Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Why do you own a gun?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWhy do you own a gun?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789>
Author
Message
emigre80 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2016 at 09:24
Originally posted by TeleStrat TeleStrat wrote:

I'm not concerned about other countries in the world, I care about what happens in my country.
England has 65 million people and California alone has 39 million people. The Netherlands has 17 million people and Los Angeles County alone has over ten million people and that's not counting illegals.
There is a major gang problem here and a major drug network here as well.
Our jails and prisons are so overcrowded that even felons get released early. 
These are some of the facts that I base my level of protection on.
I wouldn't waste the time to try and change anyone's mind.
This thread is called "Why do you own a gun?" and that's what my posts are about.
 
Reality check here: I cannot take away any of your guns. Neither can Dean. Even if I had a restraining order against you for threats or stalking, your guns would not be taken away. If you were on the no-fly list (thanks to our idiotic republican senators), your guns cannot be taken away. So why are you getting so aggressive towards people that have no power to take away your guns, but are just expressing their opinions, which is that we think that there are too many guns in the hands of private owners in the US?
 
Your first post noted that you have 21 firearms. This is not a "level of protection" that anyone needs, even in a place with lots of gang violence (I grew up in NYC in the 1970s, so I get gang violence, believe me).  You just like owning guns. We can't stop you. We just don't like guns and have used this forum to say so.
 
30,000 people every year get shot in America.  This is exponentially larger than any other country in the world - in fact, larger than all other countries (that don't happen to be currently involved in a war) combined.  Many people think that this number is way too high, and that we would like to see fewer guns out there. I think that it is worth keeping assault weapons out of the hands of civilians if it keeps children from dying (the guns used in the CT shooting were bought legally by a mentally ill man).  That's my opinion.
 
Back to Top
TeleStrat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 27 2014
Location: Norwalk, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 9319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2016 at 12:19
I never stated anywhere that you or Dean or anyone else was trying to take my guns away. I'm not concerned about a ban or confiscation.
My reasons for discussing gun control are simple. Whenever the gun debate comes up the general position of the "anti" crowd is 'more gun control' and 'better background checks', etc. That may sound good but it does nothing at all to stop criminals from having guns. 
My concern is that while both sides continue to argue back and forth (citizens and politicians) the real problem (criminals, gangs, drug dealers) is never addressed. When I see stats like '30,000 shootings' I have to ask myself how many were done by criminals.
The government will not (or cannot) do anything about the crime in this country so they continue to dangle gun control in front of the people to keep people arguing with each other instead of noticing that they, the government, are not doing their job. I guess you could call that misdirection. 

My collection is just that, a collection. I purchased certain guns because I knew that they would become more valuable to other collectors. Many of my guns are now worth fives times what I paid for them and a few are worth even more. I only own two hand guns that would not be considered collectible and are specifically for home defense. Also, the majority of my guns are basic six shot revolvers and are not the type of guns that would ever show up on any "ban" list. 
All of my guns were purchased over twenty years ago.
Back to Top
Polymorphia View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 06 2012
Location: here
Status: Offline
Points: 8856
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2016 at 12:33
Worth noting is that gun control stems gun violence, which is good, but not necessarily (emphasis on the word "necessarily" mind you) violence in general. The reason why America's shootings are so alarming to the rest of the world is because all its violence is in one place– one statistic. Fewer people would care if that statistic was spread out. It seems some politicians care much more about that aspect (America's social standing with the rest of the world). If/when stricter gun control is enacted, the number of shootings will probably go down as they have in other countries. Fantastic. I'm all for it. But many will say "problem solved," if violent attempts overall hasn't gone down or has only gone down a small fraction. If the point is brought up, they will say, "welp, can't change society." Which leads me to ask if people would actually care about shootings if the media wasn't pushing the panic button and exploiting the situation, leading people to rant about it all over social media.


Edited by Polymorphia - June 22 2016 at 12:34
Back to Top
emigre80 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2016 at 13:23
Originally posted by TeleStrat TeleStrat wrote:

I never stated anywhere that you or Dean or anyone else was trying to take my guns away. I'm not concerned about a ban or confiscation.
My reasons for discussing gun control are simple. Whenever the gun debate comes up the general position of the "anti" crowd is 'more gun control' and 'better background checks', etc. That may sound good but it does nothing at all to stop criminals from having guns. 
My concern is that while both sides continue to argue back and forth (citizens and politicians) the real problem (criminals, gangs, drug dealers) is never addressed. When I see stats like '30,000 shootings' I have to ask myself how many were done by criminals.
The government will not (or cannot) do anything about the crime in this country so they continue to dangle gun control in front of the people to keep people arguing with each other instead of noticing that they, the government, are not doing their job. I guess you could call that misdirection. 

My collection is just that, a collection. I purchased certain guns because I knew that they would become more valuable to other collectors. Many of my guns are now worth fives times what I paid for them and a few are worth even more. I only own two hand guns that would not be considered collectible and are specifically for home defense. Also, the majority of my guns are basic six shot revolvers and are not the type of guns that would ever show up on any "ban" list. 
All of my guns were purchased over twenty years ago.
 
you stated a number of times that your collection was for protection, so that is why it seemed like an arsenal to me rather than a collection.
 
It seems to me that you (a) are quite angry about things in general (and therefore perceive life as more threatening than it actually is) and (b) tend to backtrack when challenged. Your original contention was that you were entitled to the "level of protection" you deem appropriate for your family, but now you state that the vast majority of your guns are a collection rather than for defense. Similarly, you  noted that all your guns are safely locked up in a special safe, until I pointed out that they would not help for home defense in that case, when you then stated that in fact you kept one upstairs in a box you unlocked every night. Look, I don't care one way or another, but if you say misleading things up front, then people will draw conclusions from them.
 
I don't think the government dangles gun control in front of people to keep them arguing with each other. I think the government would be better at doing its job if people would for heaven's sake stop being so damn partisan and demanding an impossible standard of party purity from their elected officials. Then the government could actually focus on getting done what the people who elect it want done. The vast majority of the population wants background checks and a ban on assault weapons.  Since that is what the majority of the country wants, why on earth are is the government not implementing it?
Back to Top
A Person View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2016 at 13:39
Originally posted by emigre80 emigre80 wrote:

I apologize if I was insensitive. Yes, affordability can also be an issue, but frankly I couldn't do it unless my family were actually starving. Then it might seem like the lesser of two evils.  Glad I do not have to face that choice.

Nah it's ok. I probably would starve before killing an animal myself. LOL
Originally posted by TeleStrat TeleStrat wrote:

illegals

As an aside I have always found it very distasteful to call people "illegal".
http://www.nohumanbeingisillegal.com/Home_files/No-Human-Being-is-Illegal1.jpg
Back to Top
TeleStrat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 27 2014
Location: Norwalk, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 9319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2016 at 13:51
I will reply to a few of your comments Dean but I will not get into another long 'back and forth' like we did with space travel.
My comment about not being concerned about other countries was about people comparing situations in other countries to situations in my country. It had nothing to do with a lack of concern about the rest of the world.
I did a search for the population of England and mistakenly posted the population of the UK. I will drop and give you twenty push-ups and we will call it even.
Comparing London to Los Angeles or England to the US and all of the related statistics is really an 'apples to oranges' kind of thing.
Of course London has gangs and drugs because every major city in the world does. Where I live they are a real problem because they are very powerful and very well organized. The majority of drugs, guns, gangs and human trafficking are controlled by one very old and powerful Mexican gang. Other gangs that want to be affiliated with them are required to pay monthly dues.
So we have a large number of gang bangers and drug addicts who both need money but do not work for a living. These people alone are responsible for quite a bit of the crime in my area.
This post is already too long and like I said, I'm not getting into another long discussion with you that resolves nothing.
The bottom line is that you live where you live and I live where I live and our situations are not the same.

Back to Top
emigre80 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2016 at 14:21
Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

Originally posted by emigre80 emigre80 wrote:

I apologize if I was insensitive. Yes, affordability can also be an issue, but frankly I couldn't do it unless my family were actually starving. Then it might seem like the lesser of two evils.  Glad I do not have to face that choice.

Nah it's ok. I probably would starve before killing an animal myself. LOL
Originally posted by TeleStrat TeleStrat wrote:

illegals

As an aside I have always found it very distasteful to call people "illegal".
http://www.nohumanbeingisillegal.com/Home_files/No-Human-Being-is-Illegal1.jpg
 
yes, I agree with you on the use of that term. It's outrageous.
 
I would also like to add that my grandfather entered this country illegally, which had everything to do with his immigration status and nothing to do with his status as a human being.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2016 at 14:28
You shouldn't take illegal to be pejorative. If you're using law as a basis for your morality, then your compass needs a tuning.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
A Person View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2016 at 14:55
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

You shouldn't take illegal to be pejorative. If you're using law as a basis for your morality, then your compass needs a tuning.

I find it pejorative because it is used as a slur and a dog whistle by some.
Back to Top
rushfan4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66205
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2016 at 15:16
Originally posted by emigre80 emigre80 wrote:

The vast majority of the population wants background checks and a ban on assault weapons.  Since that is what the majority of the country wants, why on earth are is the government not implementing it?
Be careful.  This is a slippery slope comment.  And the same comment that men used to say women shouldn't vote; whites used to say that blacks should ride on the back of the bus; and heterosexuals say that homosexuals shouldn't be married.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2016 at 15:40
Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

You shouldn't take illegal to be pejorative. If you're using law as a basis for your morality, then your compass needs a tuning.

I find it pejorative because it is used as a slur and a dog whistle by some.


Whatever the term is it will be used as a slur by those against illegal immigration.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
emigre80 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2016 at 15:56
Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

Originally posted by emigre80 emigre80 wrote:

The vast majority of the population wants background checks and a ban on assault weapons.  Since that is what the majority of the country wants, why on earth are is the government not implementing it?
Be careful.  This is a slippery slope comment.  And the same comment that men used to say women shouldn't vote; whites used to say that blacks should ride on the back of the bus; and heterosexuals say that homosexuals shouldn't be married.
 
Actually, it's not, because legislation is normally passed on the basis of what the people who are electing representatives want. More people wanted universal health care than didn't, so they voted in democratic majorities that would pass that. You are confusing issues of legislating and constitutionality. In fact, the majority of the country (and their elected representatives) did say women shouldn't vote, until the majority of the country realized that was stupid and passed a constitutional amendment saying they could. Southern states had laws disenfranchising blacks and reducing them to second class status, until the Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional, and the government supported that ruling by passing the Civil Rights Act.
 
Are you saying that legislation, as long as it doesn't contravene the constitution, should not reflect what the country wants? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, if we are electing representatives who will not reflect our views in proposed legislation.
Back to Top
emigre80 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2016 at 15:58
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

You shouldn't take illegal to be pejorative. If you're using law as a basis for your morality, then your compass needs a tuning.
 
the point is someone can overstay their visa, for example, and therefore is in the country illegally.  That doesn't make the person illegal, just his immigration status.
 
"Illegal" is pejorative, in that it implies that it is the person rather than his status that is illegitimate.
Back to Top
rushfan4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66205
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2016 at 16:09
Originally posted by emigre80 emigre80 wrote:

Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

Originally posted by emigre80 emigre80 wrote:

The vast majority of the population wants background checks and a ban on assault weapons.  Since that is what the majority of the country wants, why on earth are is the government not implementing it?
Be careful.  This is a slippery slope comment.  And the same comment that men used to say women shouldn't vote; whites used to say that blacks should ride on the back of the bus; and heterosexuals say that homosexuals shouldn't be married.
 
Actually, it's not, because legislation is normally passed on the basis of what the people who are electing representatives want. More people wanted universal health care than didn't, so they voted in democratic majorities that would pass that. You are confusing issues of legislating and constitutionality. In fact, the majority of the country (and their elected representatives) did say women shouldn't vote, until the majority of the country realized that was stupid and passed a constitutional amendment saying they could. Southern states had laws disenfranchising blacks and reducing them to second class status, until the Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional, and the government supported that ruling by passing the Civil Rights Act.
 
Are you saying that legislation, as long as it doesn't contravene the constitution, should not reflect what the country wants? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, if we are electing representatives who will not reflect our views in proposed legislation.
No.  I am saying that legislation that discriminates against minorities shouldn't be passed just because it is what the majority wants.  i.e. the majority of voters wanted husband and wife to mean man and woman and that homosexuals could not be married.  Therefore, this legislation was passed.

I am saying that the majority of people want the government to hand them a million dollars, tax-free, no questions asked.  Probably not a good idea to pass that legislation.

Some polls (especially taken after a mass murder) will show that the majority want the death penalty...

Basically, just because it is what the majority wants doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good argument for why the legislation should be passed.


Edited by rushfan4 - June 22 2016 at 16:10
Back to Top
emigre80 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2016 at 19:10
Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

Originally posted by emigre80 emigre80 wrote:

Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

Originally posted by emigre80 emigre80 wrote:

The vast majority of the population wants background checks and a ban on assault weapons.  Since that is what the majority of the country wants, why on earth are is the government not implementing it?
Be careful.  This is a slippery slope comment.  And the same comment that men used to say women shouldn't vote; whites used to say that blacks should ride on the back of the bus; and heterosexuals say that homosexuals shouldn't be married.
 
Actually, it's not, because legislation is normally passed on the basis of what the people who are electing representatives want. More people wanted universal health care than didn't, so they voted in democratic majorities that would pass that. You are confusing issues of legislating and constitutionality. In fact, the majority of the country (and their elected representatives) did say women shouldn't vote, until the majority of the country realized that was stupid and passed a constitutional amendment saying they could. Southern states had laws disenfranchising blacks and reducing them to second class status, until the Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional, and the government supported that ruling by passing the Civil Rights Act.
 
Are you saying that legislation, as long as it doesn't contravene the constitution, should not reflect what the country wants? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, if we are electing representatives who will not reflect our views in proposed legislation.
No.  I am saying that legislation that discriminates against minorities shouldn't be passed just because it is what the majority wants.  i.e. the majority of voters wanted husband and wife to mean man and woman and that homosexuals could not be married.  Therefore, this legislation was passed.

I am saying that the majority of people want the government to hand them a million dollars, tax-free, no questions asked.  Probably not a good idea to pass that legislation.

Some polls (especially taken after a mass murder) will show that the majority want the death penalty...

Basically, just because it is what the majority wants doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good argument for why the legislation should be passed.
 
You can argue that the desires of the majority should not be codified into law, but I'm not sure what else you would base legislation on. Only unpopular views?
 
As long as a law is not in contravention of the constitution, a legislature can pass it (they can pass it if it is unconstitutional, too, but it will be struck down). A majority of voters can prefer a law that states that the 10 commandments must be displayed in every schoolroom, but the supreme court would strike down such a law.  Similarly, many states passed laws allowing gay marriage, but it took a supreme court ruling to make it the law in all 50 states, even those states in which laws had been passed specifically outlawing it.
 
Laws restricting gun ownership would not discriminate against minorities under the law. Laws state you cannot discriminate against people because of their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Gun restrictions that applied to everyone across the spectrum couldn't possibly be discriminatory.
 
In a democracy, the majority gets to say what the laws should be.  I'm sorry to disagree strongly, but your entire premise is just very odd.
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17817
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 23 2016 at 01:38
Somewhere someone stated Gary (telestrat) had an "arsenal" of weapons I remember reading. I found that phrase to be harsh and almost war like in terms.

I look at Gary's collection of guns as just that...A collection of guns.
Merriam-Webster defines arsenal as:
"a: an establishment for the manufacture or storage of arms and military equipment
b: a collection of weapons"Does not seem that a: fits Gary, more like b:At the end of the day guns are not the issue, bad, disturbed, mentally ill people are the problem. If guns were not available these people would use knives, axes, hammers, cars to do their damage.
Politicians will always take the easy path and blame the weapon and bring up rules ideas on how to limit gun ownership....but none of them are addressing the real problem of how to treat these people. For example we have 100's of thousands of homeless people living on the streets, everywhere, some of these are disturbed people, what is the govt doing about that?? Nothing, politicians have no desire to dirty their precious hands with homeless people.

Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 23 2016 at 03:43
Originally posted by TeleStrat TeleStrat wrote:

Okay, gun deaths/car deaths - What was your point? Too many guns in America? Too many bad drivers in America? Should we ban guns or cars or both? You tell me because you guys over there seem to have all the answers.
I actually made my point in the post. The numbers should not be comparable yet they are. But since the USA car related deaths statistics are somewhat higher than every other first world country even though the same vehicles are used everywhere, has (practically) the same mandatory seat belt laws and has a lower national speed limit than most European countries then the number of firearm related deaths is even more disproportionate.

I've not looked into road safety and have no inclination to do so, therefore I don't know why you are three times more likely to die on American roads than British ones, or why an American owned car is two and a half times more likely to kill someone, or why you're twice as likely to be killed per mile driven - so as I said, no matter how you count it, the USA is lagging behind by an appreciable amount. As the USA seems to have all the requisite laws and regulations perhaps the problem is abiding by them and/or enforcing them.

I've never advocated banning guns, (or cars), nor would I. However, I can see no valid reason for automatic and semi-automatic weapons to be in private or civilian ownership. If you feel you need a gun for protection then that's okay by me; if you like collecting antique firearms to look at but have no intention of ever firing them then I see no problem with carefully removing a vital part of the firing mechanism and not keeping any ammunition so to prevent them being used in anger; if you like to hunt with a single-shot firearm then I can't condone that but as an omnivore it would be a little hypocritical of me to object to it outright; if you like to fire lumps of lead at paper targets for sport then once again, I have no problem with that. 
Originally posted by TeleStrat TeleStrat wrote:


I'm sure you did an extensive search on guns/cars before posting. Did that search happen to say how many of those gun deaths were caused by criminals and how many were caused by law abiding gun owners?
I did and you are quite capable of doing the same. What figure would you like to see - the 80% of mass-shootings committed using legally obtained firearms statistic? Not what you're after? So you want to show that a high percentage of gun deaths were caused by criminals with illegal guns: how about 84% of all illegally owned guns used in violent crime were stolen from legal owners? Is that the kind of statistic I should be looking for?

All murders are committed by murderers and all thefts are committed by thieves, ergo all thieves and murderers are criminals. The only gun deaths that are not committed by criminals are lawful killings and the stats for those are going to be statistically very low for a number of reasons and it wouldn't surprise me if the total number of lawful killings was fewer than the number of innocent civilians who died because they pointed a gun at a criminal (but that's just idle speculation).


Let's be serious here: Gun manufacturers don't make illegal weapons - not one. Reputable gun dealers do not sell illegal weapons - not one. Honest owners of legal guns do not resell them illegally - not one. Law abiding citizens don't break laws - not one... So where do "illegal" weapons come from, who makes them and what is it exactly that makes them "illegal"?


Originally posted by TeleStrat TeleStrat wrote:

We could compare the number of gun deaths per year to the number of tobacco related deaths in that same year. Or maybe to the number of legal abortions in that same year. Would that really get us anywhere?
Well we could but I'm not going to bother because it misses the point, it's not about which thing kills more people. I brought it up because Teo posted that some Americans were objecting to Driving Licences and my incredulity was that gun death had overtaken car death as a major killer of human beings and suggested that traffic safety regulations and laws may have had something to do with that.

In the USA the number of car related deaths has decreased from around 50,000 to 30,000 in the past 40 years whereas the number of gun related deaths has varied around the 30,000 mark but shows no general trend in either direction over the same interval. The former is [fairly] well regulated and the latter (despite your protestations) is not well regulated.

You brought up the question of statistics [and as someone pointed out in the past, that's just throwing it into my wheelhouse], so it didn't take a huge amount of effort to use the car death vs gun death comparison to also show how large the disparity is between the USA and every other first world country when it comes to gun related death. 

If all things were equal then these figures for each category would be the same everywhere so when there is a statistical outlier then something is very much not equal. While I've shown that car deaths in the usa are between 2 and 3 times higher than in the uk, gun deaths are 40 times higher therefore it really doesn't make any difference what the comparisons are for tobacco, abortions or falling off ladders.
Originally posted by TeleStrat TeleStrat wrote:

I'm glad that your country has solved the gun problem and I'm glad that your criminals are so well mannered but I don't live in your country.
Well played. I have politely turned down the opportunity to live in yours on two separate occasions. Of course there were a number of factors that contributed to my decision and the safety of my family was one of them. (Raffles the Gentleman Thief is fictional, our real criminals are nasty pieces of work).
Originally posted by TeleStrat TeleStrat wrote:

And yes, the number of existing laws does matter. It matters when you're dealing with gun hating liberals and lazy politicians who are demanding more laws that will not stop criminals and only further restrict citizens from the ability to protect themselves.
No it doesn't matter. You don't need lots of ineffectual laws, you only need one effective one.

As a liberal (small "L") I don't hate guns, as I have been told many times: Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People [with Guns], and I can't argue with that kind of logic. As pieces of engineering I quite like well made guns; my grandfather, father and father-in-law have all legally owned shotguns and my late uncle was a gun collector and secretary of a police gun club, so while I only ever owned air pistols and air rifles myself, I have handled and fired a variety of guns. I've killed hundreds of sheets of paper, dozens of tin cans and even managed to wing a few clays. However, the only time I've ever killed an animal was (like Teri) when it threw itself under the wheels of my car, and yes like the true bleeding heart liberal that I am, I cried real tears. 

Would I like to see less murder, mass shootings and massacres? Yup. I sincerely believe that the number of mass-shootings and massacres would be significantly fewer if there were no semi-automatic weapons in civilian ownership. I sincerely believe that the number of illegally owned guns would decrease if there were fewer legally owned ones for the criminals to steal. 
Originally posted by TeleStrat TeleStrat wrote:

By the way, who do you think are big supporters of gun control? The criminals are. They want to see every citizen stripped of their right to own a gun. Criminals in this country are more concerned about being shot by a civilian than by the police. This came from research done by two professors who were funded by a government grant, not by the gun lobby or the NRA.
I've tried to track-down that research paper but cannot find it so I cannot comment on it. Then I've not found any pro-gun websites that cite it either. 

So instead of that here's a question: will the number of gun-related murders increase, decrease or stay the same if criminals knew they weren't going to be shot at by civilians?
Originally posted by TeleStrat TeleStrat wrote:

Speaking of criminals, I did not appreciate your "Damn them criminals and their utter disregard for the law" sarcastic comment. Your criminals may not use guns but ours do and they kill innocent civilians every day.
You were never meant to appreciate it, it was a direct response to your tautology; by definition a criminal is someone who has no regard for the law. Owning a gun hasn't stopped your criminals from shooting innocent civilians every day thus far so that approach isn't working.
Originally posted by TeleStrat TeleStrat wrote:

If you had bothered to Google the gun application form like I suggested earlier you would see that there is a question regarding domestic violence (and yet another sarcastic joke in italics). A "no" answer to this question will prevent the purchase of a gun.
[erm, ticking "no" to that question will allow the purchase of a gun. Also in most states private sellers do not need to use that form.]

I looked at it which is why I raised the UK version of the same question. There is a huge difference here and this is also why I raised the issue of effective and ineffective laws. 

My statement on UK law said: "...in the UK you will be refused a gun licence if there is a history, or perceived likelihood, of domestic violence", whereas your form 4473 asks: "have you been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?". 

That's the difference between positive vetting (actively obtaining evidence to permit something) and negative vetting (passively looking for flags not to permit something). 

In the UK background checks are not a cursory glance at a government database for records of criminal convictions that can be carried out in a few minutes over the telephone. For the domestic violence check a court conviction is not needed: a record of domestic incident with either the police or other social agencies is enough to trigger a review and pro-active check of the applicant's suitability. That review can accept hearsay evidence if it is considered to be appropriate and will be taken into consideration with any other reports of violent behaviour. So I'll not excuse my flippancy and sarcasm directed at the American system when Omar Mateen was allowed to buy a firearm for ticking "no" on all the questions on form 4473. I cannot guarantee that he would have been refused a permit under the UK system, but at least the issuing officers would have looked a hell of a lot deeper into his history, just like the press have done since he killed 49 people in Orlando.


Edited by Dean - June 23 2016 at 04:47
What?
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 23 2016 at 03:59
Yeah, I'm all for universal background checks, mental health screening, perhaps some physical limitations to the guns but IDK I just am not sure on the assault (and related) rifle bans and stuff like that. While I'd hope most people would agree with the former points, someone who is cleared of all the checks, if they want to own these weapons I guess what does it matter? I have friends who own AK 47s and guns that kinda freak me out but they are perfectly normal, unassuming people who go to work and have at worst speeding tickets that just really love guns. 
To emphasize this is from the non gun owning, never fired a gun person who thinks people that love and need guns are a little kooky (sorry). 

Why is it states with strict laws may have high crime rates,(Maryland) while some with few have lower? (Vermont)
Why is it Newark has such bad crime, but not rural New Jersey 45 minutes away? NJ has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Why so many issues in Baltimore but not affluent Northern Virginia?
I haven't done heavy lifting I'll admit but I see less of a link between gun laws and crime, and more of a link between well being/opportunity/population density and crime. I'll fish out the article but once read a study done of Europe showing such a result: Wealthier countries with better welfare states have less crime than poorer/worse developed countries even if the latter had stricter gun laws. 

Wealthier and/or more rural areas I think will have less crime than poorer and/or dense areas regardless of law and as we know a vast majority of crime involves illegally obtained guns, thus not subject to gun laws. 
I say put sensible background check laws into place, absolutely. But also how about a wide scale jobs program, with specific targeting in areas that lack opportunity (which are often segregated to boot). 
Rudy's famous cleaning up of NYC was really economic prosperity, (while he cracked down on lots of minor crimes) but not all are so lucky as to have such a massive influx of money. For those areas left behind, we need government intervention. 

Because even an OK, fairly integrated, suburban town can have a very poor, segregated pocket severely lacking opportunity. Let's just call it Ferguson, MO. Gun laws can only go so far, the left needs to stop playing politics and get real. Needless to say the right which oppose both sensible gun laws and push horrific economic policies, also need to get in touch with reality.



Edited by JJLehto - June 23 2016 at 04:05
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 23 2016 at 04:44
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Yeah, I'm all for universal background checks, mental health screening, perhaps some physical limitations to the guns but IDK I just am not sure on the assault (and related) rifle bans and stuff like that. While I'd hope most people would agree with the former points, someone who is cleared of all the checks, if they want to own these weapons I guess what does it matter? I have friends who own AK 47s and guns that kinda freak me out but they are perfectly normal, unassuming people who go to work and have at worst speeding tickets that just really love guns. 
To emphasize this is from the non gun owning, never fired a gun person who thinks people that love and need guns are a little kooky (sorry).
Many years ago I toured the Royal Ordinance Factory in Enfield, London and got to handle several of the assault weapons, including some experimental ones that defy belief. And I have to admit that they were empowering to hold, even for a pacifist such as me. [I actually typed the word "sexy" instead of "empowering" there and then thought better of it, but still...]. I can easily understand the attraction of these weapons. 
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Why is it states with strict laws may have high crime rates,(Maryland) while some with few have lower? (Vermont)
Why is it Newark has such bad crime, but not rural New Jersey 45 minutes away? NJ has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Why so many issues in Baltimore but not affluent Northern Virginia?
I haven't done heavy lifting I'll admit but I see less of a link between gun laws and crime, and more of a link between well being/opportunity/population density and crime. I'll fish out the article but once read a study done of Europe showing such a result: Wealthier countries with better welfare states have less crime than poorer/worse developed countries even if the latter had stricter gun laws.
I'm not so sure that some apparent correlations are that meaningful, some states with the same level of gun ownership have dramatically different crime statistics, as do states with similar population densities. Snap-shot statistic never show the full picture. However, wealth and poverty is indeed a key issue and that has a bearing on the kind of crime being enacted, as does employment and education and a myriad of other disparity factors.
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Wealthier and/or more rural areas I think will have less crime than poorer and/or dense areas regardless of law and as we know a vast majority of crime involves illegally obtained guns, thus not subject to gun laws. 
I say put sensible background check laws into place, absolutely. But also how about a wide scale jobs program, with specific targeting in areas that lack opportunity (which are often segregated to boot). 
Rudy's famous cleaning up of NYC was really economic prosperity, (while he cracked down on lots of minor crimes) but not all are so lucky as to have such a massive influx of money. For those areas left behind, we need government intervention. 

Because even an OK, fairly integrated, suburban town can have a very poor, segregated pocket severely lacking opportunity. Let's just call it Ferguson, MO. Gun laws can only go so far, the left needs to stop playing politics and get real. Needless to say the right which oppose both sensible gun laws and push horrific economic policies, also need to get in touch with reality.
Agreed. 
What?
Back to Top
rushfan4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66205
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 23 2016 at 06:13
Originally posted by emigre80 emigre80 wrote:

Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

Originally posted by emigre80 emigre80 wrote:

Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

Originally posted by emigre80 emigre80 wrote:

The vast majority of the population wants background checks and a ban on assault weapons.  Since that is what the majority of the country wants, why on earth are is the government not implementing it?
Be careful.  This is a slippery slope comment.  And the same comment that men used to say women shouldn't vote; whites used to say that blacks should ride on the back of the bus; and heterosexuals say that homosexuals shouldn't be married.
 
Actually, it's not, because legislation is normally passed on the basis of what the people who are electing representatives want. More people wanted universal health care than didn't, so they voted in democratic majorities that would pass that. You are confusing issues of legislating and constitutionality. In fact, the majority of the country (and their elected representatives) did say women shouldn't vote, until the majority of the country realized that was stupid and passed a constitutional amendment saying they could. Southern states had laws disenfranchising blacks and reducing them to second class status, until the Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional, and the government supported that ruling by passing the Civil Rights Act.
 
Are you saying that legislation, as long as it doesn't contravene the constitution, should not reflect what the country wants? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, if we are electing representatives who will not reflect our views in proposed legislation.
No.  I am saying that legislation that discriminates against minorities shouldn't be passed just because it is what the majority wants.  i.e. the majority of voters wanted husband and wife to mean man and woman and that homosexuals could not be married.  Therefore, this legislation was passed.

I am saying that the majority of people want the government to hand them a million dollars, tax-free, no questions asked.  Probably not a good idea to pass that legislation.

Some polls (especially taken after a mass murder) will show that the majority want the death penalty...

Basically, just because it is what the majority wants doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good argument for why the legislation should be passed.
 
You can argue that the desires of the majority should not be codified into law, but I'm not sure what else you would base legislation on. Only unpopular views?
 
As long as a law is not in contravention of the constitution, a legislature can pass it (they can pass it if it is unconstitutional, too, but it will be struck down). A majority of voters can prefer a law that states that the 10 commandments must be displayed in every schoolroom, but the supreme court would strike down such a law.  Similarly, many states passed laws allowing gay marriage, but it took a supreme court ruling to make it the law in all 50 states, even those states in which laws had been passed specifically outlawing it.
 
Laws restricting gun ownership would not discriminate against minorities under the law. Laws state you cannot discriminate against people because of their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Gun restrictions that applied to everyone across the spectrum couldn't possibly be discriminatory.
 
In a democracy, the majority gets to say what the laws should be.  I'm sorry to disagree strongly, but your entire premise is just very odd.
My premise is very simple.  Just because it is a law that the "majority" want isn't a reason that should make it so.  Nothing more complicated than that. 

It only took 240 years for the "majority" to get gay marriage right; 190 years to get civil rights kind of right. 

Regarding your universal health care point.  Which political party now heads both branches of congress?  And those elected officials ran on the platform that they would overturn Obamacare.   That would lead me to believe that the majority no longer wants universal health care.  Or maybe it was that the "majority" was unhappy with what the previously elected officials had come up with as universal health care.  And yet the "minority" democrats keep fighting against it even though it is what the "majority" want.  The only reason that it is still law is because the "majority" from 4 years ago (President Obama) is overruling the "majority" from 2 and 6 years ago, those that were elected into Congress by the majority of people. 

My single point was that just because you are with the majority and you support the law doesn't make a good reason for it to be legislated into law.  I'm pretty sure that you disagree with my universal health care comment as technically you are in the "minority" and the "majority" wants a law passed that you don't like. 


Edited by rushfan4 - June 23 2016 at 06:32
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.