Spyderco Forums

Great question Joe, I hope it stimulates genuine consideration of facts versus feel good reactionary thinking.

SolidState wrote:I'm not advocating that. I'm simply advocating taking a seat at the table in a nuanced fashion like the discussion we're having. By ignoring all sense of nuance, the NRA is actively removing itself from the final debate on gun control. If there's anything I've learned in my short life, it's that scared people gang up to make stupid decisions, often because of outlier data points. If the NRA doesn't address that the majority of Americans fear their children being shot and that they also fear living in a security state where their children must be greeted and frisked by an armed guard just to learn to read, they will be neglected and removed from the debate as the school shooting becomes more prevalent, even if statistically unlikely. Media controls response, and the NRA has dismal media presence currently due to their lack of understanding nuance and their narrow vision of what Americans should or should not be afraid of.

That assumes one believes ANY further infringement of the Second Amendment is open for discussion. If there's one thing I've learned in my 67 years, it's that appeasing those who believe "one more law" will change human behavior, never works. As for your other contention, I'm not sure that's the case, at least not here. I'm not saying we don't have some who'd ban guns, but quite a few parents in my area are banding together to demand armed resource officers in their children's schools, and a few schools have already complied.

SolidState wrote:How do people even check that if background checks are not required for purchase? As previously stated by both of us, who and what define these terms are widely variable, and can be corrupt and easily sidestepped. I believe these are root issues of our current problems. I also note that our current methods of creating felons disproportionately disenfranchise an remove the rights to arms of minorities. This is something that seriously bothers me, and it doesn't seem to bother the NRA to disarm the incredibly wide breadth of people defined as "felons" when many of the most common felony charges nonviolent symptoms of a greater societal ill.

Granted, you can lie when you fill out the 4473 to buy a gun, but BATF has the ability to check it and have you arrested if you do. As for the rest, Ill just say that our ideas about the root causes of crime and the "ethnic impartiality", or lack there of, in the criminal justice system are totally different.

SolidState wrote:While we have very similar past times and enjoy similar sports, we have significantly different outlooks on what the basis of the activities are. I practice with my pistol to be able to defend myself and my property in the event of a state without police. Shooting practice is no different to me than sharpening knives/swords and practicing my sinawali sets - maintaining my preparation to use defensive and offensive tools for their purposes. I have a diverse set of martial training, and in all aspects I have never pretended that it wasn't martial in nature.
Many of the shooting matches I've attended had human-shaped targets popping out in various settings and targeting is set to center of mass or kill shots. I fail to see how this is not an exercise in martial preparedness. Also, as an avid pet enthusiast and wildlife rehabilitation volunteer, I fail to see how killing animals is so terribly significantly removed from killing people. I've known many animals that are more caring and conscientious than some of the humans I've known. I don't take killing animals lightly, well, I take killing chickens and fish lightly, but other than that, I take killing quite seriously. I don't think so many Americans would eat meat if they had to kill the animals because killing is killing, and it is rarely glorious or enjoyable. I guess you could say that it's probably even less so with people, but killing is killing. Having used an Atlatl to hunt, and a bow to hunt, and a fishing rod: I can easily say that my Springfield 30-06 was the most well-engineered killing machine that I have ever used. I still remember the first time I came upon a skinned bear hanging in the woods. I thought the crazies who owned the land next to ours had taken to hunting long pig, and retreated as quickly and quietly to our camp as I could. Having done human dissections and taken down deer, pigs, etc. I can tell you, we're not all that different in makeup. Our CPU is just stronger.

Yes, we have considerably different outlooks on those things. I'd say somewhere around 95% of my pistol shooting was NRA Gallery or National Match Course, which is to say bullseye targets. 2% was Olympic Rapid, where the targets could be interpreted to look vaguely like either a human or a bowling pin. Only about 3% was against recognizably human targets. As for hunting, our attitudes are so far apart that further comment would just be a waste of time and effort.

SolidState wrote:If this were still within the stated public persona of the NRA, I'd be far more inclined to be an active member. The last two trainings I did via the NRA left me feeling more like "The Punisher" than Spiderman after uncle Ben's "With great power comes great responsiblity" talk. This has been a significant change from the time I took NRA hunter safety.

Haven't been either a student or an instructor for years, so I'm not familiar with their current offerings but, AFAIK, they still offer a Home Firearms Safety Course and the Eddie Eagle gun safety program for kids.

SolidState wrote:I'll concede the point that criminals commit crimes. What I do think is that this talking point is never looked at in greater depth. Let's look at WHY it's so easy to steal guns, and perhaps try to combat that like Japan has. My brother-in-law keeps multiple assault rifles hanging on a wall in an unlocked house. I don't think he's a responsible owner, and I don't see why it's a "right" for him to do that while my parents have to keep a fence around their pool because it's an attractive nuisance. I'm all about responsible ownership relying on responsible handling and storage. Most of the gun issues we have in this country revolve around responsible storage and handling.

I'd agree that anyone leaving a firearm (or a knife) laying around in their yard or in an unlocked home or vehicle is irresponsible and should be subject to both criminal and civil action. However, beyond that, your comparison is not even close to valid. A unfenced pool is, as you noted "an attractive nuisance" because it's visible to anyone walking through the neighborhood, even those too young and/or poorly trained to respect the property of others. The fence acts as both a deterrent and, in at least some states, to limit liability if someone chooses to scale it. Someone breaking into my locked home and stealing a firearm would have encountered, and ignored, the fence. How many levels of deterrence should I be required to maintain?

SolidState wrote:You don't stop this one at the buyer, you stop it at the vendor like with booze and alcohol. I recognize your previous point notes methods of circumvention, but those methods require more people to become criminals to aid in your criminal enterprise.

The question would be how. It's easy with alcohol and cigarettes, all you need to show is proof of age. You can be retarded, talking to yourself, or covered in jailhouse tats, and they can still legally sell those things to you as long as you can show that you're of legal age. AFAIK, firearms dealers also make you show proof of age, how would you suggest they "proof" someone for sanity or criminal history? Or should we all have to carry "I'm not crazy or a felon" cards?

As a Canadian who doesn't have the ability to prepare to defend oneself, family and property I find it amazing that an American is arguing for more gun control. It may sound reasonable but once you start with gun control it never ends. For those on the gun control band wagon please understand that more people in the U.S. defend themselves with firearms than crimes are committed with them. I live in a country where I cannot prepare to defend myself yet the politicians walk around with armed guards. If you do try to defend yourself you'll end up like this gentleman.

http://www.spyderco.com/forums/showthre ... highlight=

It may seem like you don't need "assault" rifles but the freedom to own it is very valuable. Don't let it slip away.

angusW wrote: It may sound reasonable but once you start with gun control it never ends.

First, thanks for an interesting discussion.

angusW, we can't "start" gun control because we've always had gun control. Only certain people are allowed to own guns. There are many restrictions on concealed carry. There are many guns that are illegal to possess.

The NRA is a single issue ACLU. They push for the broadest possible interpretation of the second amendment. There's nothing wrong with that. But the black or white, all guns or no guns, false dichotomy has been such a successful PR campaign that many are losing sight of the fact that there is no sufficiently large power block in the US to enable all guns to be banned or to enable all machine guns be freely sold to whoever wants them. All the screaming is about moving the current compromise a little bit one way or the other.

It's an important discussion that deserves the clear thinking and perspective that some in this thread have shown.

SolidState wrote: The truth is, in our current world, we don't have the ability to fight the government anymore. It's silly to think we do. It's not muskets vs. cannons and muskets anymore. We don't have the tools to fight back, nor can we get them.

Unfortunately true. The last time a group of Americans tried to defend their Second Amendment rights against the BATF, 82 of them paid the ultimate price. The fact that they lost doesn't make what they did any less right, or any less noble. The fact that gun owners in New York did not resort to armed insurrection a hundred years ago when the Sullivan Act was enacted and that gun owners nationwide did not do so in the 1930's in response to the National and Federal Firearms acts, or in 1968 in response to GCA68, does not mean we should quietly accept every new attempt to subvert the Constitution.

The Deacon wrote: As for hunting, our attitudes are so far apart that further comment would just be a waste of time and effort.

Very apart from myself also...Solidstate compared killing an animal to killing a person. Wow. I take offense to that. I harvested 2 whitetail does and a nice 7 point this year. I guess I am a murderer. Hunting is a part of my heritage, and I provide a lot of quality meals for my family with that meat......and control the whitetail population so we don't all total our cars on the way to work everyday.

Solidstate, you made a couple good points up until that, now I question your credibility.

The loophole in my area works like this:

Individuals purchase tables at the show and can sell guns as "personal" without any checks or even paperwork. Sounds a little bit like a good way to get guns for people who should not have them huh.

I was in line for a show this past saturday with a bunch of panic buyers and price gawkers (I go for the knives mostly) and guns of the ban variety and regular guns as well could be bought right there on the sidewalk.

No one should expect anything written at a time of no technology or advanced weapons and low population to not be re-visited and altered to reflect current times. That's just silly. Everything should be looked at as times change.

My rights end with the number of shootings and tremendous number of lives lost using such guns. I have guns but have not shot them in years and do not want any form of "ban them all" laws any more than I want "I have a God given right to any WMD I want" no regulations.

The NRA missed the perfect time to be rational and be the leader and at least look like they have the community interest at heart.

This is a knife forum, but do any of you doubt for a moment that after guns are restricted, registered, and finally confiscated, they won't come after your pocket knives? Especially the dangerous looking ones that can be opened with a flick of the thumb and locked open?

If so, what are the reasons for the Spyderco UKPK or Pingo to exist? Look at the countries these knives were developed for and look at their progression from "reasonable gun control" to outlawing any item that gains just a little traction in the media as dangerous (air rifles and certain dog breeds in Denmark in recent years). These countries probably never saw a single murder with a one hand opening, lockable folding knife, yet banned them out of an irrational fear or to placate a small whiny part of the population who was once scared by someone owning an item like that.

The same protectionist mindset is in play in the US today and it is the natural progression once that happens. Knife organizations like Knife Rights recognizes it and urges their members to stand against 2nd Amendment legislation today. This is not a coincidence.

As others have said, it is a fact that people with rifles kill fewer than people with hammers, knifes or bare hands in this country. The rifles currently on trial is a small subset of the total number of rifles owned by the population. Yet you do not see an outcry for an assault hammer ban.

As for legitimate reasons to own one of these rifles, they are a superb self defense weapon against bad guys. Not only that, but with the correct type of ammunition they have a smaller risk of injuring innocents on the other side of a wall or door, while being more accurate than hand guns or shot guns. Why do you think the police have adopted them universally across the country? Civilians are many times more likely to have an unscheduled run-in with a bad guy than a cop (which means we cannot prepare and cannot get out of harms way), why should our ability to protect ourselves and our children be diminished? Why should we have to rely on cruder implements which carry the risk of harming loved ones or innocent strangers next door?

Clearly the misuse of any technology is pretty awful, especially when it costs innocent lives, but in the minds of many, many people convenience and usability outweigh the potential down sides. Otherwise we would not have cell phones, which are over taking DUI as the number one reason for traffic deaths of little kids, but you don't hear about government iPhone buyback programs or people clamoring for a ban on assault phones.

Joining advocacy and lobby organizations, however imperfect they may be, is one of our only ways to stand against the people who would sign away everything this country was built upon with the stroke of a pen for their own financial and power gains.

^^Great post.

chuckd wrote:^^Great post.

I'll second that.

As you may have heard, the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) recently passed the Arms Trade Treaty on April 2, 2013 that would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons internationally. The United States representative to the UN voted in favor of the treaty, despite the Senate having just symbolically voted to reject it. To become binding, the Arms Trade Treaty will need to be ratified by the full Senate with a two-thirds majority.
I suggest that you call, write or email you elected officials and respectfully urge them to vote against any and all anti- gun legislation.