Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Connecticut mass killings -- OF CHILDREN! (Page 6)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 39 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  37  38  39   
Author Topic: Connecticut mass killings -- OF CHILDREN!
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
The gun control "debate" is starting to appear to be two conflicting religions. Both sides just have faith that they are correct. Any evidence to the contrary is suspect. [Frown]

Probably why so many take the constitutional tact. Viscus is easier to pin down than ethereal.

I already was discussing gun issues in America with one of my classes before the shooting. Ultimately I find there's not much conclusive to say. States with strict gun control aren't necessarily safer but states with more lax gun controls aren't either.

You can easily find anecdotes of people defending their homes and twarting crimes with their guns on the web, but usually the sites they're on have a pro-gun agenda.

Like you I think this is like a religion for many people on both sides. They've already arrived at their conclusions and have no interest in contratry arguments.

Yeah, and the president and government in general trying to get involved basically ensures that nothing will change because the topic is too polarizing nobody will want to risk rocking the boat IMO, unless there is clear evidence that the public is strongly leaning one way or the other.
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yeah, and the president and government in general trying to get involved basically ensures that nothing will change because the topic is too polarizing nobody will want to risk rocking the boat IMO, unless there is clear evidence that the public is strongly leaning one way or the other.
Maybe - or maybe not. What if it turned out that the vast majority of those politicized against additional gun control measures were already highly unlikely to vote for a certain party, while the vast majority of those politicized for additional gun control measures were already highly unlikely to vote for the other certain party? And what if the remainder of the population was relatively ambivalent on the subject except when they become swayed in one direction or the other by current events..?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Another thought from outside: France: Where fear and taboo control guns more than laws
quote:
The European press as a whole may have once again stigmatized "America's love story with its guns" but the story seems to be less about love or passion than about the amazing familiarity and trivialization of instruments of death displayed by Americans.
I agree that the biggest difference between the USA and other first world countries on this subject is exactly that: the attitudes about firearms themselves. Canada's laws are not much more restrictive than in the USA, and Switzerland may have high per-capita gun ownership rates, but it is the attitudes about guns that make the difference. Guns are simply not universally socially acceptable outside the USA.

Now, speak to folks on the prairies in Canada, and in rural areas in other parts fo the country, and you will find people who will defend their right to own firearms as vehemently as most Americans. Gun ownership in Canada is a right, after all. To put it in context, Canada is second (behind the USA, for countries reporting) in per capita suicides by firearms. The guns are out there, but the desire to use them is not the same.

There is just not the same glorification and adulation of a simple tool in Canada as there is in the USA - and far less so in Europe, which doesn't share a 5000km border with the USA and whose entertainment market is not as completely subsumed by the US market as is Canada's.

Ironically, the NRA is probably indirectly responsible for more deaths in the USA than is any organized crime group anywhere in the world, either directly or indirectly.

It's a truism that guns don't kill people: now more than ever, Americans kill people.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think it's religion for the "mid-section" of the populace, but certainly is for the extremes. You can't compromise with no guns vs no gun restrictions, but if we can find a solution that involves guns and restrictions that's not religion. I think most of us want that middle way.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noel, from today's paper:
quote:
A Florida man defended his decision to shoot an impatient pizza customer over the weekend, citing the state’s infamous “Stand Your Ground” law.

Michael Jock, a 52-year-old resident of St. Petersburg, was standing in line behind 49-year-old Randall White at a local Little Caesars on Sunday when Jock grew angry over White’s complaints about the speed of service. The two got began to shove one another, prompting Jock to pull out a .38 Taurus Ultralight Special Revolver that had been concealed on his person and fire twice, hitting White both times in the lower torso.

Do you think either of those two pissed off guys would flunk your tests?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Linux,

quote:
Many people one the news and elsewhere including this forum keep citing Japan as a model society for gun control, but I don't think most people have any idea what it is like there. The police have sweeping powers there... many in this country would be horrified if they knew how little "freedom" there is in Japan.
I've spent a great amount of time in Japan, in many different parts of Japan, doing many different things. It is no less free than the United States. You can read subversive books. You can form radical political groups and protest in the streets. Academics and media personalities debate politics and history openly. You can pursue whatever career you like and enjoy a private life doing whatever you want with whomever you wish.

Gays are not harassed in Japan. In fact, there are American soldiers who stayed there after the end of WW2 because it was easier to be gay in Japan than America -- one of them is a famous writer and film critic named Donald Ritchie. Gay celebrities have been out of the closet since the 60's and have never faced public disapproval as they have in the US.

There is complete freedom of religion in Japan. There are Christian churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. This and freedom of speech are in the Constitution (and were in fact there even before ww2).

You can own a private business in Japan in the same way you can in the US, and you do not pay taxes any higher than in the US.

One very liberating thing you can do in Japan that you cannot do in the US is go anywhere in complete safety. There is simply no risk of violence.

I have been spending most of my time in Japan in small rural areas since 2003 and I have never been harassed by citizens or the police, even when I venture out on my lonesome.

I have had exactly two run-ins with the police, both times in the same small city. Once, because I accidentally committed a traffic violation, and once because a motorcycle cop want to make sure I was in the country legally. I was, and he let me go. The first time, with the traffic violation, they asked me to go to the station and face a Q&A with my wife for an hour. That sucked. Rural cops are a-holes. But I can hardly sing the cry of the oppressed.

I understand that people in the US have some very distorted ideas about how law enforcement in Japan works. People like to cite the 98% conviction rate. But this is an apples-to-oranges comparison (a common journalistic error) that overlooks fundamental differences -- namely, that charges are only pressed in the first place if a civilian review board approves them.

A free society is one in which the people are able to chose their destinies. They are able to make choices about the lives they lead. This means not just atomic, individual freedom, but also being able to function as part of a community that sets community rules. Japan has that. America, increasingly, does not.

[ December 19, 2012, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald half of what you said sounds about as propagandistic is anything that's ever come out of the NRA. If you compare the total suicide rate to the gun suicide rate, the sleight of hand of that "gun suicide" brainwashing becomes apparent.

Another fact: within the USA, Americans are not the most prolific killers per Capita. So ease up on the nationalistic bombast.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
The gun control "debate" is starting to appear to be two conflicting religions. Both sides just have faith that they are correct. Any evidence to the contrary is suspect. [Frown]

Probably why so many take the constitutional tact. Viscus is easier to pin down than ethereal.

I already was discussing gun issues in America with one of my classes before the shooting. Ultimately I find there's not much conclusive to say. States with strict gun control aren't necessarily safer but states with more lax gun controls aren't either.

You can easily find anecdotes of people defending their homes and twarting crimes with their guns on the web, but usually the sites they're on have a pro-gun agenda.

Like you I think this is like a religion for many people on both sides. They've already arrived at their conclusions and have no interest in contratry arguments.

Get your life had been saved by someone with a gun, wouldn't that tend to give you a program to attend? I personally be more suspicious someone that laid out stories and facts about life being saved by private peopleenterprise with guns, and then pretended to be neutral on a matter of gun control.

People in possession of such facts would tend to be biased towards gun rights. That would be a stupid reason to dismiss their stories.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The problem with most gun restrictions the way I see it is they are minor inconveniences to the repeat of the situations like these that generate the outcry for stricter laws.


It's too easy for the mentally unwell to get weapons.
Against: Shooter didn't own the weapons and murdered someone (his mother) to get them.
For: True statement even if it didn't apply. I did not have to go through any type of mental evaluation to get my permit but I believe they can disqualify you if you had answered you had, or they found you lied about having, a diagnosed condition.

Magazines of 10 rounds or less are more dangerous to the public.
Against: [i]Shooter had 3 weapons and could have taken roughly the same amount of lives without reloading.

For: While I see it as a prevention in a small sub set of thankfully already rare occurrences there isn't really a rational downsize to this suggestion. I consider it false security but at little cost other than possible slippery slope arguments.


We need to reinstate the assault weapons ban.
Against: Connecticut had their own state assault weapons ban in place. I read the weapons used did not qualify as assault weapons under it.
For: Well I can't think of a good reason for. It's a silly law based way too much around cosmetics and not around the lethal potential the weapon has just so they could avoid catching hunting rifles with their net. It's a law against scary looking guns and little more IMO.

Automatic weapons / machine guns / military weapons should be banned.
Against: The weapons used were not classified as the first two and the AR-15 is only “military” by virtue of cosmetics. (and maybe caliber?)
For: I agree with the first two parts of this, but those laws are already on the books and enforced fairly well. All 3 parts if “military weapons” is refering to the fully automatic variants who's appearance is the basis for several semi-automatic weapons.

Laws alone do not keep us safe. For them to work we nee enforcement AND for the law breakers to fear the punishment of breaking those laws. This is the part lacking in almost all of these shootings. Response time of our police takes far longer than a shooter needs to inflict horrific casualties. Many of these shooters are suicidal and take their own life or are awaiting suicide by cop. Facing a jury and going to prison are not a factor in their decision to inflict harm or their method of doing so.

Identifying threats early and changing our culture is what is needed and no law maker can solve this problem for us immediately. Well, short of trying to make our borders impenetrable and confiscating every gun (not just assault weapons). This could help end the war on drugs and illegal immigration too! I expect our law makers to do something. I just don't have any faith it will be something productive. That mental health is becoming part of the discussion nationally does make me a little hopeful though.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, can you download a Decoder Ring-tone or something? [Smile]
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Pete, can you download a Decoder Ring-tone or something? [Smile]

I'll send you translations. Sometimes think you're the only 1 that tries to understand what I'm saying.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can sort most of it out just like to pick on ya. Glad you can participate despite your lack of a proper computer. [Razz]
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Get your life had been saved by someone with a gun, wouldn't that tend to give you a program to attend? I personally be more suspicious someone that laid out stories and facts about life being saved by private peopleenterprise with guns, and then pretended to be neutral on a matter of gun control.

People in possession of such facts would tend to be biased towards gun rights. That would be a stupid reason to dismiss their stories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pete, chill out. I pretty much am in agreement with D.W. accross the board so far.

In fact here I am discussing the issue on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn9cX5BaqYc

[ December 19, 2012, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Per my translation of Pete, he was just stating that the very fact of reporting on a successful self defense or defense of others with a firearm situation may sway you to be pro-gun.

Well maybe less "reporting" as relaying a story about.

To expand on that; if you are anti-gun ownership you would choose not to report about it at all for fear it would give weight to your opponents.

[ December 19, 2012, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DL and VL, we haven't talked about these things here but are you in favor of the following? For any that you are not in favor of can you give a brief explanation?

1. Background checks on all sales of guns, including post-initial private sales and transfers.
2. Registration and inspection of all guns on a annual or biennial basis.
3. Mandatory training and certification of all users of a gun with periodic recertification.
4. Access to gun storage (e.g., locked cabinets) only by registered owner.
5. Rights of private property owners/managers to bar handguns on premises.
6. Owner requirement to produce gun for inspection on demand by representatives of controlling jurisdiction (i.e., city or state).
7. Declaration when gun is transported across state lines.
8. Limit on the number of guns an individual can purchase in a year.

[ December 19, 2012, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1: In favor.

2: I have a problem with this because of logistics involved. I don't like the idea of going to S.O.S. (D.M.V.) and slapping my pistol on the counter, or worse a hunters full rifle collection, for inspection.

I think a card sent to you which lists the registered weapons and serial numbers for you to verify and mail back would be sufficient. This way you affirm that you are still in possession of the weapons. If any turn up connected to a crime you cannon't just say, oh that was stolen ages ago... You are held responsible for verifying your weapons are still "your" weapons. Make failure to report the theft of a weapon an offence you can be fined for (maybe it is?) in addition to the now legal hassle to discount you as a suspect. Maybe your fine is related to the wasted man hours spent doing so?

3. Maybe an exception for antique collectible, yet functional, weapons? I don't know on this.

4. Too hard to enforce. You could make it a law but it's likely to be a minor punishment on top of whatever other charges or tragedy face the penalized. Adding to this, what are the conditions where the gun must be in the safe? Oh, I had it out to clean it? Must it be locked while I sleep or can I have it unsecured in case of an intruder in the night? Only secured when you leave the house? Very problematic law IMO.

5. Already in force, I agree with entirely.

6. Please clarify what you mean. The way I'm reading it, a big "hell no"

7. Prefer the current reciprocity laws to this, prefer standardized / federal laws even more.

8. Implications for small business owners? I think having an arsonel is a sign you are a bit off but people collect weird ****. I'm uneasy about this one but if I was a local law enforcement officer I'd be very "curious" as to why they felt the need for large numbers of guns. In this case, once you reach a threshold, I would rethink your #6. Maybe a merger of these two concepts. Still this one is very much infringing upon someone's privacy in an ugly way IMO. I like the intent if I can dare infer motive [Smile] but the method makes me uneasy.

[ December 19, 2012, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If there ever really was an American gun ban do you think the Canadian government might sell thousands of guns to some of our most violent criminals so they could prey upon an unarmed American populace the way our American government did in Mexico?
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you think that anyone is proposing a ban?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DW - people collect weird things, but there are already limits on some things that people want to collect. For instance products of endangered animals are not legal to accumulate (or to have at all). Actually now that I think about it in many states you also can't "collect" live animals, there are limits on the number an individual is allowed to keep. Pretty compelling reasons for both of these; since I see a potential pretty compelling reason to limit the number of a firearms an individual can own, I don't think that "people have a freedom to collect things" is a good argument against.

I don't know exactly what the limit ought to be, though...but I guess that's why we have policy wonks.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"6. Please clarify what you mean. The way I'm reading it, a big "hell no""

I meant what you think I meant [Wink] .

Thought of another:

9. Bullet sample (to identify rifling pattern) required when gun registered.

[ December 20, 2012, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1. Yes
2. No, it's too late to enforce it.
3. No, this is completely unconstitutional
4. No, this is uninforcable.
5. Yes
6. No, not enforcable
7. No, this is not enforcable. There aren't any checkpoints.
8. Absolutely no

Most of these proposals might be practical if all the guns in the country suddenly vanished and we started over from scratch. As it is there are too many guns in circulation for what you're proposing to be practical.

Now if we are talking about high capacity military grade weaponry you might be able to enforce these rules to an extent. Most of the people who own thas kind of weapon are serious gun owners and there aren't that many of them. Expecting everyone with a handgun or a hunting weapon to do this is impractical.

It also looks like a good way to put even more blacks and latinos in prison.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh and given there are an estimated 88 firearms for every 100 Americans you're talking about registering and regulating hundreds of millions of weapons.

We have too many people in prison already in this country. We don't need another excuse to lock people up.

And no you don't get to avoid race in this discussion.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
I've spent a great amount of time in Japan, in many different parts of Japan, doing many different things. It is no less free than the United States.

Admittedly I have not spent as much time as you have in Japan, though I know others non-asians who lived there for multiple years and have heard about various experiences they had.

I certainly do not mean to compare modern Japan with a brutal dictatorship, there are gradients... but I'm sure you know what I mean when I try to explain that the culture is very different from the USA. It is very difficult to explain, but it is just very "group" oriented, I'm not sure how else to say it.

Privacy protections in particular are something that most in the USA would consider severely lacking in Japan. And even if you did not have personal issues with the police there, I know multiple people who did. The fact is that the police do have much broader power than they do here, and combined with the difficult to explain culture I have alluded to, it creates a very strange dynamic... again for anyone who has not seen it, I'm not sure how to explain, but to me it is very uncomfortable.

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Most of these proposals might be practical if all the guns in the country suddenly vanished and we started over from scratch. As it is there are too many guns in circulation for what you're proposing to be practical."

That's true if people resisted following the laws. This is what I find frustrating about defenders of "gun rights". Since there are ways to subvert well-meant policies that would reduce the amount of gun violence, let's not even try.

I'm a long-time C++ developer and got to hear Bjarne Stroustrup at a conference back in the late 80's. This story won't make much sense if you're not a C/C++ programmer yourself. When a C programmer challenged him after he spoke that the strong data typing system in C++ was useless because it could be subverted if a programmer wanted to do that, he calmly answered that strong typing wasn't intended to prevent fraud, but to encourage code reliability through safe programming practices. The audience recognized in what he said that although anything a good programmer can do in C++ they can also do in C, the converse is also true. He won a lot of converts that day.

The same applies to gun laws as well as safe practice laws in many other areas. They aren't designed to take away your rights or guarantee that no one would do improper things, but to provide a framework that offered the best combination of opportunities for you and protections for the rest of us.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al

Ok so let's presume all the guns already in circulation are subject to your regulations. Now if I'm a service sector worker living from paycheck to paycheck I neither have the time to comply nor the money to pay the fees. Yet I also feel like I need to keep my gun for self-defense or for hunting. So what am I going to do? I'm going to break the law.

Now if I get caught with that gun I'm looking at either a massive fine or jail time. Well I can't pay the fine so I get to go to jail.

Now I've got a criminal record and have done time in jail even though I at no time did anything harmful to another individual.

Sorry but this is even worse than the war on drugs.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"Most of these proposals might be practical if all the guns in the country suddenly vanished and we started over from scratch. As it is there are too many guns in circulation for what you're proposing to be practical."

That's true if people resisted following the laws. This is what I find frustrating about defenders of "gun rights". Since there are ways to subvert well-meant policies that would reduce the amount of gun violence, let's not even try.

The problem is that we *have* tried extreme measures with other things like drugs/alcohol. The results speak for themselves and I fail to see why it would be different with guns.
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al,

"Noel, I'm really just trying to pin you down on what you mean... So far you call people with low IQ stupid, and based on my probing you agree that they lack the ability to tell right from wrong (moral judgment). You haven't explained exactly how the MMPI will determine suitability... You're really not helping me to understand."...

No, I did not say people with a low IQ are unable to tell the difference between right, and wrong. That is just one trait which falls within the realm of disqualifying mental disorders, and is connected to a compromised capacity for empathy. What is so difficult to understand about this? They should not have access to firearms... ditto for individuals with below average ability to evaluate, and solve problems. I never took you for someone intent upon guaranteeing second amendment rights for anyone... let alone preserving them for mentally deficient, or defective, members of society. Is it the mere acknowledgement that such individuals can be isolated through testing that bothers you so much?

"I'll make up a corollary to 'never bring a knife to a gun fight', which is 'don't try to stop a man ready to kill your daughter with a knife by looking for your gun'."...

A man "ready to kill (my) daughter", is a man ready to be shot. Again, I do not understand your dilemma.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noel, that is why it is so often useless and frustrating to try to have a discussion with you.

[VL:] "Sorry but this is even worse than the war on drugs."

Why stop there? How about a paraplegic on food stamps who keeps a gun in her apartment for protection who scrapes up the bus fare to go to the police station to register the gun. On the way she is mugged and her gun, wallet and wheelchair are all stolen. OMG! Now she can't move, eat or protect herself. Look what gun regulations did to this poor woman!

If we can afford to spend many $100Ms to make sure not a single person casts a vote illegally in a single year's elections, even though there is scant evidence it ever happens, how much should people be willing to spend to eliminate 1,000 murders committed with guns when we know that over 12,000 are killed with them in that same year?

[ December 20, 2012, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If any of my suggestions are actually implemented (hah!) I think the government should set aside some amount of money for a weapon buy-back program. Even the gun lobby should be happy with that, since it would likely mean that more guns get sold.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Noel, that is why it is so often useless and frustrating to try to have a discussion with you.

[VL:] "Sorry but this is even worse than the war on drugs."

Why stop there? How about a paraplegic on food stamps who keeps a gun in her apartment for protection who scrapes up the bus fare to go to the police station to register the gun. On the way she is mugged and her gun, wallet and wheelchair are all stolen. OMG! Now she can't move, eat or protect herself. Look what gun regulations did to this poor woman!

If we can afford to spend many $100Ms to make sure not a single person casts a vote illegally in a single year's elections, even though there is scant evidence it ever happens, how much should people be willing to spend to eliminate 1,000 murders committed with guns when we know that over 12,000 are killed with them in that same year?

In my view, to make the argument compelling we need to conclusively show that eliminating 1,000 gun murders will not add 1,000 murders in some other category. If the overall murder rate does not change then I don't see why we should bother. And we can't trot out stats from other countries and cite their gun laws, because I'm not impressed with mere correlation, I want to see real statistics which conclusively demonstrate causality.

I think we'll see much better results if we strive to change the culture and provide comprehensive mental health care. Our attitude towards violence in the USA is not healthy IMO. In much of the rest of the western world, violence is censored instead of sex. We've got our priorities wrong.

[ December 20, 2012, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: LinuxFreakus ]

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"In my view, to make the argument compelling we need to conclusively show that eliminating 1,000 gun murders will not add 1,000 murders in some other category."

Nobody can prove that. Again, that means we shouldn't try to balance opportunity with protection?

"I think we'll see much better results if we strive to change the culture and provide comprehensive mental health care."

What changes would you make to our culture and over what period of time would the positive effects manifest?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
If any of my suggestions are actually implemented (hah!) I think the government should set aside some amount of money for a weapon buy-back program. Even the gun lobby should be happy with that, since it would likely mean that more guns get sold.

I'm fine with a weapons buy back program. And I've never heard anyone object to them.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you combined gun registration with a modest annual tax on the gun (say, 1% of initial price per year), that should help fund buybacks, and at the same time should help encourage people to keep track of the guns, rather than accumulating an unnecessary stockpile.

Al, you talk about trying, so why don't you try to come up with solutions than don't infringe on fundamental constitutional rights?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's another pushback that annoys me, that the 2A is so absolute that any restrictions are an outright Constitutional attack. Give it a rest, I have no interest in rebutting that kind of extreme argument.

But since you're a lawyer, how do you square people's unrestricted right to have any number of any kind of gun they want with any gun laws at all?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is what I find frustrating about defenders of "gun rights". Since there are ways to subvert well-meant policies that would reduce the amount of gun violence, let's not even try.
Law abiding people are not the problem. This is what I find frustrating about defenders of “gun control”. But we pass laws to give the ignorant something to cling to and say, “There, we did something.”
Any less fair of a generalization?

quote:
I think we'll see much better results if we strive to change the culture and provide comprehensive mental health care. Our attitude towards violence in the USA is not healthy IMO. In much of the rest of the western world, violence is censored instead of sex. We've got our priorities wrong.
Well said Linux, couldn’t agree more.

quote:
What changes would you make to our culture and over what period of time would the positive effects manifest?
Start with what he mentioned. Graphic violence should be NC-17. I am a huge fan of stylized and over the top violent action movies. That said there is zero reason for youngster to be exposed to these. Can you really keep kids from seeing them given the link with the internet and media now? Probably not well but let’s at least try.

Toy guns, probably not the best idea either. I’m in the, they’re mostly harmless, camp but mostly isn’t 100% sure they’re not harmless. Express more diversity in our media. Kids should see another kid not a racial or religious group. Have more activities in school that are open to everyone. Try to minimize small homogenous social groups. In short, try to prevent children from becoming outcasts and from others bullying them. Teach our kids to value themselves rather than basing their self image on what others think of them.

The same goes for violent video games. I play the heck out of violent video games and love them. But again, a kid has no reason to have access to them. I don't see any harm in them for well adjusted mature people. Lets help them grow up to be well adjusted and mature THEN let them play these games if they want.

Have our news media focus much more heavily on stories which show people helping each other and going out of their way to do the right thing. Don’t JUST tell us about all the horrible things happening in our world. Don’t shelter us mind you but the majority of people are good. Give them at least equal time to the outliers who are doing awful things.

Teach our young children early on and continuously through their schooling about both physical and mental health. Not to mention teaching them about our society and laws. Show them what we do right and where we fall short as a people and how we can improve. Show them we are broken so maybe when they grow up they can fix our messes.

Oh, also focus on economics. Lack of jobs and options can lead to crime and depression.

[ December 20, 2012, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, I had considered your proposal as well as a tax on ammo or higher registration fees. Isn't there a risk of making guns a luxury?

Poor people have the same desire for self defense and the same desire to hunt. It this not one small step towards criminalizing poverty? In fact the poor probably have a more pressing need for self defense than those with a higher disposable income who can absorb any increase in gun expenses easily.

[ December 20, 2012, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Donald half of what you said sounds about as propagandistic is anything that's ever come out of the NRA. If you compare the total suicide rate to the gun suicide rate, the sleight of hand of that "gun suicide" brainwashing becomes apparent.

What exactly is the sleight of hand to which you are referring? I only brought up the suicide statistics to illustrate that there are a large number of firearms in Canada - my statement about suicide didn't imply anything about the USA.

I think you're reading more into that post than what I actually wrote.

BTW, "Americans" in this context means those that live in the USA and are daily affected by the pervasive gun sentiments of the populace. Whether they have citizenship, a green card, a student visa or are living in the country illegally makes little difference to a person being exposed to the more liberal US views on firearm ownership and use.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Law abiding people are not the problem. This is what I find frustrating about defenders of “gun control”. But we pass laws to give the ignorant something to cling to and say, “There, we did something.”
Any less fair of a generalization?"

Yes, because one argument amounts to "do nothing" and the other says "do something". Doing nothing only makes sense if the right truly is absolute, which is, as Kid has pointed out repeatedly, a very modern interpretation.

Same question to you as to Pete: If it is that inviolable and uninfringable a right, how can we justify having any laws at all governing guns?

"Toy guns, probably not the best idea either. I’m in the, they’re mostly harmless, camp but mostly isn’t 100% sure they’re not harmless."

When I was a kid all of the top rated shows on TV were westerns, as were many of the most popular movies. Every kid had all kinds of toy guns and we didn't grow up to be gangsters. If anything we wanted to be cowboys. Instead of westerns and cowboys now we have crime shows and cops or detectives. Why should it be any different?

[ December 20, 2012, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DW, I strongly share your concerns about making guns a luxury. Particularly since the poor are in most need of to self defense.

That's why I suggested a small tax based on 1% initial cost. A low end handgun or shotgun costs $3-400, right? I don't think that a yearly cost of 4 dollars would take the gun out of the reach of the poor.

The tax could be curved at the high end, say to 5% of stockpiles value beyond $10,000.

Tax statementon could say something to the effect of, " I declare under penalty of perjury, that I have examined the gun on the day of making this declaration, that it remains in my possession, and that the serial numbers are still clearly marked as #------------"

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, be reasonable. ALL rights, including fundamental constitutional rights, may be compromise to the balance against other rights. We take the right to vote from felons. We certainly should take the right to bear arms from them. For f**** sake, Al, there are restrictions on freedom of speech which the Supreme Court has approved is constitutional. You are the 1 that introduced the phrase "inviolable"

I would also appreciate it if you would stop using the phrase "doing nothing" as coterminous to "not doing precisely what Al wants." That is getting tiresome.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 39 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  37  38  39   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1