Video ‘guns have changed, shouldn’t our gun laws?"

[Kulindahr]

The gun nuts most against strict background checks are the ones who probably wouldn't pass one. It's no wonder why they're against stricter gun laws.

It was Democrats against background checks up until now -- the NRA tried to get the NICS open for individual citizens selling weapons. If they'd just go with that, now, it would pass because of the voluntary nature -- and if several of the firearms groups' surveys are right, some 98% of all individual sellers would use the system.

 

[Kulindahr]

After all these threads on guns and such, and seeing as I am posting more lately. I just wanted to comment on this. I think this add is, a bit unrealistic. The laws have changed with the time as the guns have. Now have the laws changed with the society in mind; truthfully, no I don’t think they have. I do think it is too easy to get a gun, because frankly there are a lot of people out there that do not have any business having a gun. As a gun owner myself they are strictly for range shooting, and that is it. When not at the range my guns and ammo are locked up separately. The issue with our gun laws is people that do not have the proper knowledge and respect for the weapons they are buying, can easily buy them and do what they want with them.

Point in case I grew up in Indiana. When I turned 18 and still a senior in high school, I had my concealed carry. Now I got it simply because you needed to have a license to be able to legally transport handguns to the range. What need would an 18 year old high school student have for a concealed carry? I should not have been allowed to be accepted for that license truthfully. Indiana has a license strictly for transport but since it was available I figured what the hell I will get my CCL. I had no desire to actually carry a handgun on me. The reason being I don’t really want to shoot anyone, just don’t.

You, sir, qualify as "well-regulated". Congratulations!

 

[Kulindahr]

Perhaps not. But the FACT is that, of the 143 weapons used in all the mass shootings in the US in the past 30 years, 48 would be outlawed by the proposed 2013 Assault Weapons ban. 42 of them had high capacity magazines, and we KNOW from several of the most recent mass shootings that if the shooter has to pause to reload it is very likely he will be stopped during that pause. Which is the point made by this TV spot.

Irrelevant, because those weapons differ from gobs of others only cosmetically.

No, if you are against background checks and tighter gun laws relating to safe use and storage, you are actually helping more criminals get guns.

Yes. The background check measure could be passed if the Democrats would settle for making it voluntary, and both that and disciplined storage methods are within Congress' authority.


BTW, the Mother Jones graph is useless: the DOJ relies solely on criminal data, i.e. they only count an instance if there's been an arrest and the arresting agency reports a defensive gun use.

 

[Kulindahr]

I should have said the same type sources. I will confess. I didn't read your entire post. Propaganda is so tiresome. I know I will not change your mind on this issue. You will not change mine either.

The concept of weapons being more a matter of the community than the individual is typical for your ilk. You do realize that most everything also has an effect on the community not just guns. The fact you have a car has an impact on the local community. How you maintain your property has an impact on your community. Both of which could potentially be deadly.

Thousands of people die in automobile accidents every year. Thousands of people die in house fires every year. Thousands of people die in wild fires every year.

About 30 thousand people on average are killed by guns per year. There are 300 million guns estimated in the US. That is one death per 100 thousand guns. Guns are weapons specifically designed to kill.

About 35 thousand people die in automobile accidents every year. There are an estimated 72 million cars in the US. That is one death per approximately 2 thousand cars. Cars are not designed as weapons. Their primary purpose is not to kill but to transport.

Guns are safer than cars even though guns are designed to kill.

There's a fallacy in your application of the statistics -- unfortunately I'm not alert enough at this hour to pin it down.

Anyone?

 

[Kulindahr]

Ah, the good old "cars also kill people". Yes, except that's not the sole purpose for buying one.

Murder is not the sole purpose of buying a gun. Of the various firearms I own, only one was bought with any concept of shooting a person, and that is my chosen sidearm. Indeed, most guns in America are sold with no thought at all of shooting anyone.

 

[Kulindahr]

Guns are currently regulated. There is no need for further regulation. There is a need for this current administration to actively enforce the laws instead of selectively parsing out "justice". You presented no argument. It was propaganda, plain and simple.

No need for further regulation.... That needs to be qualified: there is definitely need for Congress to step up and provide for the discipline of the militia -- specifically as I've already noted.

And I'll add here that committing a crime using a firearm belonging to someone else should be a second crime all its own.

No, it is clearly and glaringly not. It's a panicked decision by a mentality paralyzed with irrational fear of one's neighbors. Because - ironically - they're packing just as much heat.

Your "wild west" view of American citizens is getting old. It's not my neighbors I'm worried about, it's the people who make the headlines for violent crime.

 

[andysayshi]

BTW, the Mother Jones graph is useless: the DOJ relies solely on criminal data, i.e. they only count an instance if there's been an arrest and the arresting agency reports a defensive gun use.

I'm tired of correcting you about this. The NCVS interviews around 100,000 randomly selected Americans per year, over a calculated selection of geographic and socio-economic areas, each over a 6 month period. They are not selected because they are victims of crime. Many of those who do the survey experience NO crime during the 6 month period. Those who do can (and presumably do) report it. If a participant prevents the possibility of a crime with a gun, even if the crime doesn't end up taking place, it is still a reportable incident.

The NCVS also specifically measures crime incidents that are not reported to police.

No matter how you look at it, it's a much more exhaustive survey than the thousand-or-so random people that Mr Kleck phoned up in the early 90s.

 

[andysayshi]

It's not my neighbors I'm worried about, it's the people who make the headlines for violent crime.

I've got bad news for ya. The people who make the headlines for violent crime? They're ALL somebody's neighbour. Every single one of them.

If you weren't worried about your neighbours, you wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself.

 

[Kulindahr]

Laws should be shaped by reality, not headlines. And the statistics show us that people around guns are more likely to experience violent crime.

Those statistics are skewed, unless you want to maintain that there are literally multiple millions of violent crimes annually in the U.S.

Nope. Take Gabby Gifford's shooting. Despite being surrounded by police and security professionals, the gunman was taken down by unarmed civilians whilst he was reloading. The only civilian who came close to firing a shot admitted on Fox News that he was a few milliseconds from shooting one of the heroic bystanders, mistaking him for the gunman.

Irrelevant to my point. There have been mass shootings in the U.S. where people present owned guns but were prevented from accessing them by law. As a result of those laws, people died.

Emotional response that ignores my point. You can't address crime prevention with the hope that innocent bystanders will act heroically, because they often will not. Most people just run. Emotional responses won't change that reality. The goal of lawmakers and crime prevention policies must be to reduce the likelihood of gun crime, not increase the ability of the public to respond to it.

So you think we should be sheep, and quietly accept being victimized. Do you expect someone facing a rapist to be consoled by the fact that you have reduced the overall rate of violent crime?

The police have no duty to protect me, so it's up to me to provide for my own protection. If you say that government gets to make that decision for me, then your position at root is that we are all property, not citizens.

Anyone who votes for a law that restricts the right of others to provide for their own defense is an ally of the criminals from then on -- because the criminals have no problem getting firearms.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you weren't worried about your neighbours, you wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself.

I'm not worried about my neighbors. But in this county, I do need a gun to protect myself -- especially when I go to the south end.

 

[andysayshi]

Where I live, if there is a place that is so dangerous we avoid going there...? We complain to the authorities, and they address the crime there and make it safer.

That's the crux of the issue. I rely on law makers and law enforcers to ensure my safety, to the best of their ability. Of course that is not foolproof, but the reality is that I can almost guarantee that someone trying to assault me will not be doing so with a gun. I'd much rather face a mugger or a home invader who was holding a baseball bat than one who was holding a Glock.

You don't trust your law enforcers, to the degree that you feel the need to potentially arm yourself against them. Your frequent descriptions of them make them sound like your enemy, not your protectors.

If your law makers and law enforcers can't make your neighbourhoods safe, the problem is not your ability to defend yourself with weapons. It's that your law makers and law enforcers aren't doing their job properly.

No response to post #107 above?

 

[andysayshi]

It was Democrats against background checks up until now -- the NRA tried to get the NICS open for individual citizens selling weapons. If they'd just go with that, now, it would pass because of the voluntary nature -- and if several of the firearms groups' surveys are right, some 98% of all individual sellers would use the system.

That's just revisionist nonsense. The NRA only supported NICS when the technology to make it worthwhile didn't exist. Since 1993, the NRA have fought to suppress background checks of all types, and sought to prevent the storage of any records about gun purchasers. Democrats opposed the NRA-lobbied bills because they were completely toothless - they had no hope of preventing criminals from purchasing guns.


http://factcheck.org/2013/04/biden-revises-nra-history-on-background-checks/

In 1991, the NRA endorsed legislation creating a national system of “instant background checks” as an alternative to a seven-day waiting period contained in the proposed Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. But the technology didn’t exist yet. A gun-control advocate said the “instant check bill would have completely gutted the Brady bill by eliminating the waiting period.”

In 1993, the Brady bill became law with compromise language on background checks. The law required a five-day waiting period until an instant background check system could be established. Background checks would apply only to federally licensed firearm dealers, and the NRA said it opposed attempts to expand background checks to all gun sales as “foolish.”

In 1998, on the day that the FBI launched the instant check system, the NRA sued to bar the federal agency from keeping identifying information on gun buyers for 90 days, claiming the brief retention of records amounted to a de facto gun registry. Although the NRA lost its suit, Congress would later mandate that the FBI destroy its records within 24 hours of an approved gun sale.

In 1999, Congress considered expanding background checks to include gun shows after the Columbine High School massacre. The NRA supported a narrow expansion of background checks in a House bill that then-President Clinton said was “plainly ghostwritten by the NRA.” The NRA opposed a more expansive Senate version. The Senate sponsor said that “the gun lobby killed the legislation in House-Senate conference.”

 

[Rolyo85]

Several gals I know call that position "pro-rape", because of the three, who were each an intended rape victim, one didn't get raped -- because she had a gun.

These politicians expect us to be sheep. They forget that I am not some statistic for them to manipulate as they please, I'm a person who has a choice in how to maintain his safety -- and it's MY safety, not theirs.

Actually, what they intend is to lower the culture of violence perpetuated by guns. Violent crime - not just gun crime but ANY other crime - will be affected when weapons aren't just flying around all over the place. As proven by every country in the Western World that's not America.

And please do tell - are the hundreds of thousands of domestic shooting victims - among those many children and women - a statistic then? Since YOU aren't, I assume they aren't either, yes? Oh, if only those girlfriends had more guns to defend themselves against their raging boyfriend... Or if little Jimmy had more guns to defend himself against daddy's shotgun that he accidentally fired in his face while playing with it...

 

[Rolyo85]

I've never been angry enough to want to use a firearm against anyone -- that's not what firearms are for.

"Taking weapons from hands" favors the criminals, as it requires citizens to be victims.

Last, we shouldn't be talking "gun control", we should be talking what the Constitution does: militia discipline.

Lol, so you're not sheep when government wants to take away your guns, but you're sheep when you want to be subjected to a military boot camp? Fun times.

Also, great for YOU that you have never been angry enough to want to use a firearm against anyone. That makes you a shiny little minority, as evidenced by every statistic ever.

 

[Rolyo85]

Murder is not the sole purpose of buying a gun. Of the various firearms I own, only one was bought with any concept of shooting a person, and that is my chosen sidearm. Indeed, most guns in America are sold with no thought at all of shooting anyone.

That argument borders with the idiotic. The purpose of a gun IS to shoot at people (or animals, but that's rifles really). Doesn't matter what fantasy world lofty idealistic purpose YOU bought it for, that's what it is used for, that's its purpose.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, it is clearly and glaringly not. It's a panicked decision by a mentality paralyzed with irrational fear of one's neighbors. Because - ironically - they're packing just as much heat.

Better than one in ten Americans will be affected by violent crime in their lifetimes. Unless you're one of the wealthy who can afford bodyguards, the only option for protection against that is to do it yourself.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you weren't worried about your neighbours, you wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself.

You really think I never leave my neighborhood?

Wow.

 

[Kulindahr]

Where I live, if there is a place that is so dangerous we avoid going there...? We complain to the authorities, and they address the crime there and make it safer.

That's the crux of the issue. I rely on law makers and law enforcers to ensure my safety, to the best of their ability. Of course that is not foolproof, but the reality is that I can almost guarantee that someone trying to assault me will not be doing so with a gun. I'd much rather face a mugger or a home invader who was holding a baseball bat than one who was holding a Glock.

You don't trust your law enforcers, to the degree that you feel the need to potentially arm yourself against them. Your frequent descriptions of them make them sound like your enemy, not your protectors.

If your law makers and law enforcers can't make your neighbourhoods safe, the problem is not your ability to defend yourself with weapons. It's that your law makers and law enforcers aren't doing their job properly.

No response to post #107 above?

The Supreme Court has said quite clearly that the police have no responsibility to protect any individual -- that means they don't have a responsibility to protect actual persons.

If the "law enforcers" aren't doing their jobs properly, your solution is plainly to just accept being a victim. That fits quite well with the "disarm them all" view that individual humans have no worth.

 

[Rolyo85]

Better than one in ten Americans will be affected by violent crime in their lifetimes. Unless you're one of the wealthy who can afford bodyguards, the only option for protection against that is to do it yourself.

That, or make sure the statistic changes and that criminals aren't armed with guns. As is the case in - wait for it - countries with strict gun control.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's just revisionist nonsense. The NRA only supported NICS when the technology to make it worthwhile didn't exist. Since 1993, the NRA have fought to suppress background checks of all types, and sought to prevent the storage of any records about gun purchasers. Democrats opposed the NRA-lobbied bills because they were completely toothless - they had no hope of preventing criminals from purchasing guns.


http://factcheck.org/2013/04/biden-revises-nra-history-on-background-checks/

Democrats have never shown much interest in keeping criminals from getting guns. Bill Clinton was the epitome of that, bragging that a hundred thousand criminals had been prevented from buying guns... but failing to mention that there was no provision for prosecuting any of those people. Result? They just went somewhere else.

BTW, the NRA-backed measures to allow private sellers access to the NICS was hardly toothless, since it would have, well, allowed private sellers access to the NICS.