RE: Guns

RE: Guns (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Guns

There is too much regulation already.

10% (28)

There should be far more stringent background checks.

15% (39)

Reinstate the ban on assault guns.

11% (29)

Make conceal and carry the law in all 50 states.

10% (28)

Make gun classes mandatory.

16% (42)

The only guns availible to the public should be hunting rifles.

4% (12)

The 2nd amendment includes individuals owning firearms.

21% (54)

The 2nd amendment does not include individuals, it's been distorted.

3% (8)

I wish my country had gun laws similar to the US

0% (1)

I don't want my country to have gun laws like the US

6% (16)

Total Votes : 257

(last vote on : 2/2/2013 9:53:19 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

Focus50 -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 1:33:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Are you saying that if we would just repeal the 2nd and 4th and convert to your way of thinking we would be reasonable? This is typical of your credibility issues and why I've mostly stopped engaging you. In the other thread, I said words to the effect (of the 2nd amendment) that you don't throw away a perfectly good car because the windscreen's cracked - you fix what's broken...! Is it reasonable to you that a 200yo statute still doesn't need some fixing for the times we live in NOW? If so, we're done (again). I remember an insightful comment from an old Law & Order episode - "that the law should be stable but not stand still". The lesson being you evolve with the times.... What odds you're only gonna see me as quoting something from television fiction? <shrugs> quote: Why don't you adopt our constitution then you could be reasonable Your history is not ours or anyone else's. The 2nd amendment was right for America 2 centuries ago (or whenever). It has no need or relevance in ours. Probably not the 4th, either, whatever that is.... You think Australia is primitive or bacwards, that law & order is akin to your old wild west? Or other modern, progressive western nations? Focus.

imdoingitagain -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 1:39:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Semantics. I have never said anything indicated in your post. Hyperbole, actually... There's a difference.

jlf1961 -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 2:19:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 As far as I recall, you haven't. What you have done is typical of all the pro-gunners posting in these discussions. Steadfastly refused to accept there's anything wrong with those INEFFECTIVE laws you speak of. You just go all paranoid and defensive and treat us like foreign invaders. Like gun related deaths are uniquely American and have no correlation to gun related deaths in Australia or other western nations. And you're certainly not willing to talk about reasonable potential reforms - TILL NOW. I've posted many times now - that the only reforms pro-gun Americans have been willing to consider have been gun classes, background checks and armed guards in schools - passive reforms. It's only since yesterday you've been willing to talk "middle ground" - FACT. Focus. Actually, I argued against complete bans, Something I am steadfastly against. The problem is that, here, the bans on specific weapons really do not work. During the first assault weapon ban, 1994-2004, while the ban prevented the sale of new assault weapons, it did not impact crime, as the proponents claimed it would, and the Columbine school shooting took place. quote: The data came from an extensive tabulation by Mark Follman at Mother Jones. Except for 1999, a year of five shootings (including the Columbine massacre), the assault ban period was peaceful by US standards: Years Shootings Per year People shot/year 1982-1994 19 1.5 25.5 1995-2004 16 1.6 20.9 2005-2012 27 3.4* 54.8* Did the federal ban on assault weapons matter? [image]http://election.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/targets-in-mass-shootings-500px1.jpg[/image] Bans were all that anyone talked about on the gun control side. In other topics on gun control, I have mentioned legitimate use. I mean it takes a federal permit and license for private individuals to purchase explosives, which includes a intended use. And there are mandatory storage regulations. Some firearms should have an intended use rider on the purchase of those weapons, and an AR for urban home defense would not be a legitimate use in my opinion, neither would using the thing as a hunting rifle with a mag with a capacity of more than ten rounds. Large capacity magazines should have an intended use rider on their purchase. There are a lot of places I am willing to compromise, but an out right ban of a specific gun type or all guns is not something I am willing to concede. As I have said, the AR15 is the most versatile design that was ever produced. Hence its popularity with people who need a specific type of rifle for a specific type of application. Compare this company's sport rifles with their tactic rifles. They are almost identical.

jlf1961 -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 2:29:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Are you saying that if we would just repeal the 2nd and 4th and convert to your way of thinking we would be reasonable? This is typical of your credibility issues and why I've mostly stopped engaging you. In the other thread, I said words to the effect (of the 2nd amendment) that you don't throw away a perfectly good car because the windscreen's cracked - you fix what's broken...! Is it reasonable to you that a 200yo statute still doesn't need some fixing for the times we live in NOW? If so, we're done (again). I remember an insightful comment from an old Law & Order episode - "that the law should be stable but not stand still". The lesson being you evolve with the times.... What odds you're only gonna see me as quoting something from television fiction? <shrugs> quote: Why don't you adopt our constitution then you could be reasonable Your history is not ours or anyone else's. The 2nd amendment was right for America 2 centuries ago (or whenever). It has no need or relevance in ours. Probably not the 4th, either, whatever that is.... You think Australia is primitive or bacwards, that law & order is akin to your old wild west? Or other modern, progressive western nations? Focus. You might change your mind about the fourth amendment. fourth amendment. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. As for Australia, it is not primitive or backwards, IMO, and the amount of developed land is small compared to the US, since the only undeveloped land are in national forests and other areas that are protected.

Ronnie1986 -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 3:34:18 PM)
The Utah Sheriffs' Association has written an official letter to President Barack Obama warning of a deadly war over guns if the president and Congress enact the gun bans, gun registration, and gun control measures Obama has recommended to Congress, according to Sipsey Street Irregulars which received a copy of the letter. The key paragraph in the letter is as follows: We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights -- in particular Amendment II -- has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation. The Utah sheriffs join a growing list of law enforcement agencies in at least a half dozen states that have indicated they will not enforce any federal law that infringes on the Second Amendment and that any federal official who attempts to enforce such laws will be arrested and jailed. http://www.examiner.com/article/sheriffs-warn-obama-of-deadly-war-over-guns?CID=obinsite it doesnt really matter what people from other countries think.. if you already lost your rights it doesnt mean we will bow down and lose ours.. all i see on my facebook news feed is talk of war.. with the local governments slowly coming forward gaining the courage to stand up and back there citizens in war.. there will be blood shed unlike anything in egypt currently.. no matter how much you debate it on a kink site it wont change a thing..

Politesub53 -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 4:00:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Semantics. I have never said anything indicated in your post. Hyperbole, actually... There's a difference. You are wrong again, actually.

Politesub53 -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 4:04:36 PM)
JLF, by your own link figures have skyrocketed since the ban ended. Do you not get the connection ? Since the expiration of the gun ban in 2004, the number of shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims per year has nearly tripled. Three of the bloodiest four years shown here occurred since the expiration.

Nosathro -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 4:10:16 PM)
You keep bring Columbine as proof the Assault gun ban did not work. It did, Harris and Klebold did not have any assualt rifles, they had shot guns, pistols, a carbine and Tec-9 which is classifed as a pistol. The shotguns had the barrels and butts cut off (they watched to many movies) the Tec-9 (The Tec DC9 was banned.)had a 52 round magazine, 32 round magazine and a 28 round magazine. The carbine had 10 round magazines, some 13 of them. Robyn Anderson and Philip Duran friends of Harris and Klebold, adults who legally bought the weapons for them. You fail to understand what the ban was about. During the period when the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's flowchart of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device, except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. The law also banned possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms, but did not ban possession or sale of pre-existing 'assault weapons' or previously factory standard magazines that were legally redefined as large capacity ammunition feeding devices. This provision for pre-ban firearms created higher prices in the market for such items, which still exist due to several states adopting their own assault weapons bans. Now did the ban reduce crime, yes even the chart you posted shows a decrease and a higher increase in assault weapons use. http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2012/08/29/gun-laws-rosenthal But you will be happy to know Feinstein new bill was rejected http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2013/01/30/senate-judiciary-chair-rejects-dianne-feinstein%E2%80%99s-assault-weapons-ban/

deathtothepixies -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 4:27:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MyEnemy quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Regarding AR15 rate of fire.......... Got any facts...... [8\|] It's difficult to have an intelligent conversation about guns with people who don't have the slightest fucking clue what they're talking about. But since that's what we're stuck with, and since you're the one who claimed "rate of fire" as a factor with the AR-15, where are your facts? Hmm? You want a fact? I'll give you one: You don't even know what a semi-automatic firearm is. Because if you did, you wouldn't be making these claims. K. The usual pedantry,I am still waiting to hear how Lanza would have killed more K Please entertain us A stolen dump truck and kids getting off a bus to go into school is the first thing that comes to my mind If I think about how I'd kill a bunch of kids. I guess you don't have much imagination if you can't think of any way to kill a person without a gun. Try reading a book some day. I can see the future headlines now..... 2 years after tightening gun laws America is swept by a wave of dump truck massacres, pro truckers insist that the only possible answer is for every citizen to own dump trucks, for protection only of course. Pro gunners say that they knew this would happen I think you are reading the wrong books

deathtothepixies -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 4:36:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Regarding AR15 rate of fire.......... Got any facts...... [8\|] It's difficult to have an intelligent conversation about guns with people who don't have the slightest fucking clue what they're talking about. But since that's what we're stuck with, and since you're the one who claimed "rate of fire" as a factor with the AR-15, where are your facts? Hmm? You want a fact? I'll give you one: You don't even know what a semi-automatic firearm is. Because if you did, you wouldn't be making these claims. K. The usual pedantry,I am still waiting to hear how Lanza would have killed more K Please entertain us the guy who blew up the school in Michigan used a bomb. No guns necessary in that one. Indeed there were not, however death by bomb isn't the most used method of mass killing is it? Making a "successful" bomb takes a bit of skill, a bit of time and quite a lot of materials. Are there bombs in most American homes? No. Are there guns in most American homes? Yes. There are many many different ways to kill a lot of people but a gun is pretty much the only one that is easy to buy or easy to steal from the majority of American homes.....there you go mate, have a mass killing device, just like that

jlf1961 -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 4:53:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 JLF, by your own link figures have skyrocketed since the ban ended. Do you not get the connection ? Since the expiration of the gun ban in 2004, the number of shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims per year has nearly tripled. Three of the bloodiest four years shown here occurred since the expiration. Except the shootings involving assault weapons are still less than 2% of gun crime. Since Columbine, there has been an average of 2 mass shootings a year, now in 2012, it jumped to 16. Two are too many, and 16 is unreasonable, yet there is an underlying question about 2012 that nobody is asking. Feinstein is looking at assault guns, which are not the primary weapon used.

Nosathro -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 5:57:13 PM)
First you try to use Columbine as proof the assault gun ban did not work, when no were used at Columbine, now you claim mass shooting are small, perhaps here is a list of mass shooting since Columbine, now count the dead....of course it small....as I have already expressed Feinstein bill has been defeated in the Judicary Committe, [sm=beatdeadhorse.gif] http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/

jlf1961 -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 6:14:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro First you try to use Columbine as proof the assault gun ban did not work, when no were used at Columbine, now you claim mass shooting are small, perhaps here is a list of mass shooting since Columbine, now count the dead....of course it small....as I have already expressed Feinstein bill has been defeated in the Judicary Committe, [sm=beatdeadhorse.gif] http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/ You are missing the point. Mass shootings are the rare incident, except for 2012, in which there were 16. Semi Automatic pistols, not covered under Feinsteins new bill, were used more often that assault weapons. Added to that is the fact that most of the shooters plan their attack for weeks before hand. Most mass shootings occur in an urban setting. The target group or building or institution is picked long before the actual shootings, not spur of the moment. Finally, what was so different in 2012 that suddenly we have 8 times as many mass shootings? I am not saying there should not be restrictions on who can and cannot buy certain weapons, and deeper back ground checks on those that want to purchase a restricted gun should be started. As for the Feinstein bill, it was not defeated, it just failed to get an endorsement from the Democratic Senator in charge of the committee. Feinstein is asking, actually demanding an independent hearing on her bill. But if the ban does not cover or address the weapon used in the majority of mass shootings, mind telling me what good it would be?

Focus50 -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 8:05:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Actually, I argued against complete bans, Something I am steadfastly against. The problem is that, here, the bans on specific weapons really do not work. I'm gonna take a slightly different tack in disagreeing with you here.... I think (even pre Port Arthur reforms) that some weapons simply don't belong in the public's hands, and have said as much a number of times. Full autos (rifle or pistol) being one. So yeah, I'm in favour of blanket bans on specific weapon types. Btw, this particular ban was in force here decades before Port Arthur, anyway. If you wanna fire a full auto in Oz, you join one of the armed services or qualify for the Police Force's Tactical Response Group (TRG - like your SWAT). Thing is, when I suggest that in gun topics, all I ever get is a whole bunch of "it's already illegal to own/possess full autos in the US - EXCEPT". Much like being "a little bit pregnant", there's no such thing! They're illegal to have, or they're not - which? If just one member of average Joe Public can navigate whatever forms and pass whatever background checks and pay whatever fees etc to legally obtain a working full auto no matter what vintage, then no, they're not illegal in the US. So what's the problem with a blanket ban, here? You and BAMA apparently know for a fact that no-one in the entire United States would ever go hunting with one.... Again, I'm arguing from a perspective of reining in an out-of-control gun culture and not the frequency with which full autos contribute to homicides or crime etc. ie, you start somewhere. And no, I'm certainly NOT advocating the US adopt our gun laws, either. I'm talking "middle ground", too. Focus.

BamaD -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 8:39:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Are you saying that if we would just repeal the 2nd and 4th and convert to your way of thinking we would be reasonable? This is typical of your credibility issues and why I've mostly stopped engaging you. In the other thread, I said words to the effect (of the 2nd amendment) that you don't throw away a perfectly good car because the windscreen's cracked - you fix what's broken...! Is it reasonable to you that a 200yo statute still doesn't need some fixing for the times we live in NOW? If so, we're done (again). I remember an insightful comment from an old Law & Order episode - "that the law should be stable but not stand still". The lesson being you evolve with the times.... What odds you're only gonna see me as quoting something from television fiction? <shrugs> quote: Why don't you adopt our constitution then you could be reasonable Your history is not ours or anyone else's. The 2nd amendment was right for America 2 centuries ago (or whenever). It has no need or relevance in ours. Probably not the 4th, either, whatever that is.... You think Australia is primitive or bacwards, that law & order is akin to your old wild west? Or other modern, progressive western nations? Focus. You got one thing right, our history is not your history. You see lots of guns threat to individuals, we see gun bans, Hitler Stalin and Mussillini. If we had had this discussion in the late thirties the Russians Germans and Italians would have lined up right with you. Before you go off the deep end I am not calling you a Nazi, a Facsit, or a communist, just something to think about. Any other admendment you would like for us to repeal while we are at it? Once you start messing with the operating system the computer will never work right again. Your "fix" of the 2nd is a virtual repeal which once again is saying if we would just be you everything would be ok. No reason for me to allude to your dependence on fiction you have already admitted that your knowlege of the American crime situation and law enforcement comes from that source why should I try to make a point which you have already proven.

jlf1961 -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 8:43:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Actually, I argued against complete bans, Something I am steadfastly against. The problem is that, here, the bans on specific weapons really do not work. I'm gonna take a slightly different tack in disagreeing with you here.... I think (even pre Port Arthur reforms) that some weapons simply don't belong in the public's hands, and have said as much a number of times. Full autos (rifle or pistol) being one. So yeah, I'm in favour of blanket bans on specific weapon types. Btw, this particular ban was in force here decades before Port Arthur, anyway. If you wanna fire a full auto in Oz, you join one of the armed services or qualify for the Police Force's Tactical Response Group (TRG - like your SWAT). Thing is, when I suggest that in gun topics, all I ever get is a whole bunch of "it's already illegal to own/possess full autos in the US - EXCEPT". Much like being "a little bit pregnant", there's no such thing! They're illegal to have, or they're not - which? If just one member of average Joe Public can navigate whatever forms and pass whatever background checks and pay whatever fees etc to legally obtain a working full auto no matter what vintage, then no, they're not illegal in the US. So what's the problem with a blanket ban, here? You and BAMA apparently know for a fact that no-one in the entire United States would ever go hunting with one.... Again, I'm arguing from a perspective of reining in an out-of-control gun culture and not the frequency with which full autos contribute to homicides or crime etc. ie, you start somewhere. And no, I'm certainly NOT advocating the US adopt our gun laws, either. I'm talking "middle ground", too. Focus. I said it was illegal to hunt with a full auto rifle, if I implied that no one did, I was wrong to do so, the five instances I know in Texas over the last 25 years have resulted in prison time, forfeiture of guns, heavy fines. Considering the number of hunters in Texas, that is a percent of a percent, very close to zero. Now I agree, a civilian owning a full auto weapon is just nuts. I mean what are they going to use it for other than target shooting? Now, as for a full ban of the AR rifle, considering the versatility of the gun, and the multiple configurations available, I am leaning more to a "intent of use" purchase restriction with a residence rider on the weapon. Some cities already have ordinances banning certain weapons within city limits, why not make it federal and mandatory? Of course, there are add ons that make the rate of fire of the AR higher, not full auto, but close, I would suggest those be banned. Collapsible stocks come in handy, and I have two rifles with that set up, but honestly I could live without them. NFA permitted silencers or suppressors, what ever you wish to call them, I know of only one civilian application for one, but that advantage is negligible to be honest, so I have no clue as to why John Q Public needs one except for illegal use, add to that there are instructions on making them on the internet, so how many illegal suppressors are on the streets? Laws need to be passed that put the teeth back into the ATF so they can enforce the laws already on the books. Stricter background checks up to and including a psyche eval. Mandatory storage regulations. And I am still thinking

Focus50 -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 8:49:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 You might change your mind about the fourth amendment. fourth amendment. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Nup; we've already got all that here, too. There are no secret police kicking doors in, or spontaneous search and seizures, Jo Public is not required to have "his papers" on his person at all times; there is freedom of speech and you can publically declare the Prime Minister to be the embarrassing nitwit she clearly is. Frankly, in comparison and esp since 9/11, the "land of the free" ain't so much the US anymore.... Think you've lost your crown... lol And hell, if there's even 1% truth in how Hollywood portrays the CIA and their dirty tricks or anything to do with national security.... Then there's Guantonamo.... quote: As for Australia, it is not primitive or backwards, IMO, and the amount of developed land is small compared to the US, since the only undeveloped land are in national forests and other areas that are protected. Well yeah, Oz is roughly the same area of what you call the "lower 48", if I'm understanding that to mean what I think (not incl Alaska or Hawaii?). But we only have about 1/15th your population. While there are significant national parks (size & quantity), there's even more of what's called "crown land". IE, belongs to either state or federal goverment (the people) and can be leased for approved purposes or is generally held for future development (housing estates etc) or preservation, too. And then there's "the Outback". That's for tourists and fanatics, IMO. Hell, there are those who choose to live in Alaska, too. lol Stupid tourists (the Outback), they have no concept of driving for 2-3 days without seeing another human being. You just can't seem to tell them to take plenty of water, just in case...! Also explains (Outback) why some 90% of Australians live within about 200k's of the coast - Australia's "dead heart". It's not that dead but - great shooting - just BE equipped, like you're going to the moon (almost). Focus.

Focus50 -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 9:07:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You got one thing right, our history is not your history. You see lots of guns threat to individuals, we see gun bans, Hitler Stalin and Mussillini. If we had had this discussion in the late thirties the Russians Germans and Italians would have lined up right with you. Before you go off the deep end I am not calling you a Nazi, a Facsit, or a communist, just something to think about. Any other admendment you would like for us to repeal while we are at it? Once you start messing with the operating system the computer will never work right again. Your "fix" of the 2nd is a virtual repeal which once again is saying if we would just be you everything would be ok. No reason for me to allude to your dependence on fiction you have already admitted that your knowlege of the American crime situation and law enforcement comes from that source why should I try to make a point which you have already proven. Figgers.... There are walls here in need of some head bangin'. Hooroo. Focus.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 9:50:47 PM)
http://www.aussielegal.com.au/informationoutline~nocache~1~SubTopicDetailsID~819.htm According to people who are actually licensed to practice law in those parts, Australians have the same rights against unreasonable searches and seizures as Americans do under the 'irrelevant' 200 year old 4th amendment... No xenophobia there at all, at all... [8\|]

TAFKAA -> RE: Guns (1/30/2013 9:54:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Please understand that I generally use fast reply. This is not directed at the most recent poster specifically. At 200+ posts on this thread, (and My admission that I haven't read every single post) I'm not really seeing much of it that is addressing illegal gun trafficking. Yes, the risks associated with that particular type of crime are pretty high, but it's not stopping anybody now and tighter gun controls are only going to make it more lucrative. Not to sound snarky, but I'm thinking that's an easier problem to control when the country is surrounded by water. Here? Not so much. It's not as easy as saying go where the gangs are and remove the guns. There's a lot more territory to cover when we're talking a land mass of one state being greater than of some entire countries. How do people think all of those firearms get to New York or LA? The presumption there is that gun deaths are primarily due to criminal activity - they're not. In the USA, most handgun homicides are instances of civilians using guns as a mediating force in a dispute with other civilians. More than 50% are suicides.

Page: << < prev 22 23 [24] 25 26 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.0625