes that the Three Amigos method of putting on a show of bravado that typically includes the sheep, will calm the sheep.
In the event the Three Amigos are unavailable, the President is prepared to go to Plan B, said a White House spokesperson on the condition of anonymity. Additional funding would be requested to procure the services of the Magnificent Seven. The expense of their services would not be frugal; but, still economically reasonable in these hard times when jobs are scarce and wages are low. The M7 have previously dealt with those who said "If God didn't intend for them to be sheared, he wouldn't have made them sheep." The President believes the M7 will use similar methodology to the Three Amigos and may be even more results oriented, albeit a tad more expensive.
Should neither the Three Amigos nor the Magnificent Seven be available during the President's second term of office, at its conclusion, he will fall back on Plan C. This contingency plan entails endorsing a Republican candidate in the next Presidential election who will implement conscription to make military; or, police service mandatory for all qualified Americans. Citizens will receive firearms training that they can take back with them to civilian life so they themselves can protect their children at home and in schools thus being elevated to the status of successful parents. Those who do not pass the screening for mandatory service will not be permitted to own firearms; however, they will be placed under the protection of designated people who did. Laws will be enacted to make protecting children compulsory just as in some places it is compulsory to render first-aid if one stops at the scene of an automobile accident.
Pundits of the President's plan (primary, alternate and contingency) believe that the magic number is not three or seven; rather, that the magic number is five to provide the panacea the flock needs to be contented as sheep. They won't even entertain the thought that they need to accept individual responsibility for armed defense of their offspring's lives in today's world. The undecided are asking that if the parents won't do it, why should anyone else, do we really need another generation of the same old baa-a-a-a, baa-a-a-a, baa-a-a-a?
I demanded reform of your face, but I was reminded of the Right to Scare Worms.
;)
Hey Lady where in the goat roping hell ya been//????????????????
Hi buster! I've been here...I turned into a monkey. An infinite one. I kept wondering why you never responded to my responses to you: you didn't know who I was!
But I changed my email address on my infinite monkey log-in because I was going to try to send gravdigr an email through the cellar and the email that he would get from me would be incorrect...just waiting on Tony to approve it before I can post from IM again. :)
[FONT=Verdana]
Hi buster! I've been here...I turned into a monkey. An infinite one. I kept wondering why you never responded to my responses to you: you didn't know who I was! But I changed my email address on my infinite monkey log-in because I was going to try to send gravdigr an email through the cellar and the email that he would get from me would be incorrect...just waiting on Tony to approve it before I can post from IM again. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]It makes it more difficult for me to say what I'm now going to say. I do feel it's time to set the record straight. I didn't come here just as an administrator. I came to this hospital to settle a score. What score? My father built this hospital. But to his family...he was an unmerciful tyrant; an absolute dodo bird. He drove my mother to drink. In fact, she went riding one time and lost all her teeth. The oldest daughter, the pretty, charming one, became pregnant...at and was driven out of the house. She was so terrified that her daughter would bear the stigma of illegitimacy...she changed her name and contracted a disfiguring disease...after moving to Tangiers, where she raised the girl as her sister. But her one ambition was to become a nurse. So she returned to the States and joined the staff right here...at Southwest General. She worked here and had to speak out...wherever she saw injustice and inhumanity. Don't you understand that, Dr. Brewster? (I never laid a hand on her.) Yes, you did. She was shunned by all you nurses too. Her outspokenness threatened you doctors. But she was deeply, deeply, deeply loved...by her brother. This brother, on the day of her death...swore to the good Lord above he'd follow in her footsteps. And, and, and...just, just, just...owe it all up to her! But on her terms! As a woman...and just as proud to be a woman...as she ever was… for I am not Emily Kimberly...the daughter of Dwayne...and Alma Kimberly. No, I'm not. I'm Edward Kimberly, Anthea's reckless brother. Edward Kimberly, who's finally vindicated his sister's good name. I'm Edward Kimberly. Edward Kimberly. I'm not mentally ill, but proud ...and lucky to be the woman that was the best part of my manhood; The best part of myself. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]
[/FONT]
You are so freaking funny. :lol:
in the right wing paranoid fantasy of needing guns to defend against tyranny - as nobody is carrying AR-15s for self-defense or hunting, right? - who is it you think you'll be using those guns to defend against...?
Invading armies? widespread anarchy? zombies? post-apocalyptic biker gangs? the FBI? ATF? The national guard? the military? your neighbors? your local cops?
Who are you going to be shooting up with your arsenal, and why should the rest of us not be terrified of people like you?
What makes you different than the "sovereign citizen" movement, with their murder of law enforcement, plain old traffic cops even, who "deprive them of their rights"? Talk about a slippery slope.
Those of you who speak in support of looser gun laws. if they DO outlaw semi-automatic "assault weapons" and demand that those who own them turn them in, will you go quietly? What if ATF comes knocking - do you still go quietly?
My Marlin 60 is a semi auto .22 tube magazine. The government can have it when they pry it from my warm living fingers with a generous buy-back check that would cover the purchase of a sweet bolt action .22 like a volquartsen.That would apply sufficient leverage upon my fingers to release my grip on my semi-auto Marlin.
:lol:
You are awesome, foot3.
What we need are more gun control laws in this country, because clearly, we know the criminals never get their hands on guns, once those laws are passed:
A perfect example from the killer/arsonist last week.
Authorities do not know how Spengler obtained the Bushmaster rifle, .38-caliber revolver and 12-gauge shotgun he used, Pickering said. As a convicted felon, Spengler was not allowed to legally possess weapons.
Spengler killed two firemen who responded to the home fire he started. He wounded two others,
AND WOULD HAVE KILLED SEVERAL MORE, EXCEPT a policeman shielded the wounded firemen on the ground with his car, AND SHOT SPENGLER WITH A RIFLE.
What have we learned today?
* Criminals don't CARE about gun laws - they will get guns or other weapons they can use against YOU.
* It behooves you to have a gun to shoot them when they try to kill you.
Apologies for boring the liberals who seem completely unable to understand this basic premise.
Here's a little lesson from nature:
Without a firearm, we are the warthog - careful, but still vulnerable, and still a victim. (not for the squemish):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-UX0w2yA2AI'm a little slow, but based on my reading of the 3 ongoing gun threads I'm starting to think Lamplighter might not like guns. Who knew?
TW and Ibby didn't respond to my earlier questions so I guess expecting a rational consideration of an alternate view on gunrights wasn't what they were looking for.
Foot - you at least made an attempt. If I understand correctly, you are perfectly fine with gun ownership and use so long is it of a type you like, has a magazine capacity you feel is sufficient for your uses, and it is used in the manner you choose to use yours?
My point in asking about your statements about the firing mechanism and magazine capacity was really aimed at pointing out that your limit of 4 shots is perfectly arbitrary. By focusing on those issues you are doing what they did with the ridiculous "assault weapon" ban, fixating on the inconsequential.
If a lawabiding citizen likes to carry with 13 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber why does that matter to you? If a lawabiding citizen likes to target shoot with his AR-15 at his local range why does that matter to you?
Guns aren't the problem. Lawabiding citizens aren't the problem. The evilminded and the insane are the problem. Tightening restrictions on those who follow the law will have no effect on those who care nothing about the law or the consequences.
a friend of mine (hard right wing Christian) said, "If guns kill people, why aren't there any gun deaths at gun shows?"
and I said, "because that's the Planning Phase."
most of these nutters give clues. everyone always says, "I thought they were kidding," -----not with that adrenalin-high look in their eyes they're not.
I'm a little slow, but based on my reading of the 3 ongoing gun threads I'm starting to think Lamplighter might not like guns. Who knew?
TW and Ibby didn't respond to my earlier questions so I guess expecting a rational consideration of an alternate view on gunrights wasn't what they were looking for.
which questions? I think you might be thinking i'm more anti-gun than I am. I live in vermont and i'm pretty satisfied with vt's lax gun laws.
But even Vermont has limits. You can't have a round in the chamber in a long gun in a vehicle, for instance. So cops can treat any long gun in the passenger cabin as a threat until proven otherwise.
Keeping a long gun in your home for self defense is reasonable. Keeping it unloaded in your trunk en route to hunting is reasonable. Having it in public is not. Long guns in public are not for self defense. They are for murder.
By far, black men are the victims of gun violence, at the hands of both blacks and whites. But you didn't see the NRA arguing that Trayvon Martin should have had a gun to defend himself from his murderer, do you?
But you didn't see the NRA arguing that Trayvon Martin should have had a gun to defend himself from his murderer, do you?
Typical partisan bullshit, Trayvon was still a minor at the time.
The mayor of Chicago, is well known as Obama's former chief of staff, at the White House. Dyed in the wool liberal, that's Rahm Emanuel.
Chicago has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the country - but their murder rate with guns, has increased, not decreased.
Those clever criminals are NOT paying attention to the gun laws - can you IMAGINE THAT??
Of course, Rahm is dead set against the NRA proposal to have armed policemen at the schools, to help protect the kids therein. No no no, you can't turn our schools into "armed camps", etc.
Here's the good part - the REALLY RICH PART. Rahm Emanual has a child, attending a Chicago private school.
Guess what the private school has?
Armed security at the school, every single day, protecting the kids therein.
I just LOVE the liberal hypocrites! No one shows their liberal denouement, quite as well, as their own hypocrisy.
Typical partisan bullshit, Trayvon was still a minor at the time.
When I first saw the pictures of Martin's killer, and heard the 911 call, I said "he doesn't look like he's been in a fight". Maybe he did pick the fight with Martin.
Then I learned that:
1) The 911 call had been edited by NBC news media, to make it sound like Zimmerman was a racist.
2) The pictures of Zimmerman, taken at the time, had been altered to make him appear less injured than he was.
(In fact Zimmerman is now suing the pants off NBC for this).
So here's my take on this - mind you, I only know what the media has reported, and little else, so there is speculation written all over this:
* Martin was bigger than Zimmerman, and a football player. He also had a temper - several fights in high school, in his background.
* His gf stated Martin saw Zimmerman following him, and didn't like it. Told her to go on, he was going to "handle this" problem.
* He got into a fight with Zimmerman, because he didn't like being followed, and Zimmerman wouldn't cooperate and leave.
* Martin was winning the fight, being bigger and stronger than Zimmerman, and frankly, more experienced as a fighter and physical (heavy contact), athlete.
* Martin broke Zimmerman's nose - and had him on his back, at least once, according to both an eye witness, and Zimmerman's jacket with grass stains on the back. Police verified the broken nose of Zimmerman, not the eye witness.
Also, Zimmerman's face was swollen. Clearly he'd been punched in the face, several times.
So I believe that Martin was clearly winning the fight, until Zimmerman shot him, and although Zimmerman's following of Martin was somewhat bothersome to me, it did not break any laws.
The court will rule it was self-defense, when all the facts come out.
Adak, please do not quote me and then go off on some tangent completely unrelated to what I posted. thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Adak, please do not quote me and then go off on some tangent completely unrelated to what I posted. thank you in advance for your cooperation.
That made me laugh.
Minors regularly own shotguns and plinking rifles in Vermont. I don't believe Adak's version of events in the slightest; it was straight up murder by every reading of the facts I can muster, and I'm as certain that his conviction is upcoming as Adak is sure it isn't. Anyway, I was being facetious; either way, you never hear the NRA arguing that more PoC, that more people in poverty, that more people in high-risk gun-violence areas or groups should just pack more heat.
On top of that, our white-supremacist, patriarchal criminal justice system is very good at punishing anyone who isn't a cishetwhitemale for the very self-defense so much of the cellar takes for granted - see
Marissa "20-years-for-warning-shots" Alexander,
CeCe "defending-yourself-from-a-nazi-is-murder" McDonald, et al.
If a lawabiding citizen likes to carry with 13 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber why does that matter to you? If a lawabiding citizen likes to target shoot with his AR-15 at his local range why does that matter to you?
Guns aren't the problem. Lawabiding citizens aren't the problem. The evilminded and the insane are the problem. Tightening restrictions on those who follow the law will have no effect on those who care nothing about the law or the consequences.
The problem is that many gun carriers are law abiding citizens right up until they go on a shooting spree. How do you stop shooting sprees before they happen? I suggest that one of the easiest ways would be to limit the "spree" part of it.
But even Vermont has limits.
With no intention of derailing this thread, I slap you with my white leather glove and tell you, sternly, madam, Vermont HAS NO LIMITS.
and you know it.
“NBC contacted [D.C. police] inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied.
Gregory appears to have used a large-capacity ammunition magazine anyway. A police official said detectives will try to determine whether it was real, how it was obtained and whether the segment was filmed in the District. The official said the investigation will entail questioning NBC producers and could conclude this week.
NBC News, through a spokeswoman, declined comment.
The situation presents authorities with an unusual decision: file charges in a crime that is infrequently prosecuted or appear unwilling to enforce the District’s gun laws.
And therein lies part of the problem. Too many laws which are not enforced.
Additionally, he is a friggin hypocrite who sends his own children to a school protected by armed personnel.
"Gregory’s kids attend
Sidwell Friends School that has about a dozen security officers on staff, some of whom are police officers and some who are armed.
The notable parents who send their children to that school also includes Obama. Interesting how they apparently think its OK to protect their own children but not yours.
There's a huge difference between "the solution isn't to put armed guards in every school in the country" and "there is no school at-risk enough to warrant armed guarding". Strawman. The difference is that schools in, say, DC, are at risk from the high level of violence in DC, whereas it is nearly impossible to identify regions or schools at risk for mass murder.
Blah blah blah... their kids are protected, the rest of us schleps? Not so much.
Had to laugh at another far-left liberal who's always speaking out for the "common man", blah, blah, blah.
They were discussing Michael Moore's armed bodyguard being arrested in New York awhile back, for having a concealed sidearm, without a valid New York CCW permit (which are of course, difficult to get).
Sure Michael - you lecture us on the need for gun control - while you keep your armed bodyguard close at hand.
Damn hypocrite! :mad:
The problem is that many gun carriers are law abiding citizens right up until they go on a shooting spree. How do you stop shooting sprees before they happen? I suggest that one of the easiest ways would be to limit the "spree" part of it.
Perhaps not so easy. There's an age old saying in law enforcement that the fastest reload is a second gun.
Had to laugh at another far-left liberal who's always speaking out for the "common man", blah, blah, blah.
They were discussing Michael Moore's armed bodyguard being arrested in New York awhile back, for having a concealed sidearm, without a valid New York CCW permit (which are of course, difficult to get).
Sure Michael - you lecture us on the need for gun control - while you keep your armed bodyguard close at hand.
Damn hypocrite! :mad:
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Michael Moore has probably received considerably more death threats in a single year than the average American is ever going to receive in their entire life.
Perhaps if your country was not awash with firearms, public figures with controversial views would not need to take such extreme precautions to defend themselves.
HA!
But America *'is' awash in firearms, Dana.
The only solution that might come close to ending that flood is confiscation of every weapon (and corresponding ammo), from every person.
Simply banning guns and ammo will not work.
Imagine: tomorrow, all guns in America are banned by way of law directing every one to deliver all weapons and ammo to local law enforcers.
No criminal will abide.
Many law abiders will not abide (converting them into criminals in a single stroke).
No, total confiscation is the only answer and that will be a long, bloody, expensive process with no guarantee of success.
Reality: Pandora's Armory opened for business ages ago and all the debbil guns flew out...you'll never be rid of 'em (or the folks who'd use 'em to do nasty things).
*a wonderful word, 'is'...(what) 'is' always trumps wishes and fishes...sure, (what) 'should' (be) is a grand starting place for reformations, but too grand a vision inevitably leads to failure...again: Pandora's Armory opened for business ages ago...it is what it 'is'.
But America *'is' awash in firearms, Dana.
First thing that popped into my head was Whatever Happened to Baby Jane:
Blanche: You wouldn't be able to do these awful things to me if I weren't still in this chair.
Jane: But you *are*, Blanche! You *are* in that chair
(It sounds more like "but
y'are in that chair Blanch.')
This is not commentary, except on the way my brain works.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Michael Moore has probably received considerably more death threats in a single year than the average American is ever going to receive in their entire life.
Perhaps if your country was not awash with firearms, public figures with controversial views would not need to take such extreme precautions to defend themselves.
I'm just SO relieved that NO ONE ELSE has ever had any threats to their life:
Like:
* car jackers
* burglars
* robbers
* kidnappers
* home invasion attacks
* wacko's on drugs, with weapons
* road ragers with tire irons/bats/etc.
Since the gov't can't get the booze removed during prohibition, and they can't get the drugs removed during the 40? year "War on Drugs", etc.
How are they ever going to get the guns away from criminals?
Because that kind of thinking (removing legal firearms), has not worked at all well, in Western cultures. It just makes the law abiding citizens into sheeple - perfect sheep-like targets for the wolves to take great advantage of.
That doesn't even address the concerns about wiping out the 2nd article in the Bill of Rights - which are many. Once they have the guns removed from all the legal citizens, what's to stop a future government from removing any other parts of the Bill of Rights, as they please.
Who's going to fight back, besides a few martyrs?
Even your strawmen lack brains, Adak.
Rule number one of pathetic, twisted strawmen of your opponents' arguments; pick a strawman that remotely resembles an actual argument being made by those you disagree with. then you might actually have a point or two.
I'm just SO relieved that NO ONE ELSE has ever had any threats to their life:
Yeah...'cause that's just what I said right? I distinctly remember typing the words 'Michael Moore has had threats to his life and nobody else ever has'. I remember typing those exact words....oh, no....wait....
I was impressed with how you typed it while out on a limb. Tarzan's Jane for the 21st century. :biggrinlo:
I was impressed with how you typed it while out on a limb. Tarzan's Jane for the 21st century. :biggrinlo:
Hahahah. I am laughing so much right now.
the real problem of violence in this country is OJ.
Drink milk, coz OJ will kill ya.
I'm just SO relieved that NO ONE ELSE has ever had any threats to their life:
Like:
* car jackers
* burglars
* robbers
* kidnappers
* home invasion attacks
* wacko's on drugs, with weapons
* road ragers with tire irons/bats/etc.
You are so much smarter than that, Adak. There is a difference between a random threat and a targeted threat. There may be a 1 in a million chance that I will be carjacked sometime in my life. But if I received a dozen or more notes from different people stating "I will carjack you", then I would definitely hire a security guard if I could afford it.
Do you wear a helmet when you drive, because that would make you safer? I personally don't care if you wear a helmet, because that does not affect me. Letting you and a few million more carry guns to feel safer does affect me up until the point where someone invents a bullet that self destructs after traveling 5 feet.
Probably, you or I, couldn't afford a full time security guard. They run about $40-$60/hr, armed, with some experience in personal protection (as opposed to guarding a facility, which is a much different job).
Thinking it through, you'd need at least 3 guards, because you know they'd want to come after you when you had no bodyguard. That's a lot of $$$$. :eek:
Random threat? It's more probable for some crimes, than you would guess. Let's say you have a wife and two kids. Now go to the website that lists sexual predators, living within 20 miles of you.
If your county is like most, the damn map looks like a sea of red push pins, for crying out loud! If you haven't seen one for your area, take a peek - then tell me you're not worried for your family's safety.
And that map doesn't include lots of other felons who have been convicted of other crimes against persons (as opposed to property crimes). Nor does it count the one's who haven't been caught yet.
It isn't just the probability of being a victim of a serious crime, it's not even the likelihood that the victim (could be you, or a family member or friend), will be seriously hurt of killed. It's also the life-changing anguish it puts people close to the victim through, as well.
I clearly remember Polly Klass's Dad, after Polly was taken from her bedroom at night, raped and strangled. I lived fairly close to the Van Damme girl (Danielle), who was also kidnapped, raped and killed. It didn't just hurt those parents - it tore them to pieces. It tore a hole you could drive a truck through, in the local community, as well. There were many tears shed over these two girls' fate, I can promise you.
And that's the point that the liberals don't get - just how deep these crimes cut you, and how often they are prevented by someone having a firearm. What's the old saying "a liberal is someone who hasn't been mugged yet"? Something like that.
There is more than a little truth in that.
I did find a video of a liberal lion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGDKC7OKFlQ
Beautiful cat, just preoccupied and clueless.
Right. Clearly then, if you don't agree with an unregulated free for all on weaponry you have no understanding of the impact of serious crime.
Since the gov't can't get the booze removed during prohibition, and they can't get the drugs removed during the 40? year "War on Drugs", etc.
How are they ever going to get the guns away from criminals?
This is a poor argument. I can make booze in my own kitchen. I can grow pot in my back yard. I have a much better than average workshop in my basement, and a better than average knowledge on making stuff, and it would be virtually impossible for me to manufacture a gun.
If guns are restricted, there will be grandfathered guns out there for a while. They can be stolen and sold by "law abiding" citizens on the black market, but over time they will break and wear out and no new guns will replace them.
Local gun restrictions have not worked because you could just cross the border to the next state, but national gun restrictions will work because the national borders are much more secure. Smuggling guns into the country will be very difficult in any substantial quantities.
Before you argue against my points, you'll need to explain why so many people are lining up at gun shows to buy stuff before it may be banned. They prove my point.
National gun restrictions do work. If they didn't, you wouldn't bother arguing against them.
I clearly remember Polly Klass's Dad, after Polly was taken from her bedroom at night, raped and strangled.
Which proves we all should own 50 caliber rifles with 50 round clips. After all, Polly Klass would still be alive if everyone was heavily armed.
Reality. Violence was just as common 50 years ago. But back then, people survived and crimes were stoppable because knives and six shooters did not massacre herds of people.
Perhaps not so easy. There's an age old saying in law enforcement that the fastest reload is a second gun.
The answer isn't to ban all guns, nor is it to allow things to continue the way they are - it's not working.
This is interesting. I'm not sure what the company's policy is for employees who are robbed - are they docked for the money that is stolen? I'm assuming the no weapons policy is on the theory that not resisting a robbery is safer. I wonder what Dominos and Papa Johns have in place for a policy.
Life can be dangerous for pizza delivery drivers, who are often carrying cash and food and rarely have anyone to protect them. Now a Pizza Hut employee in Maryland says he’s been pulled off deliveries because he used a tent pole to defend himself against a group of attackers.
The alleged attackers fled without the driver’s cash or the pizza and three of the suspects (all juveniles) were arrested, but the Pizza Hut employee says that his use of the tent pole apparently violated company policy against drivers carrying weapons.
“I’m not saying we should arm all delivery drivers,” explains the employee, “but I’m saying that punishing delivery drivers for defending themselves as they’re being attacked is unjust.”
I'm assuming the no weapons policy is on the theory that not resisting a robbery is safer. I wonder what Dominos and Papa Johns have in place for a policy.
Does the President of Pizza Hut go out and work in his stores as a delivery man? Everyone here should learn from a TV show (I believe) called "Undercover Boss". How many bosses know how the work gets done? How many, instead, act like a business school graduate?
So these bosses create rules but do not even work as an employee? The question "what Dominos and Papa Johns have in place" is a major and critically important question. Along with, "Do they periodically go work as an employee? Or simply make rules from ignorance as any business school graduate would do?"
Meanwhile, the NRA now says pizza delivery men should be escorted by armed guards. Only armed guards and bigger guns create safety. Even an executive who is a business school graduate can see how stupid that NRA reasoning is.
A Pizza Hut president probably has no idea what his employees do. Last time I was in Pizza Hut, they told me my Pan Pizza would take more than 10 minutes. Because the guy who makes pizzas was cleaning toilets. Guess why so many Pizza Huts have closed. Everyone near me has closed. In most cases, even the building was destroyed. A classic symptom of executives trained in business schools. Who have no idea what happens in their stores or when delivering pizzas.
Undercover Boss is an awesome show.
This is a poor argument. I can make booze in my own kitchen. I can grow pot in my back yard. I have a much better than average workshop in my basement, and a better than average knowledge on making stuff, and it would be virtually impossible for me to manufacture a gun.
Here's the rub for your assertion: facts.
Zip guns were made in basements and garages and bedrooms, and even in prisons, by the inmates.
Guns are out of the bag - we can't put them back into the bag, and act like they never existed.
The reason people are lining up at Gun Shows, is because they want NICE guns, not zip guns, and they want them BEFORE the feds or the states want your thumb print, blood sample, and DNA, "just for their records".
If guns are restricted, there will be grandfathered guns out there for a while. They can be stolen and sold by "law abiding" citizens on the black market, but over time they will break and wear out and no new guns will replace them.
No new guns will replace them?
< ROFL! >
What world do you live in? ;)
Local gun restrictions have not worked because you could just cross the border to the next state, but national gun restrictions will work because the national borders are much more secure. Smuggling guns into the country will be very difficult in any substantial quantities.
Which will make them more expensive - which will motivate more people to make them, in their garage or basement, to bring in some money.
There ARE people who won't do this, of course, but there ARE lots of people who WILL do this.
And guns that aren't fired don't typically "wear out", as fast as you seem to believe.
Before you argue against my points, you'll need to explain why so many people are lining up at gun shows to buy stuff before it may be banned. They prove my point. National gun restrictions do work. If they didn't, you wouldn't bother arguing against them.
Done.
The facts, and human nature argue against your assertions. I don't need to do much at all.
I'd love to go back to the days of single shot zip guns being a "problem." I'm talking about 30 round semi-automatics. Virtually nobody will manufacture those in their basements. They are the problem.
The only flaw in my argument is the one that you didn't mention. And that is the improvements that are being made in 3D printing. Right now, you can make parts for a gun, but can't make a reliable fully functioning gun beyond a basic zip gun.
The facts, and human nature argue against your assertions. I don't need to do much at all.
Somehow you know human nature when you also know prisoners are making 30 round clips and automatic rifles in the machine shop. There is reality. And then there is fiction that justifies wacko extremist rhetoric.
Name one prisioner who has manufactured automatic weapons in prison. Name one hollow point bullet that has saved human life.
Little hint. That bullet's name is Jasmine. Facts are easily invented when you need one. And somehow you also know human nature. I don't think you even know yourself.
Undercover Boss is an awesome show.
Was an awesome show.
I didn't know it had finished.
I think it's still on. I just think it stopped being awesome. In the beginning, it really was about the eye-opening experience that the CEO got from doing the front-line job. Then it seemed to morph into this "I'm going to be a hero and give a gift to one of my deserving minions" like Extreme Makeover Home Edition. I didn't like it after that, and maybe it's changed again. My feeling is that if you do right for your employees, you're a hero everyday. Pay them enough to be able to afford their daughter's day care, health care, whatever, and you won't have to swoop in and provide a "gift" to them. Then, you're singling out one employee and the rest just stay fucked.
:rant:
The 2012 Colorado elections resulted in a change in majority party status
for the House (37 Democrats; 29 Republicans) and the Democrats retained their majority
in the [COLOR="DarkRed"]Senate (20 Democrats; 15 Republicans)[/COLOR].
NY Times
By JACK HEALY
March 8, 2013
Colorado Takes Up Gun Limits in Senate
DENVER — After months of emotional debate, an effort to tighten gun laws
in a state haunted by two mass shootings moved toward an uncertain climax on Friday
as Colorado’s State Senate began a marathon session on a range of new firearms restrictions.
On Friday, the full Senate gave preliminary approval to bills that would
create universal background checks,
require gun buyers to pay for background checks and
keep guns away from domestic abusers.
A debate over limiting*the size of*ammunition magazines loomed as one of the most divisive issues.
The most significant bills up for debate have cleared the Democrat-controlled
Colorado House and are supported by Gov. John W. Hickenlooper, a Democrat.
<snip>
The measure on gun possession and domestic violence won initial approval on Friday afternoon.
Also approved was a bill that would require in-person training, rather than online-only classes,
for Coloradans who want a concealed-weapons permit.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Among the 7 new bills, grounds in Colorado's background check
include a history of domestic violence (legal conviction, restraining order, etc.) [/COLOR]
Last night
PBS reported as follows:
Four of the bills have already passed the Democratic-controlled House.
Those bills would extend background checks to personal sales,
force gun buyers to pay the background check fee,
limit ammunition magazine size and
ban concealed weapons from being carried on college campuses.
Three additional bills being considered in the Senate would restrict firearm possession
for people who have committed domestic violence,
hold manufacturers liable for assault weapons deaths
and mandate concealed weapons permit applicants to take some in-person gun safety training.
