Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_bootstrap.php(561) : eval()'d code on line 1
Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths - Page 54

This message board is only an archive. Click here to go to the current message board.

Page 54 of 86 FirstFirst ... 444525354555664 ... LastLast
Results 531 to 540 of 857

Thread: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

  1. #531
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,847

    Default Re: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by staropeace View Post
    This has to be an Onion thing. This is an Onion thing, right?

  2. #532
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,083

    Default Re: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by Todash View Post
    This has to be an Onion thing. This is an Onion thing, right?
    I donít believe it is. Seems they are going back to a law some states enacted back in our Founding Fatherís time. But even I think that law is taking things too far these days. I donít think you should force people to own a gun. And if something would happen to need that type of defense, even if police could not respond for long periods of time, call a neighbor. Neighbors are still basically good and try to help one another (and probably a good bet a neighbor will have one).

  3. #533
    jimson's Avatar
    jimson Guest

    Default Re: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

    I am not in favor of a ban on semi automatic firearms, nor am I in favor of a 10 round magazine limit. The term assault weapon is a misnomer. Assault rifle by definition has machine gun capability.

    As for why anyone needs a semi auto version, well some people actually believe that the last ditch defense against a tyrannical government is an armed citizenry and certainly effective small arms are a part of that.

    Personally, I think it more likely that such weapons would be necessary in case of a temporary breakdown in society and law and order.

    This is not so far-fetched and could happen as a result of a terrorist attack or even a natural disaster.

    It has happened before. During the LA riots, more than one shop owner or resident used a semi-auto rifle to hold off violent mobs while they were left to fend for themselves by the police.

    The US government has websites dedicated to emergency preparation for the average citizen and I believe effective self defense is a part of that. Call me paranoid but in case of such an emergency, I'd rather have more than just a six shooter.

    As insensitive as it may seem, these mass shootings are not really very significant in the overall context of gun murders in the US.

    More people are killed with hammers than with any kind of rifle, including so called assault rifles.

    Handguns are overwhelmingly used more often in murders, but the concentrated large number of deaths is certainly something we find most disturbing.

    The US is actually not the world wide leader in gun deaths. Both Russia and Mexico top the US and they have very stringent gun control.

    Certainly different situations and not a very good comparison but neither is comparing the UK to the US as we have a much larger population and the UK didn't have to suddenly put the brakes on something that their population has been forever conditioned to believe is an inalienable right.

    Banning a certain type of weapon doesn't mean that they will all magically disappear and there are already millions of them out there, not to mention the millions that will be smuggled in rather than out if such a ban becomes reality.

    The comparison to automobiles isn't very valid in my opinion. One can own an automobile without registration or license if it is kept at home and never driven and the normal use of an automobile does contain major risk while only the misuse of a firearm contains major risk.

    Only if I am actually target shooting in a crowded public area is it similar IMO. One cannot carry a car around in their pocket and only use it if necessary.

    I favor exhausting all possible ways of keeping any guns out of the wrong hands before doing something that will disproportionally affect the law abiding.

    To that end, I am in favor of strengthening the background check system to what extent it can be, including a mechanism where the mentally unstable can be prevented from purchase pending further evaluation.

    The gunshow loophole. I am not sure of this one, but I am certainly willing to consider some changes regarding the exchange of weapons between private parties that is not subject to a background check. There must be some creative way to address this that both sides can live with.

    Secure storage: Gun safes have been mentioned before in this thread and above all, I think a way to effect their near universal usage is the single most important thing that can be done. Even if one wants to keep a self defense firearm handy, surely they can keep the rest of their collection and their supply of ammunition locked up, especially when they are not at home.

    This would no doubt have a big impact on black market stolen firearms and just might have even prevented Adam Lanza from accessing his mother's entire collection and extra ammunition.

    Whether this is done with a law/requirement or with a massive public info campaign and possible tax credit for discount purchase it is definitely something that should be done. I will never own a firearm without having a gun safe.

    If the main focus is to ban high capacity semi autos, I think it is a wasted opportunity.

    I am not going to feel much better if the next mass killing is carried out by a maniac with a sack full of revolvers or a homemade bomb rather than a semi automatic.

    No one can say that they aren't trying to take away our guns when they definitely want to to take some of them away.

    Keep in mind that compromise comes from the status quo. Exactly what is the anti gun side compromising on?

    "If you give in to what we want, we will allow you to have some kind of gun...for now anyway....but only the kind that we think is all you need.... subject to further restrictions in the future, as we desire."

    Pretty easy for one side to demand compromise, when they aren't actually compromising at all.

  4. #534
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    4,351

    Default Re: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by jimson View Post
    I am not in favor of a ban on semi automatic firearms, nor am I in favor of a 10 round magazine limit. The term assault weapon is a misnomer. Assault rifle by definition has machine gun capability.

    As for why anyone needs a semi auto version, well some people actually believe that the last ditch defense against a tyrannical government is an armed citizenry and certainly effective small arms are a part of that.

    Personally, I think it more likely that such weapons would be necessary in case of a temporary breakdown in society and law and order.

    This is not so far-fetched and could happen as a result of a terrorist attack or even a natural disaster.

    It has happened before. During the LA riots, more than one shop owner or resident used a semi-auto rifle to hold off violent mobs while they were left to fend for themselves by the police.

    The US government has websites dedicated to emergency preparation for the average citizen and I believe effective self defense is a part of that. Call me paranoid but in case of such an emergency, I'd rather have more than just a six shooter.

    As insensitive as it may seem, these mass shootings are not really very significant in the overall context of gun murders in the US.

    More people are killed with hammers than with any kind of rifle, including so called assault rifles.

    Handguns are overwhelmingly used more often in murders, but the concentrated large number of deaths is certainly something we find most disturbing.

    The US is actually not the world wide leader in gun deaths. Both Russia and Mexico top the US and they have very stringent gun control.

    Certainly different situations and not a very good comparison but neither is comparing the UK to the US as we have a much larger population and the UK didn't have to suddenly put the brakes on something that their population has been forever conditioned to believe is an inalienable right.

    Banning a certain type of weapon doesn't mean that they will all magically disappear and there are already millions of them out there, not to mention the millions that will be smuggled in rather than out if such a ban becomes reality.

    The comparison to automobiles isn't very valid in my opinion. One can own an automobile without registration or license if it is kept at home and never driven and the normal use of an automobile does contain major risk while only the misuse of a firearm contains major risk.

    Only if I am actually target shooting in a crowded public area is it similar IMO. One cannot carry a car around in their pocket and only use it if necessary.

    I favor exhausting all possible ways of keeping any guns out of the wrong hands before doing something that will disproportionally affect the law abiding.

    To that end, I am in favor of strengthening the background check system to what extent it can be, including a mechanism where the mentally unstable can be prevented from purchase pending further evaluation.

    The gunshow loophole. I am not sure of this one, but I am certainly willing to consider some changes regarding the exchange of weapons between private parties that is not subject to a background check. There must be some creative way to address this that both sides can live with.

    Secure storage: Gun safes have been mentioned before in this thread and above all, I think a way to effect their near universal usage is the single most important thing that can be done. Even if one wants to keep a self defense firearm handy, surely they can keep the rest of their collection and their supply of ammunition locked up, especially when they are not at home.

    This would no doubt have a big impact on black market stolen firearms and just might have even prevented Adam Lanza from accessing his mother's entire collection and extra ammunition.

    Whether this is done with a law/requirement or with a massive public info campaign and possible tax credit for discount purchase it is definitely something that should be done. I will never own a firearm without having a gun safe.

    If the main focus is to ban high capacity semi autos, I think it is a wasted opportunity.

    I am not going to feel much better if the next mass killing is carried out by a maniac with a sack full of revolvers or a homemade bomb rather than a semi automatic.

    No one can say that they aren't trying to take away our guns when they definitely want to to take some of them away.

    Keep in mind that compromise comes from the status quo. Exactly what is the anti gun side compromising on?

    "If you give in to what we want, we will allow you to have some kind of gun...for now anyway....but only the kind that we think is all you need.... subject to further restrictions in the future, as we desire."

    Pretty easy for one side to demand compromise, when they aren't actually compromising at all.
    So, where exactly are YOU compromising? There's no compromise from you at all in your post anywhere that I see. You just want more background checks at gun dealer shops but not at gun shows. So, the bad guy can just go to a gun show and get his arsenal (as they can certainly do now)? That's not very logical, is it? Just another loop(y)hole there, too.

  5. #535
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    outside the dome
    Posts
    1,259

    Default Re: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

    pardon me, KRF, but i think that jimson did say he would be open to consideration tightening up the gun show loophole: he certainly didn't say anything like he had no interest in looking at it...still...

    you're quite right that he, while calling for the 'left' to show some compromise, showed little himself...not very sporting, that...

    all sides are going to have to find a quasi-middle ground for there to be a solution...

    however, i, too, still maintain that an out and out ban is kinda unconstitutional...not even from a 2nd amendment perspective (the well-regulated part alone means that a consensus govt effort can (and has, in the past) ban/restrict...and everyone not understanding what 'well regulated means needs to get a frikkin dictionary out, pronto)...but from a pursuit of happiness/freedom for all perspective: it's that libertarian side of me...it won't go away, no matter how hard i try

    the solution should/must, i think, lie in laws that respond to how the item is used improperly...not the item itself

    still, if we can 'regulate' cars of a certain type...or driving of certain vehicles to have special licenses/insurances...we should be able to maintain the same for any weapons that can readily have deadly affects...

    and, no, i don't mean hammers

  6. #536
    jimson's Avatar
    jimson Guest

    Default Re: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by kingricefan View Post
    So, where exactly are YOU compromising? There's no compromise from you at all in your post anywhere that I see. You just want more background checks at gun dealer shops but not at gun shows. So, the bad guy can just go to a gun show and get his arsenal (as they can certainly do now)? That's not very logical, is it? Just another loop(y)hole there, too.
    You weren't looking very well then were you? Compromise is give and take not just take. You seem to have missed that I am open to possible safe storage requirements or something of the like, strengthening the background check system to help keep guns away from the mentally unstable, increased penalties for possession of stolen guns.

    The gunshow loophole is highly exaggerated. The vast majority of sellers at a gun show are licensed dealers who conduct back ground checks. I am interested in looking at those cases where firearms are exchanged between private parties without background checks but would have to see what is actually being proposed and how they deal with such matters as the passing down firearms between father and son etc.

  7. #537
    jimson's Avatar
    jimson Guest

    Default Re: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by guido tkp View Post
    however, i, too, still maintain that an out and out ban is kinda unconstitutional...not even from a 2nd amendment perspective (the well-regulated part alone means that a consensus govt effort can (and has, in the past) ban/restrict...and everyone not understanding what 'well regulated means needs to get a frikkin dictionary out, pronto)..
    In the US the Militia is considered all males from the age of 17 to 45. Given increased lifespan and the inclusion of women the modern definition might be all able bodied citizens.

    What does "well regulated" mean? Does it mean that the people have the right to bear arms so they can be called upon to form a well regulated militia? Does it in anyway refer to what type of arms should be available?

    Certainly when written, it referred to the equivalent of military small arms.

    Still, that is just the preamble, and in every other instance in the Constitution the "right of the people" confers individual rights.

    What does infringement mean?

    Some people undoubtedly think that banning everything but single shot muskets does not violate the 2nd amendment.

    I'll stick with what we have had for a long time, semiautomatic versions of military small arms.

  8. #538
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Cambridge, Ohio
    Posts
    17,667

    Default Re: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

    ...The Cleveland Plain Dealer has a very well done piece on using proper "tagging" of names to weapons, and how often it doesn't happen...it's in todays issue...just go to Cleveland.com....

  9. #539
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    936

    Default Re: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by Todash View Post
    This has to be an Onion thing. This is an Onion thing, right?
    Not onion, and not the first US town either.

    Someone I know on-line was shocked when she moved into a town where gun ownership is mandatory. Her husband has a drinking problem (sometimes he quits, but he always seems to go back to it). She has suffered with severe depression, serious enough that she was hospitalized when she was a teen. Needless to say, she doesn't think a gun in her home is a good idea.

  10. #540
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Falmouth of the Mighty BlueGrass State and Commonwealth of Kentucky
    Posts
    5,859

    Default Re: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

    Yeah it'sa 'bout timely as a time as any for a brand spankin' new toolbox, I mean gee whiz are them old tools gettin' mighty rusty & just plumb wore out, this here is what it's really all about, has been all about, will continue to be what it's all about...
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...chool-shooting
    ...until we do some serious 2nd defining, that is...not gunna happen, not in my lifetime I'm thinkin'.
    So, let's hear all about it from maybe the Ayn Rand brand of unbridled capitalists, please do tell us a story of intrigue & suspense, of super duper secret meetings and mind control, and if ya don't mind what ya pulled in last quarter on massed produced firearms, you know, so we can try and put just one more actual price on the cost of some randomly dispensable actual human life, that once had an actual constitutional right to keeping it, and bein' happy, and free to just be, too, and stuff.

Page 54 of 86 FirstFirst ... 444525354555664 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •