Anti-gun nonsense

[awa54]

7000 human lives every year... why is that so easy for some to shrug off? that's the entire population of the town I live in! "Just" fifty killed in this most recent mass murder is bad enough...

As mentioned in previous posts, guns are just a tool, but there's obviously a problem in the US, when any tool is used to *intentionally* kill so many people.

What I think many proponents of "good guy with a gun" scenarios miss (or choose to ignore) is that we are no longer living in the wild west, a gun doesn't make you right and justified. In some respect "good guys with guns" are appointing themselves to pass judgement on the rest of society, rather than leaving that to law enforcement and the judiciary... If we want to live in a society where the rule of law protects all citizens from death by being shot, then something in gun culture, mental health care or law enforcement (likely all three) has to change... I don't claim to know the answer, but I don't think a total gun ban is the right way to go, or that any possible solution can happen in less than a few decades, but *something* should change.

Certainly, more guns aren't the fix, many "good guys" (and gals) have no interest in engaging in a firefight, many more don't possess the skills or disposition, even if they were willing... some just don't want to end another human life, even if justified. And believe it or not plenty of people have no interest in firearms whatsoever.

What makes you folks think the GGwaG, is going to "win" a shootout anyway??

[Evil D]

What makes you folks think the GGwaG, is going to "win" a shootout anyway??

Well I'll answer your question with a question. Would you rather have a fighting chance when you're standing in a club and a guy walks in and starts firing, to fire back and stop him and save your own life and everyone else's, or would you rather stand there and wait your turn to die?

I think many people who oppose guns and gun carry think we pro gun folks go around waiting for someone to call us out into the street at high noon for a shoot out. People assume that because you carry a gun, you have no problem shooting someone and killing them. That's the furthest from the truth. I hope and pray I never have to even pull my gun out let alone shoot someone. I don't want that on my conscience for the rest of my life. Honestly just typing it out scares the **** out of me. But, I will NOT stand by idly and do nothing while some maniac takes innocent lives. I will NOT stand there and wait my turn to die. I don't carry a gun to be a cowboy, I don't carry a gun to be a hero, I don't carry a gun because I feel empowered by it. I carry a gun because bad people will always be there to do bad things, and because the police will not always be there in time to save me.

[awa54]

What makes you folks think the GGwaG, is going to "win" a shootout anyway??

Well I'll answer your question with a question. Would you rather have a fighting chance when you're standing in a club and a guy walks in and starts firing, to fire back and stop him and save your own life and everyone else's, or would you rather stand there and wait your turn to die?

I think many people who oppose guns and gun carry think we pro gun folks go around waiting for someone to call us out into the street at high noon for a shoot out. People assume that because you carry a gun, you have no problem shooting someone and killing them. That's the furthest from the truth. I hope and pray I never have to even pull my gun out let alone shoot someone. I don't want that on my conscience for the rest of my life. Honestly just typing it out scares the **** out of me. But, I will NOT stand by idly and do nothing while some maniac takes innocent lives. I will NOT stand there and wait my turn to die. I don't carry a gun to be a cowboy, I don't carry a gun to be a hero, I don't carry a gun because I feel empowered by it. I carry a gun because bad people will always be there to do bad things, and because the police will not always be there in time to save me.

I respect your outlook/ethos on carry, but my (very unrealistic) preference is to live in a world where I don't need to fear for my safety so much that I feel compelled to carry a gun for defense.

I own several handguns, but they're stored away from the ammo and out of easy reach, they only come out for target use.

[The Deacon]

Hah! My ignorance of weoponry and hunting continues to shine through.... a SMLE? Wow. Are semi-automatic rifles (see - I'm learning!) useful in hunting or more for the enjoyment of using good or interesting guns?

Any action type, even a break open single shot, can be useful in hunting. Semi-autos offer the ability to get off a quick second shot. This can be a good thing, especially when dealing with a moving target, or an attempt to compensate for sloppy marksmanship.

Russian probably ... but my old man believes the US only entered the last war for profit and long leases on strategic bases. My mum loved the GI's stationed near her before D Day, though - too young to lindy-hop, they gave her gum. Britain was free from invasion risk by the time you chaps came over, anyway, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic though.

I'll leave you to guess what the Irish parents of some of my school chums had to say about the Brits. As for relevance none, beyond showing that we probably both harbor misconceptions of what life is like for the other and prejudices that "our way" is the best.

That doesn't sound so very unreasonable to me. Particularly if the Queen reads what you posted about us :cool:

:D

These are accidents, unintenional and often avoidable. I would consider these to be different from a carefully planned mass shooting

Accidental, negligent, or intentional, dead is dead. Is the innocent kid who gets hit by a stray bullet any less dead than the little gangsta the entire magazine worth of slugs was intended for? As for mass killings, I'm pretty certain that if someone wants to kill a group of people, they have a lot of methods to chose from, especially if they have the backing of a hate group, whether it be radical Islam, radical Christian Fundamentalism, white supremacists, black supremacists, or Hispanic separatists.

It was unintended, but I accept your comment. Also to be honest I am unsure whether "gun control" means in your context restricting what type of guns can be owned or includes increased checks or restrictions on who can own them, and whether there is considered to be a difference. As I said before, you'd never get the genie back in the bottle even if you all wanted to so the former would appear to be a pointless exercise to attempt, but to prevent these outrages, is arming your entire population really the only answer?

No, I would not force people to own guns any more than I'd force law abiding citizens who wish to own them from doing so. As for the rest, the way I see it, gun ownership here is already restricted but the laws are often either enforced unjustly or not enforced at all.

New York City is a glaring example of the first. For at least the past 100 years they've prevented most law abiding citizens from owning a handgun while allowing people who have questionable backgrounds but strong political connections and those willing to pay substantial bribes to police officials to have them.

As an example of the other, it has been a Federal crime for at least 48 years for anyone convicted of a felony to possess a firearm. Yet, with the possible exception of one or two cases too "high profile" to ignore, that law is never enforced when a felon caught re-offending is found to be in possession of a gun, or even when they use it in a violent crime. The ATF would rather attempt to entrap gun dealers. It is also a felony for any prohibited person to even attempt to purchase a firearm. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, not one single case where someone failed the government's "instant background check" when they tried to purchase a firearm has ever be prosecuted.

Perhaps you can understand why I find no rational reason to believe that further "gun laws" would accomplish anything other that to disarm the law abiding.

[Evil D]

What makes you folks think the GGwaG, is going to "win" a shootout anyway??

Well I'll answer your question with a question. Would you rather have a fighting chance when you're standing in a club and a guy walks in and starts firing, to fire back and stop him and save your own life and everyone else's, or would you rather stand there and wait your turn to die?

I think many people who oppose guns and gun carry think we pro gun folks go around waiting for someone to call us out into the street at high noon for a shoot out. People assume that because you carry a gun, you have no problem shooting someone and killing them. That's the furthest from the truth. I hope and pray I never have to even pull my gun out let alone shoot someone. I don't want that on my conscience for the rest of my life. Honestly just typing it out scares the **** out of me. But, I will NOT stand by idly and do nothing while some maniac takes innocent lives. I will NOT stand there and wait my turn to die. I don't carry a gun to be a cowboy, I don't carry a gun to be a hero, I don't carry a gun because I feel empowered by it. I carry a gun because bad people will always be there to do bad things, and because the police will not always be there in time to save me.

I respect your outlook/ethos on carry, but my (very unrealistic) preference is to live in a world where I don't need to fear for my safety so much that I feel compelled to carry a gun for defense.

I own several handguns, but they're stored away from the ammo and out of easy reach, they only come out for target use.

It's a shame. On one hand I just love shooting, just target practice, I grew up shooting pop cans and it's just something I enjoy. But, every time I leave the house with my gun I do think to myself it's a shame I need to carry just to feel safe.

If they want to make longer waiting periods, I'd vote for that. If they want to make you submit to a psychiatric evaluation I'll even vote for that. But, banning guns is never going to stop gun violence, it just disarms the wrong people.

[remnar]

...As for the rest, the way I see it, gun ownership here is already restricted but the laws are often either enforced unjustly or not enforced at all.

New York City is a glaring example of the first. For at least the past 100 years they've prevented most law abiding citizens from owning a handgun while allowing people who have questionable backgrounds but strong political connections and those willing to pay substantial bribes to police officials to have them.

As an example of the other, it has been a Federal crime for at least 48 years for anyone convicted of a felony to possess a firearm. Yet, with the possible exception of one or two cases too "high profile" to ignore, that law is never enforced when a felon caught re-offending is found to be in possession of a gun, or even when they use it in a violent crime. The ATF would rather attempt to entrap gun dealers. It is also a felony for any prohibited person to even attempt to purchase a firearm. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, not one single case where someone failed the government's "instant background check" when they tried to purchase a firearm has ever be prosecuted.

Perhaps you can understand why I find no rational reason to believe that further "gun laws" would accomplish anything other that to disarm the law abiding.

This is the biggest problem with the system that we have now. This is also why so many people will appose any new law. I am not apposed to new gun laws but those laws need to be focused on prosecuting those that break the law. We need harsh penalties for gun violations, aggressive prosecution and quit letting people out early because you feel they've learned their lesson (yes, I'm talking about the Justice Department and you Mr. President). We also know that more restrictive gun laws don't work. Just look at Chicago. According to the Chicago Tribune, there have been 1,689 shooting victims in Chicago this year. That's nuts! The only way to deal with this problem is by aggressive policing and prosecution, but the powers that be are either afraid to do it or prefer to keep it this way. There is definitely more that could be done to stop a lot of the gun violence in the U.S. but passing more laws that only restrict the law abiding is probably the least likely thing to help.

[Ankerson]

The human nature and people issues have to be solved one way or another before anything will even begin to make a dent.

Now how they address those I have no clue, but I predict they won't be popular at all.

But I do believe the human issues are the main ones.

Also I believe society has regressed to the point in the US that the issues will never be addressed so the problems will continue unless there are major changes.

So I predict sometime in the future that there will be major changes that won't be popular with the pro gun crowd. No matter what steps are taken or what the issues that are addressed are it won't be popular with the pro gun crowd.

I really don't see how it will go any other way in the future under the current Government system that we have now.

[The Deacon]

Sorry you wasted all the time Paul. You're no closer to convincing me than I am to convincing you.

Knew that going in.

That's why deleted the post, not because I thought someone would out-fox me, lol. :rolleyes:...It's just pointless noise.

It was never about "out foxing" you, or changing your mind. It was about letting those "on the fence" see both sides of the issue.

When I hear about dozens of people getting shot the first thing I think is what could be done to prevent it; ideally without impacting our freedoms. Many people try to think of ways to avoid having their guns taken away; something that the government seems to have vowed never to do. They shut down the conversation completely.

Mostly because, over the past 50 years, the knee jerk reaction to people getting shot has been a call for gun control.

The Federal Firearms Act, National Firearms Act, Gun Control Act of 1968, and the various and sundry state, county, and local laws regulating the sale and ownership of firearms have done nothing but chip away at our freedom, but there are those who still see "one more law" as the answer. They operate under the delusion that human behavior can be controlled by regulating inanimate objects. Prohibition did not make us a nation of abstainers, switchblades have been illegal to import for 60 year but foreign made ones are still readily available, and the closest thing to a positive accomplishment of the "war on drugs" is that it has provided job security for corrections personnel.

As for trusting government, you are correct that I do not. I've been told by a LEO that he didn't care what the law was. I've had an undercover ATF agent come into my shop looking to sell a Mauser machine pistol in a blatant attempt at entrapment. I've had a "good for life" full carry permit reduced to a "to and from the range only" permit then made renewable every 2 years. I've worked for one NYS law enforcement agency where part of my job was to "tweak" the queries used to retrieve data to make it look like the agency was doing its job more effectively than it really was and another where the agency's elected head spent a considerable amount of our time and the taxpayer's money trying to dig up dirt on his political opponents.

Why would I ever trust the word of any politician, government agency, or official?

Two sides of the coin I guess. It's just one side feels bad for murdered people and the other is mostly paranoid and devoid of empathy.

If you're referring to me, personally, I'll plead guilty as charged. I've worked in places where being a bit paranoid was considered a life skill and have never bought into the notion that "Each man's death diminishes me, For I am involved in mankind.". I'll freely admit that I'd fail the "which would you save, a stranger or your dog" test. I'm also more inclined to look at things from a "who stood to gain the most" standpoint and, where the latest tragedy is concerned, Hillary Clinton tops that list.

Otherwise, that was beneath you. Way beneath you.

[Malfeasant]

Ignorance of the Second Amendment baffles me. It's the peoples right to Milita. Yet again flabbergasted by nincompoops.
Safe to say most people do not want to see other people terrorized.
More restrictions on firearms will not fix that.

I must excuse myself from this topic.

[awa54]

I'm also more inclined to look at things from a "who stood to gain the most" standpoint and, where the latest tragedy is concerned, Hillary Clinton tops that list.

I don't think anyone has "gained" anything from this, or any mass shooting... sure, every special interest on every side of the issue is staking out their own spin/talking points on it, but they already had those talking points from the previous mass shootings, this one just sharpens their focus. OTOH many have *lost* their own lives, the lives of loved ones, their physical and mental well being, countless worker hours and massive amounts of medical and law enforcement expenditure. I don't see any gain in that.

[awa54]

It's a shame. On one hand I just love shooting, just target practice, I grew up shooting pop cans and it's just something I enjoy. But, every time I leave the house with my gun I do think to myself it's a shame I need to carry just to feel safe.

If they want to make longer waiting periods, I'd vote for that. If they want to make you submit to a psychiatric evaluation I'll even vote for that. But, banning guns is never going to stop gun violence, it just disarms the wrong people.

D, this is a post that I can understand and sympathize with, I think we're very close in our views, I just live in an area that's less dangerous, so I have the luxury of being able to feel safe without relying on my own deadly force as backup.

[Ankerson]

I'm also more inclined to look at things from a "who stood to gain the most" standpoint and, where the latest tragedy is concerned, Hillary Clinton tops that list.

I don't think anyone has "gained" anything from this, or any mass shooting... sure, every special interest on every side of the issue is staking out their own spin/talking points on it, but they already had those talking points from the previous mass shootings, this one just sharpens their focus. OTOH many have *lost* their own lives, the lives of loved ones, their physical and mental well being, countless worker hours and massive amounts of medical and law enforcement expenditure. I don't see any gain in that.

Oh I duuno, lets see.....

The Media, every celebrity out there or at least most of them, the Gays, the pro and anti gun people, and assorted others have and or will benefit from it.

Seems a lot will find some way to capitalize off of it in some way.

Not to mention the Movie or movies that will come out it and the TV show episodes.....

Any kind of thing like this happen there are always those who will milk it for everything they can get.

[tvenuto]

However, just for fun...let's look at the trimmed down 7000 firearm related deaths (minus suicides and accidents, because those don't count :confused: ). That means your chance of getting in a car wreck is ONLY slightly 4 times more likely than getting shot. Is that comforting to you or terrifying? I mean, I was driving a car to get to work, a calculated risk for sure but one with a logical reason. Getting shot at random tho?

Just wanted to point out three things:

Suicides don't count because the "victim" would have figured out another means to end their life, even if we had never invented guns.

4x an incredibly small number is still and incredibly small number. Using statistics like this is like saying "a 50% closer shave." The magnitude of difference between two probabilities can be very misleading.

Lastly, the vast majority of those shootings are not random. Often the victim knows their assailant. Often the victim is in a situation, justified or not, where they are more likely to be shot (i.e. there is a difference in risk between being a late night gas station clerk and a construction worker and a drug dealer, where getting shot is the consideration).

The issue that us "2nd amendment defenders" have is that sound-bite-style "intellectual arguments" such as these are purely designed to elicit an emotional response that is in fact irrational.

And to be clear, that is what we are doing. If someone actually came out and said "the second amendment is causing more harm than good and needs to be repealed" I would actually have respect for that. However, those against gun ownership are attempting to circumvent and infringe on this amendment, without coming out and saying it, and all the while acting like the laws they propose do not run counter to the constitution, which is very clear on the matter. Again, WE REALIZE THERE IS A COST TO THE 2nd AMENDMENT. There is a cost to "innocent until proven guilty" as well: criminals go free. However, we have decided to err on the side of freeing criminals rather than imprisoning the innocent. Of course, criminals go free and innocent get imprisoned either way, but we have decided which error is more costly to the public. We did the same with gun ownership, and until you want to change that FUNDAMENTAL decision, those who understand the importance of the constitution will oppose you.

[The Deacon]

I'm also more inclined to look at things from a "who stood to gain the most" standpoint and, where the latest tragedy is concerned, Hillary Clinton tops that list.

I don't think anyone has "gained" anything from this, or any mass shooting... sure, every special interest on every side of the issue is staking out their own spin/talking points on it, but they already had those talking points from the previous mass shootings, this one just sharpens their focus. OTOH many have *lost* their own lives, the lives of loved ones, their physical and mental well being, countless worker hours and massive amounts of medical and law enforcement expenditure. I don't see any gain in that.

Guess you missed the significance of both the context (a display of paranoia in response to being called paranoid) and the wink smilie. No problem, just happy it was the only point of mine you thought you could argue successfully.

[tvenuto]

4x an incredibly small number is still and incredibly small number. Using statistics like this is like saying "a 50% closer shave." The magnitude of difference between two probabilities can be very misleading.

I realized I might not have explained this clearly. The statement: "Did you realize you're 156 times more likely to get a four of a kind than a straight flush?!" makes it seem like four of a kind is a likely outcome. While the above statement is true, you actually have a 0.02% chance of drawing a four of a kind, which is twice in 10,000 hands. Thus, the magnitude of the difference in probability between the four of a kind and straight flush, while large, is relatively meaningless since you're actually very unlikely to draw either.

Also, the issue with comparing auto collision deaths with gunshot deaths is that, in our brains, we compare auto collisions with gunshots. Auto collisions, of course, are relatively common, and that disrupts our ability to properly understand the actual nature of what's being discussed.

In short, it is incredibly difficult for us to properly understand and internalize probabilities and statistics in even the most basic of examples. There have been studies that show that monkeys do it better than we do. Said another way, we are easily fooled by numbers into having an inappropriate emotional response.

[ChrisinHove]

Hah! My ignorance of weoponry and hunting continues to shine through.... a SMLE? Wow. Are semi-automatic rifles (see - I'm learning!) useful in hunting or more for the enjoyment of using good or interesting guns?

Any action type, even a break open single shot, can be useful in hunting. Semi-autos offer the ability to get off a quick second shot. This can be a good thing, especially when dealing with a moving target, or an attempt to compensate for sloppy marksmanship.

Russian probably ... but my old man believes the US only entered the last war for profit and long leases on strategic bases. My mum loved the GI's stationed near her before D Day, though - too young to lindy-hop, they gave her gum. Britain was free from invasion risk by the time you chaps came over, anyway, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic though.

I'll leave you to guess what the Irish parents of some of my school chums had to say about the Brits. As for relevance none, beyond showing that we probably both harbor misconceptions of what life is like for the other and prejudices that "our way" is the best.

That doesn't sound so very unreasonable to me. Particularly if the Queen reads what you posted about us :cool:

:D

These are accidents, unintenional and often avoidable. I would consider these to be different from a carefully planned mass shooting

Accidental, negligent, or intentional, dead is dead. Is the innocent kid who gets hit by a stray bullet any less dead than the little gangsta the entire magazine worth of slugs was intended for? As for mass killings, I'm pretty certain that if someone wants to kill a group of people, they have a lot of methods to chose from, especially if they have the backing of a hate group, whether it be radical Islam, radical Christian Fundamentalism, white supremacists, black supremacists, or Hispanic separatists.

It was unintended, but I accept your comment. Also to be honest I am unsure whether "gun control" means in your context restricting what type of guns can be owned or includes increased checks or restrictions on who can own them, and whether there is considered to be a difference. As I said before, you'd never get the genie back in the bottle even if you all wanted to so the former would appear to be a pointless exercise to attempt, but to prevent these outrages, is arming your entire population really the only answer?

No, I would not force people to own guns any more than I'd force law abiding citizens who wish to own them from doing so. As for the rest, the way I see it, gun ownership here is already restricted but the laws are often either enforced unjustly or not enforced at all.

New York City is a glaring example of the first. For at least the past 100 years they've prevented most law abiding citizens from owning a handgun while allowing people who have questionable backgrounds but strong political connections and those willing to pay substantial bribes to police officials to have them.

As an example of the other, it has been a Federal crime for at least 48 years for anyone convicted of a felony to possess a firearm. Yet, with the possible exception of one or two cases too "high profile" to ignore, that law is never enforced when a felon caught re-offending is found to be in possession of a gun, or even when they use it in a violent crime. The ATF would rather attempt to entrap gun dealers. It is also a felony for any prohibited person to even attempt to purchase a firearm. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, not one single case where someone failed the government's "instant background check" when they tried to purchase a firearm has ever be prosecuted.

Perhaps you can understand why I find no rational reason to believe that further "gun laws" would accomplish anything other that to disarm the law abiding.

Thank you for your reply. I understand a little more as this thread continues but am puzzled that I don't see reports of proposals from anywhere that would both hinder the criminal or deranged in obtaining guns and/or ammunition, whilst protecting the rights of law abiding enthusiasts?

[The Deacon]

Thank you for your reply. I understand a little more as this thread continues but am puzzled that I don't see reports of proposals from anywhere that would both hinder the criminal or deranged in obtaining guns and/or ammunition, whilst protecting the rights of law abiding enthusiasts?

A criminal, by definition, is someone who does not obey the law. Why anyone thinks those who break current laws will obey a new one baffles me. Handing out "life with no chance of parole" sentences to anyone convicted of a violent felony would crowd prisons, executing them would have the same folks who are calling for gun control up in arms.

As for "the deranged". The sad fact is that someone can be perfectly sane one day and dangerously insane the next and it's impossible, or at least very difficult, to accurately predict if someone will become a danger to themselves or others in the future. There's also the problem that some of the most dangerous among the mentally ill are very good at appearing normal. There's also the side issue that the vast majority of the mentally ill present no more danger to others than those of us who are sane.

[Monocrom]

Yup, business as usual. A person with evil intent murders others.... Let's go after the inanimate objects that he used. Sadly, that type of stupidity never gets old.

[chaps]

Ought we subject people to a waiting period, background check and psychological evaluation to vote, speak, publish, assemble, or worship?
The 2A is included in the Bill of Rights for a reason: defense of one's self and responsibilities is a natural assumption. The Bill did not grant these rights, but rather specifies rights that were "self-evident" and "endowed by our creator." The Bill is a defense against a government that would seek to encroach on rights than any living human should have by nature of being human.

The point many anti-gunners miss is that the 2A is the bulwark against any encroachment on the 1A or any other rights they may prefer, so to erode it is to eventually erode the other. Further, its absolutely true that our founders envisioned whatever military grade weapons would ever be, as those who won our independence already possessed military grade weapons, and indirect fire weapons. Lexington and Concord were not fought by peasants with "safe" weapons against troops with assault weapons - everyone there had an assault weapon. And since the 2A was written in that context, it would be foolish to imagine that protecting an individuals right to bear arms in defense of their rights against a tyrannical government means with arms inherently inferior to those possessed by the threat.

All death is a tragedy, and the human desire is to blame. It takes three things for a crime to happen: means, motive, opportunity. The only thing we can control is means and opportunity, and we are quick to blame the means. But the plain fact is anyone with a motive will find the means and opportunity. Until legislation moves in the direction of addressing motive, everything else is a waste of time. The only right solution then is to make the punishment for committing the crime so deplorable as to keep many from considering it. Beyond that, there will always be those with evil in their hearts who will seek to harm others. Denial of that fact does not make for a healthy person or society. I wish it were not so - you can blame Adam if you like.

[chaps]

Thank you for your reply. I understand a little more as this thread continues but am puzzled that I don't see reports of proposals from anywhere that would both hinder the criminal or deranged in obtaining guns and/or ammunition, whilst protecting the rights of law abiding enthusiasts?

We have a plethora of laws already in place to hinder the criminal and the deranged. Laws however do not change human nature, which is like water - it flows down the path of least resistance, but flow it must. A gunstore owner actually refused to serve the terrorist, on the basis of suspicion. He called the authorities, who did nothing. The FBI had multiple points of contact, and did nothing. The wife knew, and did nothing. There was not a failure of insufficient legislation in this or many other cases. There was simply a failure to implement existing constraints.