When is it gonna end? This is getting too screwed up. Someone has to tell the gun owners they HAVE to lock up their guns. http://www.alternet.org/flo

[andysayshi]

To be honest, which I'm sure is a new concept to many, the debate is not about safety. There is no verifiable data that strong gun laws, alone, affect violence one way or the other. There is no verifiable data that a proliferation of guns affects safety, one way or the other. Don't bother posting articles or stats from liberal media mills. They are what they are...propaganda.

I and others, such as Rolyo, have posted significant amounts of hard data supporting our claims, in this thread and the other child-killed-by-a-gun thread. From sources like the US Dept Of Justice, the FBI, and the Harvard School Of Medicine. It is a bald face lie to say there is no hard evidence.

And just a reminder, you haven't posted one single statistic or cite to support any of your claims.

The real debate is about the abridgement of the Constitution and the rights therein. Some from other countries are used to being ruled by monarchs, dictators, benevolent despots and such. Americans threw off that yoke many years ago. I doubt there are many Americans willing to walk that back, especially now.

This, of course, is the crux of your argument. It doesn't matter how many Americans die, so long as you get to feel safe with your gun on your bedstand at night. History has taught us, of course, that the side with the most guns often doesn't win the war. It hasn't worked that way in Afghanistan. It didn't work that way in Vietnam. And more guns didn't help the British win the US War of Independence.

Wars are won by the will of the people. If the US ever truly goes to war with its government, they will be fighting tanks, bombs and drones. But that still wouldn't be enough, if the people have the will.

At last week's NRA conference, you would think Obama had started burning down towns to get the guns out of American homes. The paranoia of the gun debate is truly frightening. And that's all your last point is - paranoia.

 

[Durango95]

I and others, such as Rolyo, have posted significant amounts of hard data supporting our claims, in this thread and the other child-killed-by-a-gun thread. From sources like the US Dept Of Justice, the FBI, and the Harvard School Of Medicine. It is a bald face lie to say there is no hard evidence.

And just a reminder, you haven't posted one single statistic or cite to support any of your claims.





This, of course, is the crux of your argument. It doesn't matter how many Americans die, so long as you get to feel safe with your gun on your bedstand at night. History has taught us, of course, that the side with the most guns often doesn't win the war. It hasn't worked that way in Afghanistan. It didn't work that way in Vietnam. And more guns didn't help the British win the US War of Independence.

Wars are won by the will of the people. If the US ever truly goes to war with its government, they will be fighting tanks, bombs and drones. But that still wouldn't be enough, if the people have the will.

At last week's NRA conference, you would think Obama had started burning down towns to get the guns out of American homes. The paranoia of the gun debate is truly frightening. And that's all your last point is - paranoia.

Why should I post anything that you would automatically call propaganda as well? You believe the statistics you post because you want to believe them. Normally I would cite from government sources. That is all but impossible under the current administration and its penchant for "creative" bookkeeping and data compilation. You're second statement shows your true objective. You are concerned that there will large numbers of citizens that won't be willing to walk back their Constitutional rights and that bothers you and yours.

I have never said anywhere that I am opposed to gun regulation laws that are reasonable. I have said there needs to be vigorous enforcement of current laws before new measures are even considered. The administration has an appalling record concerning this. I have also said any new legislation needs to include some better utility to dissuade criminal ventures concerning firearms. That is never addressed by your side. That is puzzling. Your mantra is take guns away from law abiding citizens and somehow magically the criminals won't be criminals any more because they won't have greater access to weapons. That is truly a ridiculous concept.

I'd say the paranoia is yours.

 

[Rolyo85]

"Why should I post anything"? Seriously? That's your defense for having no leg to stand on? It's laughable. You should post anything in order to show that you can. Whether we ignore it or not, is irrelevant, you'll have shown all the people who read this topic that you have an argument.

Why should WE post anything when you don't care about statistics at all? And yet we did. And anyone reading the topic can see what we've posted and decide for themselves whether its legit or not. Meanwhile all you have is empty rhetoric.

 

[White Eagle]

Ditto. What Andy and Rolyo85 said.

 

[andysayshi]

Why should I post anything that you would automatically call propaganda as well?

Because, without facts, debates are just people shouting at each other. Which is pointless.

 

[Durango95]

Because, without facts, debates are just people shouting at each other. Which is pointless.

I am not shouting. You possibly are shouting at your computer right now. I personally find that type behavior unproductive and immature.

Calling you and your ilk zombies is an insult to zombies. Calling you an automaton is an insult to automatons. There has to be an appropriate appellation to describe this abject obtuse sycophancy. It escapes me.

I suppose we could adopt Australia's gun policy which seems most likely motivated by keeping guns out of non-whites hands. There was a particular incident used to facilitate these laws pushed by a liberal agenda. Licensing is lengthy and difficult and expensive. There is no "federal" gun law in Australia. The laws are administered by the separate states governed by a "national" agreement. There are gray areas where discretion is solely afforded to a handful of political appointees, it seems. I'm still trying to understand the government which seems half monarchy and half I-don't-know-what. Which is part democracy and part territorial governorships left over from centuries past.

Japan is often referenced. The Japanese paradigm will not work in this country. Along with rigid gun control, Japan is for all intents and purposes a police state. There are very few protections for citizens when dealing with law enforcement personnel. Curfews are common. Japan, like Australia, is a constitutional monarchy therefore they are used to the concept of being ruled and not governed.

Americans are particularly resistant to this idea.

 

[Rolyo85]

No, see, this is a problem you're having here. NOTHING you're saying has weight because you CAN'T support it with any data. Nothing you say about OUR stance has weight, because you CAN'T discuss OUR data. So you can put on airs all you want, make grand statements, be condescending all you want, accuse us of whatever - your posts ring HOLLOW. They fucking RESONATE with hollowness.

 

[frankfrank]

Doesn't the Constitution say "well regulated militia"?? That tells me that the authors intended the possibility of some kinds of reasonable control. Furthermore, a ban on automatic weapons, rocket launchers, etc. does NOT prevent a qualified person from having a firearm - only from having the type which can cause horrific death counts in seconds.

In an unrelated news story...

 

[Kulindahr]

how would one enforce requiring gun owners to lock up their guns?

it's basic common sense to not store guns where a child or stranger can access it, but there's only so much you can legislate against stupid.

Simple: use the Article I Section 8 authority of Congress to provide for the "discipline" of the militia, which means the rules by which the militia is to operate. That can, as it does with the military, include requirements for storage and maintenance -- and penalties for failure to do so.

In accordance with prior militia Acts, Congress could require every able-bodied person to be enrolled, i.e. listed, in a local militia; as an enrolled member of a militia, a requirement to keep all firearms not in immediate personal use or available to trained persons in a household or business locked in a certifiably secure manner would be totally reasonable. Failure to do so should entail severe penalties; e.g., in a case where a member of the household is known or reasonably believed to be mentally unstable in a dangerous manner, leaving a firearm and ammunition easily available could be equated to accessory to commit <violent crime X>.

However, the ammo needed for some of the higher-tech weapons such as semi-automatics, etc., probably need a tolerance too exacting for somebody to assemble in their basement with only a few hardware power tools and a simple chemical mixture and some malleable metal such as lead. (Bullets for something like a .22 rifle, or buckshot, or a handgun, are rather low-tech.) Somebody who is buying a larger amount of the required chemicals for gunpowder, though, may be looked at rather suspiciously...

Semi-auto ammo is no different from any other; they're interchangeable.

You are quite correct frankfrank. Sadly, SCOTUS determined in 2008 in the DC v Heller case, that the constitution protect the individual right. This was a dissappointing decision. It seems that focus was paid more to 'persons' and whether it referred to a 'collective group of' or individuals generally, rather than the opening words to the amendment 'A well regulated militia'

It was a precisely proper decision, and essential: the meaning of the word "people" in every other case in the Constitution means the individuals whether in single or aggregate, and so any variance must be solidly justified with plain statements to that effect by the authors -- and no statements even approaching that can be found.

Essentially, the well regulated militia is the modern day police force.

Not at all. The modern police force is equivalent of the constabulary, i.e. the city/town version of a noble's private forces, and thus not technically militia at all -- in fact according to the law of the time and of the present, other than the National Guard when not in federal service, no one bearing arms in the service of government is militia.

The posse was (and in places remains) the "police" expression of the militia; it is a continuation of the original American practice of having no professional law enforcement as we know them, but merely a "Watch" that would "raise the hue and cry, and rouse the well-armed citizen". A posse was constituted (as seen in "wild west" films) by a (generally federal) law enforcement officer calling on members of the local militia into federal service (a power delegated to them, as federal officers, by the President -- and one a US Marshal may still exercise).

 

[Durango95]

Such an absurd statement to make. It is no different for the Republicans, no different for Libertarians. People think differently on some issues, and it is utterly ridiculous to argue as if those who are pro gun restriction (predominantly Liberal) are solely guilty of wanting people to see things from the same perspective, everybody does it.



This statement is pretty funny to me. It is the argument of pro gunners, that under liberal policy, guns would be taken from the law abiding, leaving the criminals with guns. And here you are, telling people, as a solution to their anti-gun proliferation stance, that they should just not have one. This means that eventually, when the numbers of people sick to the back teeth of gun-nuts, tragic accidents and wasted lives from easy suicide grow to ever greater proportions, you'd be in exactly the same position, with most law abiders not having guns but the criminals keeping them.

That is thus an inefficient solution to the gun problem that exists.

The only way to address the gun problem requires first for you to stop the propoganda that guns make you safer, because they sure as hell don't, statistically speaking, and to stop glamourising them by encouraging kids to have them and merchanding unnecessarily powerful weapons that serve no purpose other than to show off (like a whose got the bigger dick competition).
Pro gunners have no intent to seek the working solution, for fear that they will lose their treasured toys. It has nothing to do with safety, nothing to do with constitutional rights (thats just a shield to hide behind), its all about selfishness of people who love guns. Instead, all we hear from them is how people want to strip them of their rights, or that things wouldn't be so bad if current laws were implemented better, or they are just a statistic rather than a person as if the two were unrelated.

There are only so many Sandy Hook incidents that Americans can handle before things change, as much to the disliking of gun-lovers as that may be. The only question is, tragically, how many more.

I would say please limit your interest to the gun restriction laws in your country for starters. I personally have no opinion whatsoever as to the gun laws of the UK. I suggest you might should adopt the same stance since it does not affect you at all. In case you failed history, the U.S. is no longer a British colony. You are comfortable with the idea of being ruled. We are not...i.e. The Revolutionary War. Your country lost. Deal with it.

 

[opinterph]

I would say please limit your interest to the gun restriction laws in your country for starters.

I would say please limit your contributions in this sub-forum to the topic of discussion and cease baiting other members based upon your perceptions associated with their location in the world, for starters.

 

[Durango95]

Ok, Number 1. Dismissing someone's opinion, simply for being a foreigner, is ignorant. Number 2, Simply because you do not have an interest, doesn't mean everyone should follow suit, Number 3, the UK is not 'ruled', we are 'reigned' (go look up the difference, not that i expect you would) and lastly, Yes, the UK 'lost', i've tried hard to get over it, but it hurt me badly when i had to return to England back in the 18th century to become a national disgrace for which the wounds are still healing....get over yourself, i was over history in secondary school.

Number 1 That is your opinion. You know what they say about opinions.

Number 2 Why should it matter to you? How does it affect you? Other than being an intrusive busybody.

Number 3 I've never heard of a monarch referred to as a reigner. BTW most dictionaries interchange rule and reign when in the context of a monarchical governance.

As to your last point. I'd say apparently you haven't been able to reconcile the trauma. Might I suggest therapy.

 

[Rolyo85]

Durango. I have reported your post. AND an admin told you DIRECTLY to stop trying to attack posters for their geographic location. This is an international forum and everyone is welcome to contribute on any topic.

Furthermore, you have consistently failed to contribute in ANY meaningful way to the topic, other than dissing others' opinions. Your behavior in JUB has been shameful.

 

[Durango95]

There is only globalism to the few uninformed. That is the best appellation I can currently determine for such as those. Americans are not, as a body, globalists. Americans still enjoy the privilege of being independent and free. That is the basis of our government, irrespective of the elected officials, as has been demonstrated, presently. FYI there is no such term as reigners. There are rulers. I've enjoyed a laugh at your expense as well.

Maybe instead of reigners you meant reindeer. LOL

 

[cm98059]

There are a lot of people in this thread yelling that firearms are bad, firearms are only useful for killing. But with very few exceptions, no one has even commented on the points I have brought up.

First, why was a thirteen year old boy playing with a firearm. At thirteen years of age, I knew that firearms were not a toy. They were a tool used for hunting and putting food on the table. It was also acceptable to use them for target practice to improve your skills at putting food on the table. Firearms are a quick and effective method for hunting. You use shot guns for birds, and Rifles for game. Hand guns are for self defense from rattlers and other critters, and for the occasion when you need to mercifully put an animal out of it's misery.

Second, why was there not a trigger lock in place in the firearm when it was not in use. Even before the age of thirteen, I knew that firearms were stored unloaded (being that I am actually older than the invention of trigger locks). Yes, I knew how to load and use the fire arms, but I was also well aware of the fact that if I misused one of the firearms my ass would be blistered.

Third, When there is a firearm in the house, it is the responsibility of all members of the household to know firearm safety. I learned how to use a firearm from an uncle who was home from the Vietnam Conflict, when I was 5 years old. Before I was 5, I knew damn good and well that I was to keep my hands off the firearms.

The answer is not more regulation. The answer is not banning firearms. The answer is not automatic vs semi-automatic vs repeating action. The answer is responsibility. The answer is knowledge. The answer is knowing that someone is going to kick your ass if you fuck up. The answer is you use a firearm in the commission of a felony, and your ass is in the electric chair. We need to have strict laws with definite consequences. You do this, and this will happen. Period.

 

[Rolyo85]

Yet you can legislate responsibility about as much as you can legislate stupidity or morality. So you need regulation. Laws that enforce responsibility.

And of course, that particular brand of military responsibility wouldn't even be needed if the country wasn't swamped with murder weapons.

 

[Rolyo85]

There is only globalism to the few uninformed. That is the best appellation I can currently determine for such as those. Americans are not, as a body, globalists. Americans still enjoy the privilege of being independent and free. That is the basis of our government, irrespective of the elected officials, as has been demonstrated, presently. FYI there is no such term as reigners. There are rulers. I've enjoyed a laugh at your expense as well.

Maybe instead of reigners you meant reindeer. LOL

Oh, sugarplum, this illusion Americans have about being somehow more "free" and "independent" than others... It's so adorable Do you know that China can singlehandedly destroy the US economy if they just ask for the money you guys owe them?

But I digress. Will you rise to the level of argumentation the others in this thread have offered, or will you continue to show yourself for someone not worth reading?

 

[cm98059]

Rolyo, a lead pipe is a murder weapon. A knife is a murder weapon. poison in a murder weapon. Where do we stop banning things? You could take your belt off and strangle someone with that, so should we ban clothing? Firearms are not murder weapons. Firearms are tools. Tools that help people in everyday life. In parts of the United States we have animals that will harm humans. Have you asked someone who has been mauled by a Grizzly Bear how well pepper spray works? Have you ever tried to get close enough to a rattler to stab it with a knife? Have you ever tried to get a calf away from a group of coyotes with a stick? For these reasons alone, I will never stand in agreement of banning firearms. Firearms are not bad. People who use firearms for unlawful purposes are bad. Following the rationale that many in this discussion are using, people drink and drive, so we should ban cars. Cars like firearms have purposes. We don't need to ban things because some people use them for purposes they were not intended to be used for. We need to punish the criminal, treat the mentally ill, rehabilitate the ones that can be rehabilitated, and the ones that cannot be rehabilitated need to be dealt with permanently. And yes, you can read the use of the death penalty as a permanent solution to a problem.

 

[andysayshi]

TAmericans still enjoy the privilege of being independent and free.

Oh dear.

Free to live in fear of guns? Highest gun death rate of any developed nation. Free to be incarcerated? Highest jail population on Earth. Free to be married to your same sex partner? Not yet.

As regulars here know, I love the States. I've lived and work there, I visit often. I have many friends and an amicable ex-partner there. But your kind of vacuous exceptionalism is one of problems the US faces. Have you ever traveled to another country? Do you have any genuine perspective of the other nations you're writing fiction about?

And what the hell do any of your posts have to do with this topic??

 

[andysayshi]

Rolyo, a lead pipe is a murder weapon. A knife is a murder weapon. poison in a murder weapon. Where do we stop banning things? You could take your belt off and strangle someone with that, so should we ban clothing? Firearms are not murder weapons. Firearms are tools. Tools that help people in everyday life. In parts of the United States we have animals that will harm humans. Have you asked someone who has been mauled by a Grizzly Bear how well pepper spray works? Have you ever tried to get close enough to a rattler to stab it with a knife? Have you ever tried to get a calf away from a group of coyotes with a stick? For these reasons alone, I will never stand in agreement of banning firearms. Firearms are not bad. People who use firearms for unlawful purposes are bad. Following the rationale that many in this discussion are using, people drink and drive, so we should ban cars. Cars like firearms have purposes. We don't need to ban things because some people use them for purposes they were not intended to be used for. We need to punish the criminal, treat the mentally ill, rehabilitate the ones that can be rehabilitated, and the ones that cannot be rehabilitated need to be dealt with permanently. And yes, you can read the use of the death penalty as a permanent solution to a problem.

I HAVE addressed your points in this thread, perhaps not directly to you, but all the points you make above have been covered. Read my posts above as to why comparing a lethal weapon with an everyday functional tool is not logical. See that, despite the prolific existence of knives in the US, guns kill a lot more people. And also note that, in the case of cars for example, better regulation has been proven to save lives and improve safety.

If guns were treated with the extreme reverence and concern that they should be, with suitably strict regulations for their use and storage, this tragedy may never have occurred. Instead, in the US we see guns marketed as toys to children, and treated as such. Laws are weak or non existent, and seldom enforced. The result is irresponsible owners not choosing or bothering to safely manage lethal weapons in their own homes. In the case of the 2 year old girl's death in Kentucky, not a single law was broken.