Gun control

[For the love of the game 56]

The comment I made was about telling people to prepare for a civil war because the government is coming to take everyone's guns away. If you can point me to a non-Fox News media outlet that is promoting that idea, I'll admit that I was wrong to say that's all coming from the pro-gun people.

 

I don't think people on your side of the debate have anything to worry about anyway. The democrats are notoriously inept at actually implementing their own policies. They would have to get any new legislation passed in the House, and that's not going to happen.

 

This whole thing is a bunch of chest-beating and hyperbole. Once the dust settles, not much will actually have changed. If it does, you can quote this post and I will owe you a Coke.

 

Right, and the comment I made had to due with the media stirring up the the who debate. How many news stories have you seen on the nightly news on the alphabet channels, either local or national, about instances where a legal law abiding gun owner shot a bad guy trying to commit a violent crime. You might hear a small piece from time to time on local news, but even more seldom on the national news. Thats because crime and violence dominates. Does that make you feel safer? No, but see, many people unlike you and I see that I fail to realize that the chance of something happing to you or your family is still slim or that a good bit of it is domestic violance or related to gangs drugs or alcohol. That has to have some influence. And though I no longer have cable tv, if I did I am pretty sure I could someone spoutting off about banning guns and sighting some other countries success by only telling you part of the story that benefits their side.

 

I guess it really depends on which channel you choose to watch. Btw, I am an independant and get my news from a combo of CNN, Fox and Drudge, and cannot stand Hannity, Beck, Rush, Maddow, Peirs Morgan (I am sure the spelling is wrong). I do like Bill O'Reilly and the hosts on 660 AM since I feel they present the issues fairly.

 

 

BTW, I actually searched pretty hard and have not found any official statement or article from the NRA telling people to prepare for a civil war because the government is coming to take everyones guns away. What non fox network did you pull that off of?

 

Oh and only a Coke? I would have at least offered a Bud!

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

And none of those laws prevent someone from getting behind the wheel of a vehicle they are not capable of operating safety, and killing people with them. This is the same argument as the gun control ones. There are already laws in place. They won't stop people from committing crimes with guns by those who want to commit crimes with guns. When that idiot walked onto the school grounds, there was no force-field generated by the "gun free zone" sign that prevented his ingress.

 

"There's nothing to stop unlicensed drivers from driving, so why have driver's licenses? There's nothing to stop someone getting into an accident 100% of the time even if we do things to make driving safer, so why make driving safer?"

 

This logic is crazy, and gets back to the first post I made in this thread: If you are willing to reject any attempt to address the issue of gun violence(or any other issue for that matter) simply because it isn't a 100% effective cure-all to the problem, then 1) you're never going to find any solution to the problem at hand, 2) you're being comically stubborn in your refusal to even acknowledge viewpoints other than your own, and 3) you're being woefully intellectually dishonest.

 

Unrelated point, but I'm legitimately curious about this: if the idea exists as it seems to, that the kind of person who'd want to go on a shooting spree would be deterred by giving more people guns, then why is it not also accepted that they'd be deterred by making it noticeably more difficult for them to obtain a gun(via waiting periods and background checks), and making it so the guns they could obtain were less effective at killing people and held fewer rounds?

[Crazyhorse81 242]

"There's nothing to stop unlicensed drivers from driving, so why have driver's licenses? There's nothing to stop someone getting into an accident 100% of the time even if we do things to make driving safer, so why make driving safer?"

 

This logic is crazy, and gets back to the first post I made in this thread: If you are willing to reject any attempt to address the issue of gun violence(or any other issue for that matter) simply because it isn't a 100% effective cure-all to the problem, then 1) you're never going to find any solution to the problem at hand, 2) you're being comically stubborn in your refusal to even acknowledge viewpoints other than your own, and 3) you're being woefully intellectually dishonest.

 

Unrelated point, but I'm legitimately curious about this: if the idea exists as it seems to, that the kind of person who'd want to go on a shooting spree would be deterred by giving more people guns, then why is it not also accepted that they'd be deterred by making it noticeably more difficult for them to obtain a gun(via waiting periods and background checks), and making it so the guns they could obtain were less effective at killing people and held fewer rounds?

 

You'll have to go back and show me where I said there was no point to having ANY gun laws. Pretty sure I never said that. However, the measures have to be reasonable. I have said over and over that I completely understand where the "other side" is coming from, just that I disagree with them. And just because I can see that the current gun laws AND the current proposals would not have done a damn thing to stop what happened in Newton or Colorado does NOT mean I reject any attempt. It looks more like you putting words in my mouth. Which is something I don't appreciate in the slightest. You did a fantastic leap going from my saying that vehicle laws not actually being able to prevent an idiot from using a vehicle unlawfully to me saying that we should just give up. Awesome job! Let me try: Since you think there's no way for people to own whatever weapons they choose, we should get rid of all guns.

 

And like I have been trying to say, the tool is being blamed when the person is the one who needs to be addressed. And for your unrelated point, I have no idea what you're trying to say. If someone is going to commit such an act, they aren't going to wait for background checks and waiting periods. The Sandy Hook shooter had tried to get a gun on his own and was turned down. His next step was to simply steal the weapons from his mother and kill 26 people anyways. The background checks and waiting periods had absolutely zero affect on trying to stop him. I know it SOUNDS easy, but it turns out that criminals will participate in criminal activities, and don't follow the law like we do.

 

I have no problem with deeper background checks on licensed gun owners. I also have no problem with an annual check where the owner demonstrates technical proficiency with a firearm and only one problem with making sure an owner passes a psychiatric evaluation. I have some reservations about that since I am distrustful of our Government and it would be very easy for someone to be considered "unsafe" simply because of political beliefs. While that seems far-fetched, it has happened in the past and our own politicians are not immune from the corruption of power. These annual checks can be done without needing people to register their firearms, much the same way that someone with a pilot's license has to take an annual checkride but doesn't have to own a plane.

 

Outside of that, my only real issue is the literal frenzy being directed toward a weapon like the AR-15 for absolutely no reason. I've always had a problem when people freak out over how something looks rather than how it performs.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

BTW, I actually searched pretty hard and have not found any official statement or article from the NRA telling people to prepare for a civil war because the government is coming to take everyones guns away. What non fox network did you pull that off of?

 

It's true that you won't find those exact words in any official statement. The NRA is a lot of things, but they aren't stupid. They know it would be a bad idea to come right out and say that. But let's look at some of the things they do say, and you can draw your own conclusions as to what their message really is.

 

Here's a transcript, from the NRA's own website, of a speech given by Wayne LaPierre at the Conservative Political Action Conference right here in Orlando in September 2011: http://www.nranews.com/pdf/Wayne_LaPierre_at_CPAC_Florida.pdf

 

Some highlights:

 

"The President will offer the Second Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail claiming he has actually been good for gun owners. But it’s a big, fat, stinking lie — just like all the other lies that have come out of this corrupt administration. It’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment."

 

"Before the President was even sworn into office, they met and hatched a conspiracy of public deception to guarantee his re-election in 2012."

 

"Well, gun owners are not fools and we are not fooled. We see the President’s strategy crystal clear. Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms freedom. Erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and exorcise it from the U.S. Constitution."

 

"A second Obama term will mark the end of the Second Amendment as we know it."

 

That's just from one speech, more than a year before we started having this gun control debate. Before any legislation at all was being considered.

 

As we've seen in this thread, a chief argument from pro-gun advocates is that firearms serve as a protection from a corrupt government that might try to overrule the constitution. We need guns so that our government is scared of us and can't take our freedoms away without a fight that definitely involves using those firearms. So what do you suppose happens when you have the CEO and Executive Vice President of the NRA speaking to pro-gun people about "a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment"? Are you really prepared to make an argument that those people aren't going to hear that and think they need to prepare for armed conflict against the government?

 

Here's something from an NRA fundraising email that was sent out this past Thursday: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/nra_confiscation_email.php

 

"But the fact is, despite their statements, the main goal of the gun banners in Congress is not to make schools safer, but to ban your guns and abolish every last sacred right you have under the Second Amendment..until they reduce your freedom to ashes."

 

Again, what happens when you say something like that to a group of people whose main argument in support of their right to have guns is that they are necessary to defend freedom from the government?

 

I'll tell you what happens. This happens: http://digitaljournal.com/article/341055 (NSFW language in that video)

 

"Vice President Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control. I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it. You shouldn't put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle’s clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight. I’m not *****ing putting up with this. I’m not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people."

 

That guy didn't get that from the media. He got it from the NRA and similar organizations who paint this issue as an evil conspiracy hatched by a corrupt president who wants to take your freedom away.

 

We can respectfully agree and disagree on many different things in this debate, but if you're going to tell me that the NRA bears no responsibility for fostering that kind of attitude, you're either being painfully dishonest or you're not paying attention to what's going on.

 

The examples I cited above are not anomalies, and they're not misstatements. Those are just two examples that I found with a quick 10 minutes of googling. This is how the NRA frames this issue and it's intentional. They want you to be afraid of the President and they want you to believe that he's going to take your guns from you. That's not an honest difference of opinion, it's fear-mongering.

[Emory889 353]

You'll have to go back and show me where I said there was no point to having ANY gun laws. Pretty sure I never said that.

 

You're f****** kidding, right? I'll respond to your post to me later when I get more time but this is just comical. You've openly stated that you would support the legalization of practically every devastating weapon ever created by man, a position so nutty that even the extreme members of the NRA wouldn't support it. You've also mentioned kids in other countries walking around with fully automatic weapons as if that is an ideal situation.....completely ignoring the fact that those kids are products of war devastated countries and are usually kidnapped/brainwashed at an early age and by the time they are 14 they are stone-cold killers.

 

Jesus Christ, what gun laws would you support exactly? A one week waiting period on your f****** claymores? Give me a break.

[For the love of the game 56]

You're f****** kidding, right? I'll respond to your post to me later when I get more time but this is just comical. You've openly stated that you would support the legalization of practically every devastating weapon ever created by man, a position so nutty that even the extreme members of the NRA wouldn't support it. You've also mentioned kids in other countries walking around with fully automatic weapons as if that is an ideal situation.....completely ignoring the fact that those kids are products of war devastated countries and are usually kidnapped/brainwashed at an early age and by the time they are 14 they are stone-cold killers.

 

Jesus Christ, what gun laws would you support exactly? A one week waiting period on your f****** claymores? Give me a break.

 

There are gun laws that can be passed that focus on say stricter background checks, ending loopholes and stricker penalties against crimes committed with guns. I do not feel assault riffles should be bannded for many of the same reasons Ed has stated and do not agree with restricting the number of rounds either. After all the criminal would not follow them. At the same time, I do not feel certain weapons should not be in the hand of every gun owner.

[Emory889 353]

There are gun laws that can be passed that focus on say stricter background checks, ending loopholes and stricker penalties against crimes committed with guns. I do not feel assault riffles should be bannded for many of the same reasons Ed has stated and do not agree with restricting the number of rounds either. After all the criminal would not follow them. At the same time, I do not feel certain weapons should not be in the hand of every gun owner.

 

Do you believe that tanks and hellfire missiles should remain illegal? If you do, then you see the need for some restrictions and you don't agree as much with Ed as you think you do. I don't agree with your opinion on assault rifles but I can at least respect it.

[Crazyhorse81 242]

You're f****** kidding, right? I'll respond to your post to me later when I get more time but this is just comical. You've openly stated that you would support the legalization of practically every devastating weapon ever created by man, a position so nutty that even the extreme members of the NRA wouldn't support it. You've also mentioned kids in other countries walking around with fully automatic weapons as if that is an ideal situation.....completely ignoring the fact that those kids are products of war devastated countries and are usually kidnapped/brainwashed at an early age and by the time they are 14 they are stone-cold killers.

 

Jesus Christ, what gun laws would you support exactly? A one week waiting period on your f****** claymores? Give me a break.

 

I have no problem with deeper background checks on licensed gun owners. I also have no problem with an annual check where the owner demonstrates technical proficiency with a firearm and only one problem with making sure an owner passes a psychiatric evaluation. I have some reservations about that since I am distrustful of our Government and it would be very easy for someone to be considered "unsafe" simply because of political beliefs. While that seems far-fetched, it has happened in the past and our own politicians are not immune from the corruption of power. These annual checks can be done without needing people to register their firearms, much the same way that someone with a pilot's license has to take an annual checkride but doesn't have to own a plane.

 

Outside of that, my only real issue is the literal frenzy being directed toward a weapon like the AR-15 for absolutely no reason. I've always had a problem when people freak out over how something looks rather than how it performs.

 

You seem to be having trouble reading, so I figured I'd help you out. And a position that just about any weapon should be legal =/= there should be no gun laws. Also, the children I mentioned (at least the ones I've observed) aren't stone cold killers, they aren't brainwashed, and they're not kidnapped. They're herders. They herd goats. They herd sheep. Other people try to steal their herds, so they have guns to protect their property. No, they don't live in an ideal situation, I know that. I guess their population is less afraid of an inanimate object than the average American. So far, all I've read on here is how icky guns are and seeing a lot of stained underwear at the thought of someone owning something scary looking. I'm sorry you were traumatized at some point by someone with an AR-15 or whatever, but just because you wet yourself at the thought of someone owning an "assault" weapon doesn't mean that everyone else does.

 

Granted, the issue of lives is completely different, but this is similar to smoking laws: you don't like it, therefore no one should have it. I don't smoke, I don't own a gun either, but I have no problem with someone lighting up a smoke in public, and I am not afraid of an average citizen owning "assault" weapons either. I have no idea how it must feel to live in perpetual fear that you seem to, that anyone and everyone who's armed is somehow a mad man going to kill us all. I guess my experiences have taught me otherwise. I saw the photo of the guy in Utah who was standing in a JC Pennys (at least I think it was a JCP), and I didn't get scared at all. Come tell me later that the guy is some kind of schizo who thinks magical green thumb tacks talk to him and tell him what to do, then I'll ask him to drop the magazine and lock the bolt to the rear and hand it over.

 

I mean, I had a guy in my squad who was bipolar and didn't always take his meds. Dude carried an M4 with 210 rounds, and also was the gunner for a 60mm mortar and had plenty of rounds for those too. Yet somehow, the only times I almost died over there was when some idiot Taliban guy got a couple rounds a little too close, and when an 82mm round hit maybe 40-50 meters from me but didn't explode. Was never worried about my bipolar guy going nuts and mowing down the chow hall.

 

Look, I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their minds. You've got your beliefs that inanimate objects are inherently evil and we should be doing everything we can to make sure nothing more advanced than a flint-lock or something is available to the people. I've got my beliefs that it's the PERSON who is a problem, not the inanimate object, and therefore we shouldn't be scared of a stable person wanting to own a 240.

[Emory889 353]

Oh, I get it. I'm a little girl. I wet myself constantly at the thought of guns. I live my life in perpetual fear. I was obviously traumatized at some point in my life. I believe all guns are evil. I have a 2 inch penis. Did I miss any of the over-used stereotypes that you gun rights activists like to use? This may blow your mind but I own two guns. I have a shotgun that I keep in my house and a handgun that I usually keep in my truck. My brother has a crapload of guns and we take them over to my parents house to shoot them all the time. I'm Air Force, so I don't get to shoot it as often as I like, but I really enjoy shooting the M-16 too. I mean, sure, it gets a little messy when I p*ss my pants out of fear when I shoot them, but what the hell, it's still pretty fun. Do I still fit neatly into your vegan-eating, hybrid-driving, bigger government, Obama-voting, card-carrying member of PETA box?

 

For full disclosure: I was so blown away by your "I never said there shouldn't be any gun laws" comment that I quit reading. It was just so absurd that I couldn't continue. I knew that I would address all of your points later on so I didn't see the point.

 

Now that we got that out of the way, would you please care to share with me exactly what country you are referring to? I'm curious because these kids:

 

http://pangaea.org/street_children/africa/armies.htm

 

and these kids:

 

http://fightslaverynow.org/why-fight-there-are-27-million-reasons/otherformsoftrafficking/child-soldiers/

 

and these kids:

 

http://www.childsoldierrelief.org/about-child-soldiers/map/afghanistan/background/

 

are not herding sheep.

 

Here's an article about kids herding sheep. They seem to be having a blast....pun intended.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tribe/tribes/suri/

 

The dozen or so tribal groups in this part of southern Ethiopia are locked in mutual hostility. Fuelled by a steady supply of semi automatic weapons, the violence only gets worse.

 

Cattle raiding is a part of Suri life. Their herds are under constant threat, and they in turn regularly run raids on their enemies. Gazing land is under intense competition, particularly since the Sudan war pushed neighbouring tribes on to Suri lands. Gun battles rage during the dry season when the Suri move their herds south and fight for the pastures they need.

 

The Suri's traditional enemies are the Nyangatom who, ten years ago, drove them from some of their traditional lands in a bloody conflict that has led to many deaths. Other enemies include the 70,000 Toposa, who live along the border with Sudan and often team up with the Nyangatom to raid Suri cattle and drive them off contested pastures.

 

Though hundreds of people have died in the conflicts in the region, the state authorities rarely provide any kind of formal justice. It's a measure of how widespread weapons are that these days, an AK-47 is often part of the 'bride price' a man gives his new wife's family.

 

Silly me. This is a society that we should clearly try to emulate.

 

Again, would you really, and I mean REALLY, be bent out of shape if you knew I had an M252?

 

Absolutely.

 

The nutjob who shot up that school stole the weapons from someone else.

 

And here's just one excellent reason why. Are you going to personally vouch for every single person that is given permission to keep a grenade launcher that they can keep it secure? Because it only stands to reason that if criminals can steal guns that they would be able to steal a now-much-easier-to-get grenade launcher. Of course, you didn't really think this stance out. At all. Only giving these weapons to people that are properly trained on them isn't exactly an exclusive list. There are currently 500,000 active duty members in the Army and another 202,000 members in the Marines. Granted, not all of these individuals are receiving mortar training but I bet a sizable amount have received at least remedial training on the weapon and is not including the Guard, Reserve, AF and Navy personnel who are trained, and individuals no longer in the service. That is a lot of damn people that, according to your strict guidelines, could be potentially eligible to acquire one of these weapons. It would also drastically increase the probability of one of these launchers getting "lost". And this is only one weapons system out of thousands that you recommend legalizing. You would turn this country back into the wild west only with much more devastating ways to kill people. The fact that you openly admit that criminals stealing guns is a problem and don't have the foresight to realize that this could be a problem if we introduce even more weapons to the market just blows my mind.

 

Hell, isn't the fact that no one has attempted to blow up a school with a bazooka proof that weapons restrictions do work? I've seen no evidence of criminals managing to overcome this obstacle. This point needs its own paragraph.

 

I have no problem with deeper background checks on licensed gun owners. I also have no problem with an annual check where the owner demonstrates technical proficiency with a firearm and only one problem with making sure an owner passes a psychiatric evaluation. I have some reservations about that since I am distrustful of our Government and it would be very easy for someone to be considered "unsafe" simply because of political beliefs.

 

We agree here. Weird, huh? I'm not sure someone is going to be disqualified from owning a gun simply because of their political beliefs but I think it would be easier to do these checks in the commercial sector....particularly if it was monitored by law enforcement.

 

the tool is being blamed when the person is the one who needs to be addressed.

 

I hear this argument a lot and it doesn't make any sense. The only thing this "tool" does is kill human beings. You don't use it for hunting. It's not practical for home defense. It's not practical for personal defense unless you are in a war zone. The only thing semi-automatic weapons are good for is efficiently killing a lot of people. That is it. I'll say it again: people that claim they want these weapons to defend themselves against the government are either delusional or just flat out lying to themselves. Most of you guys are just angry that you won't have the chance to obtain a new toy that you can shoot in the woods.

 

So, for me, the gun control argument isn't about safety, since more people die because of car accidents, yet there's nothing on the table about banning them, it's about controlling the people.

 

This is a truly ridiculous comparison and I'll tell you why. The government has passed a TON of restrictions on automobiles to ensure that they are safe. You're restricted on the engine modifications that you can make. There are restrictions on the types of lights you can install. You can't wear headphones when you drive. You are supposed to wear a seatbelt. You can't operate a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. There's an age restriction. There's a drivers test. There are so many restrictions and laws governing automobile safety that it would take me all day to type them out. Nobody screams, "it's a tool. We need to hold the people who own them responsible" when the government says that you can't drive a hot rod on the street. It's commonly accepted that certain limitations of freedom need to be accepted in order to ensure the general safety of the public on the road. Not only are cars a bad example for your argument but I would say that it strongly supports my points. Your car comparison would have some validity if the only rules for driving were that you had to pass a drivers test and have the means to legally own a vehicle.

 

There are more deaths per year from hammers than there are weapons like the AR-15.

 

I've seen this statistic in various forms on facebook for weeks now and it really amuses me. How many hammers would you say are in most people's homes? How about kitchen knives? Now how many AR-15s and other related semi-automatic weapons do people possess? Do you really think the number of people that die from assault rifles would not go up with the number of available rifles? If you don't, I bet some goat herders in Ethiopia could change your mind.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

im just blown away at the amount of intellectual dishonesty in this topic. This is all i have to say.

[For the love of the game 56]

Do you believe that tanks and hellfire missiles should remain illegal? If you do, then you see the need for some restrictions and you don't agree as much with Ed as you think you do. I don't agree with your opinion on assault rifles but I can at least respect it.

No, but that is not what you qouted either. The qoute you replied to was Ed denying Doms idea that he did not believe in any gun laws.

 

See my post again. I was jusr pointing out there are more than just laws to ban amount of rounds ina gun ot banning types of guns

[Emory889 353]

No, but that is not what you qouted either. The qoute you replied to was Ed denying Doms idea that he did not believe in any gun laws.

 

See my post again. I was jusr pointing out there are more than just laws to ban amount of rounds ina gun ot banning types of guns

 

As far as I'm concerned, laws that allow private citizens to own military grade weapons like missile systems and artillery provided that they received training/passed a background check is the equivalent of no gun laws at all. No private citizen should be legally allowed to possess a weapon that could wipe out an entire neighborhood.