Anti-gun nonsense

[ChrisinHove]

I'll leave you to guess what the Irish parents of some of my school chums had to say about the Brits.

The irony of this remark in the context of this discussion is in that it was largely the laissez-faire policies of the (British) Government that turned crop failure into famine and generations of bitterness and conflict, in India as well as Ireland.

[SpyderNut]

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.

+1

Well said, Paul.

[ChrisBee]

Sure, but if they don't have an automatic (or semi) rifle, then the amount of damage someone can do is limited. After the Dunblane massacre in the UK (essentially half a Sandy Hook) we banned most people from owning guns. Now can you point to a gun massacre in the UK since then? or in fact any massacre (apart from the july 7 bombings)? I can save you time, there hasn't been one.

Crazy is crazy, sure, but crazy with uninhibited access to assault rifles? you can't fly, but you can buy an assault rifle? Jesus, even Trump agrees with that. I wonder about the sanity of someone who doesn't, frankly.

[Dr. Snubnose]

There has been 12 recorded events in recent US history where a "Good Guy" with a gun made a real difference...The fact is Good Guys with guns have indeed stopped mass shootings. And in each case there was potential for a horrific outcome, had not the armed citizen taken action.

1. Pearl High School, October 1, 1997

2. Parker Middle School, April 24, 1998

3. Appalachian School of Law, January 16, 2002

4. New Life Church, December 9, 2007

5. New York Mills AT&T Store, May 27, 2010

6. Sullivan Central High School, August 30, 2010

7. Freewill Baptist Church, March 25, 2012

8. Clackamas Town Center Mall, Dec. 11, 2012

9. Mystic Strip Club, January 11, 2014

10. Austin, Texas Construction Site, April 30, 2014

11. Cache Valley Hospital, May 16, 2014

12. Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital, July 25, 2014

Obviously guns can be and often are used to prevent crimes and to stop crimes in progress. Next time someone asks you for “just one example” of how an armed citizen prevented a crime, you’ll be able to provide twelve. Doc:)

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Fact: Anti Gun folks will speak about "less or no gun use violence" in places like the UK but conveniently ignore the fact that there are increases of violent attacks against citizens using other weapons aside from firearms. furthermore, the anti self defense mentality of all such societies punishes the law abiding citizen from defending themselves.

Fact: The people who claim to want 'assault weapons' banned won't stop there. Look at the UK as an example. The anti gun people who support that admit they ultimately won't stop at assault rifles or military weapons. They want to DISARM THE PEOPLE and STEAL our natural right to own weapons and defend ourselves.


The more armed a society is the better the individual is to be able to defend themselves. If that freedom has the cost of the occasional out of control wacko taking people out, the answer is for people to be armed and cut that person down before they get too far out of control. Those who are willing to give up their freedom for a little perceived temporary safety or security are deluded. Furthermore, corrupt governments always take advantage of such things to disarm the people and mass murder people.

Governments are the ones responsible for more numbers of people killed than any other group. Look at all the genocides in places like Russia, Germany, Cambodia, China, Turkey, and elsewhere. Before those genocides and mass murders happened, ANTI GUN and ANTI EDGED WEAPON laws were put into place that DISARMED PEOPLE. This is all proven objective FACT. Who do you think a corrupt leader is more afraid of? A population of armed citizens who know how to protect themselves, or, a population of disarmed citizens? The issue was never about hunting. The issue was always about freedom of the individual and the right and power of the individual to defend themselves and their families and communities from the corrupt collectivist powers. Sadly, the American people (with exceptions such as most on this forum) have gone back the way of the collectivist mentality as we see has happened in Europe (Again, there are even exceptions to this in Europe) and other nations. I do not want to get onto the grounds of politics, I am keeping it historical.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Great post, Doc! THANK YOU!

[ChrisinHove]

There has been 12 recorded events in recent US history where a "Good Guy" with a gun made a real difference...The fact is Good Guys with guns have indeed stopped mass shootings. And in each case there was potential for a horrific outcome, had not the armed citizen taken action.

1. Pearl High School, October 1, 1997

2. Parker Middle School, April 24, 1998

3. Appalachian School of Law, January 16, 2002

4. New Life Church, December 9, 2007

5. New York Mills AT&T Store, May 27, 2010

6. Sullivan Central High School, August 30, 2010

7. Freewill Baptist Church, March 25, 2012

8. Clackamas Town Center Mall, Dec. 11, 2012

9. Mystic Strip Club, January 11, 2014

10. Austin, Texas Construction Site, April 30, 2014

11. Cache Valley Hospital, May 16, 2014

12. Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital, July 25, 2014

Obviously guns can be and often are used to prevent crimes and to stop crimes in progress. Next time someone asks you for “just one example” of how an armed citizen prevented a crime, you’ll be able to provide twelve. Doc:)

Why is the gun owning community continually portrayed as part of the problem?

[tvenuto]

Why is the gun owning community continually portrayed as part of the problem?

Because gun rights, like abortion, or gay marriage etc, is called a "wedge issue" where the whole point is to force you to vote for "your team." So lets say I hate everything about a particular Democratic candidate, but I really really dislike the 2nd amendment and think all guns should be banned, the Democratic candidate can get my vote by proposing anti-gun legislation.

This is the cost of our two party system, which is dictated by the way we vote.

[Liquid Cobra]

Sure, but if they don't have an automatic (or semi) rifle, then the amount of damage someone can do is limited. After the Dunblane massacre in the UK (essentially half a Sandy Hook) we banned most people from owning guns. Now can you point to a gun massacre in the UK since then? or in fact any massacre (apart from the july 7 bombings)? I can save you time, there hasn't been one.

Crazy is crazy, sure, but crazy with uninhibited access to assault rifles? you can't fly, but you can buy an assault rifle? Jesus, even Trump agrees with that. I wonder about the sanity of someone who doesn't, frankly.

There isn't uninhibited access to assault rifles (full auto). As has been previously stated, you can't get assault rifles in America. Stop using the term. And no, there isn't uninhibited access to semi auto rifles either. This guy helps prove that gun control doesn't work. He went through all the hoops that are supposed to stop something like this from happening but it still happened. A politician was just killed in West Yorkshire, England with a handgun. Which is curious because they've been banned over ther haven't they? How could this of happened?!?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36550304

[Liquid Cobra]

This guy sums things up nicely.

https://youtu.be/_PFc_2z0buo

[ChrisinHove]

Sure, but if they don't have an automatic (or semi) rifle, then the amount of damage someone can do is limited. After the Dunblane massacre in the UK (essentially half a Sandy Hook) we banned most people from owning guns. Now can you point to a gun massacre in the UK since then? or in fact any massacre (apart from the july 7 bombings)? I can save you time, there hasn't been one.

Crazy is crazy, sure, but crazy with uninhibited access to assault rifles? you can't fly, but you can buy an assault rifle? Jesus, even Trump agrees with that. I wonder about the sanity of someone who doesn't, frankly.

There isn't uninhibited access to assault rifles (full auto). As has been previously stated, you can't get assault rifles in America. Stop using the term. And no, there isn't uninhibited access to semi auto rifles either. This guy helps prove that gun control doesn't work. He went through all the hoops that are supposed to stop something like this from happening but it still happened. A politician was just killed in West Yorkshire, England with a handgun. Which is curious because they've been banned over ther haven't they? How could this of happened?!?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36550304

Home-made, they think, and a knife. They say he had links to a USA white supremacist group (because he bought a book from them over a decade ago, apparently), so thanks for that.

Whilst we're scoring points about each other's tragedies, the Anglo-American chap who got slashed in the throat by a nutter/Islamist on the London Underground last year ("You ain't no Muslim, Bruv") was interviewed today basically saying "thank god for the UK gun laws" - he survived and is fully recovered, the deranged perpetrator is in prison, no one died as a result of vigilantes trying to shoot an assailant in a confined and crowded concrete tunnel, and the family of the assailant are spared some grief.

Thank god for the UK gun laws, indeed - but from what I've read here, I'm not entirely sure they'd be all that well received in America.

[The Deacon]

I'll leave you to guess what the Irish parents of some of my school chums had to say about the Brits.

The irony of this remark in the context of this discussion is in that it was largely the laissez-faire policies of the (British) Government that turned crop failure into famine and generations of bitterness and conflict, in India as well as Ireland.

Here in US governments have a knack for passing laws saying that a lower level must provide such-and-such a service, then not only leaving up to that lower level to come up with funds for the newly mandated service, but threatening to penalize them by cutting off other funds if they fail to provide those services.

America decided, a few decades back that, unless they had committed a violent crime, institutionalizing the mentally ill and mentally challenged violated their civil rights. That decision was legally and morally justifiable, given the many such institutions were as bad as Bedlam at its worst. The problem was that very few provisions were ever made to house and supervise those being released and even fewer to deal with those that came after. So we now have to deal with the consequences of having people with poor impulse control living among us until they do something bad. Some are, and always will be benign, but some the human version of nitroglycerine.

Should someone who owns guns and has no real choice but to live with such a person either refrain from owning firearms or keep them under lock and key, definitely. But you can't legislate a sense of responsibility, so in a society where the police cannot just come and search your home without cause, how do you enforce that? The most you can do is punish after the fact.

A few decades back, in the name of "freedom of expression" we removed the limitations on violent content in movies. Broadcast TV still has some restrictions, but cable stations have never had any. Radio stations play music that glorifies "the gansta life" and violence toward women and those in authority. First person shooters are among the most popular video games. Do we pay a price for these "freedoms"? The media will vehemently deny any link between their output and violence, but I'm not alone in thinking there is one. I just don't see why law abiding gun owners should be the ones to pay that price.

Many of the same people who advocate further increasing the restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights consider any form of surveillance a heinous and unacceptable violation of the 4th and we waste time and money observing the letter of the 6th in cases where the entire sequence of crime and capture has been recorded by a video camera.

[Malfeasant]

Civilians can't own guns in China. Not too long ago a man walked into a kindergarten class and slaughtered the entire class with a knife. In China.
If you lose the right to bare arms. You may also lose the right to carry a knife.. It is an "arm" after all. Think about that..
The weapons civilians can own in the U.S. are no where near a weapon of war. Hard to believe this can stand as an argument.. No one nation right now fight wars with the weapons U.S. civilians have... They're very weak compared to "weapons of war". Maybe in the 19th century. Not now..

[Ankerson]

Civilians can't own guns in China. Not too long ago a man walked into a kindergarten class and slaughtered the entire class with a knife. In China.
If you lose the right to bare arms. You may also lose the right to carry a knife.. It is an "arm" after all. Think about that..
The weapons civilians can own in the U.S. are no where near a weapon of war. Hard to believe this can stand as an argument.. No one nation right now fight wars with the weapons U.S. civilians have... They're very weak compared to "weapons of war". Maybe in the 19th century. Not now..

Actually in the US as long as civilians can pass the background they can legally buy the same weapons that the Military uses.

That's rifles, handguns and machineguns, including sniper systems.

Well they have to have the money to buy them as some are not cheap so for the most part most would be out of the range of the ave joe.

That said some that can afford them can also buy tanks and Fighter Aircraft if they choose to as long as they go through the proper channels.

[Malfeasant]

Funny cause I've never ever heard of any mass murders with a saw,automatic sniper rifle,grenade launchers,RPGs... Yet we can have all this and people want to put a stop to the AR-15?

[Ankerson]

Funny cause I've never ever heard of any mass murders with a saw,automatic sniper rifle,grenade launchers,RPGs... Yet we can have all this and people want to put a stop to the AR-15?

Likely because the people who can actually afford those things and go through the legal loopholes to buy them aren't the type that would kill a bunch of people and those weapons are heavily regulated etc.

Apples and oranges....

No quite the type that would go in and shoot up a school, fast food place or nightclub etc.

Well that said it doesn't do the pro gun movement any good to use that example as those people are not the norm.. IE Ave joe.....

[Malfeasant]

You can only own pre 1986 manufactured autos. Only about 186k are registered... If I wanted to go buy an auto today the chances aren't good that I could actually get one. Except for the m16 ak-47 and ar-15 that have to be modified.. Still hardly considered a weapon of war being outdated in todays time and advancement. Comparing modern weapons to m16,ak-47,ar-15 would be like comparing swords,clubs,axes,spears,bows to m16,ar15,ak-47.

The average joe couldn't get past the red tape of owning anything more. I was also talking about the norm.
I should've stayed away like I planned. It always turns into something else..

[ChrisinHove]

A few decades back, in the name of "freedom of expression" we removed the limitations on violent content in movies. Broadcast TV still has some restrictions, but cable stations have never had any. Radio stations play music that glorifies "the gansta life" and violence toward women and those in authority. First person shooters are among the most popular video games. Do we pay a price for these "freedoms"? The media will vehemently deny any link between their output and violence, but I'm not alone in thinking there is one.

I'm convinced of that. It's the same old Freedom vs Responsibility conundrum. The majority have little difficulty in understanding and adopting, others less so.

[Ankerson]

A few decades back, in the name of "freedom of expression" we removed the limitations on violent content in movies. Broadcast TV still has some restrictions, but cable stations have never had any. Radio stations play music that glorifies "the gansta life" and violence toward women and those in authority. First person shooters are among the most popular video games. Do we pay a price for these "freedoms"? The media will vehemently deny any link between their output and violence, but I'm not alone in thinking there is one.

I'm convinced of that. It's the same old Freedom vs Responsibility conundrum. The majority have little difficulty in understanding and adopting, others less so.

I also tend to agree to a certain point, violence and assorted other things do seem to be glorified more so as time goes on.

Also I believe Society in general is regressing at an alarming rate.

If those things are connected or not directly I don't know, but they do seem to going in the same direction at the same time.

It all goes back to the main problem, human nature and all of the negatives that go along with it if left unchecked.

It all comes down to how much freedom society in the US can handle and still stay civilized and not fall apart, looks like we will find that out.

[paladin]

It all comes down to how much freedom society in the US can handle and still stay civilized and not fall apart, looks like we will find that out.

The country has become too polarized on all sorts of issues with no middle ground or compromise.

Most of the blame rests on the instant, 24-hr "drive-thru," access to social media and left AND right leaning blogs, websites, etc.

It seems no one wants to put in the "due diligence" of learning and developing their opinions organically via experience and study...that is, besides the "pundits and experts" behind their own outlets.

It's much too easy for Joe Public to listen to some talking head and then hijack the extreme opinion of the source, make it his own, maybe tweaking it here or there in the process.

And the most subversive, insidious problem inherent with those blogs, sites, is that it's the nature of the beast that most people who frequent one pole of the political globe NEVER, or RARELY, visit the other pole.

And by "visit" I don't mean double-click with their mouse...I mean ENGAGE for a day, week, or year with the other side WHERE THEY LIVE.

Develop some human compassion and kick the dragon of the electronic media pipe dream off your back.

And before someone does a cut and paste job on this post, I DON'T ADVOCATE COMPROMISE WITH THE CONSTITUTION OUTSIDE OF DUE PROCESS, LEGALLY RATIFIED AMENDMENTS!

But somewhere, somehow the two poles must meet and, at least, have a civil discourse with some hard-won, hard-earned facts-- not just what they say on The Drudge Report or what was on MSNBC last nite...

For instance, how many who rail against the 2nd Amendment even know what it actually states?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There's many causalities in the War on Ignorance. One day l hope the last casualty will be Ignorance himself.