New Gun Control... Necessary or Politically Expedient

@Wayne:

we really are just trying to have a discussion
Click to expand...

Indeed and that's much easier to do if we try to keep to reality.

However, the following statement is a bit of a stranger to reality on more than one level:
Removing all weapons is not the answer, because as we see in other countries, it's very much true that "when you outlaw guns, the only people with guns will be outlaws".
Click to expand...

Firstly, as I've already pointed out, no one one is asking for all weapons to be outlawed.
You must know this, not just because I've already told you, but because everyone knows it. So to continue with this exaggeration undermines your argument.

Furthermore, using an empty sound-bite like "when you outlaw guns, the only people with guns will be outlaws," is an over-simplification of reality that does your argument little credit.
I'm sure I don't have to explain (at least I hope I don't) why it's an over-simplification.
 
faethor said:
1%? Hmm don't remember that comment. In family income we're in the top 5-10% for the USA. Though I wouldn't be surprised if we're in the top 1% locally. No gated communities, I have 19.2 acres.

You make it sound like life is so dangerous for the 'common man'. Turns out that violent crimes continue along their downward trend. Least violent crime since 1963 I'd add in many of those stats are drug related. We've had murders and about 99% are either drug related or family violence. Family is generally more of a threat than an external stranger. Rapes and murders of women are typically committed by family and friends, not an intruder. And unlike the NRA claims it appears videogames reduce violent crime . I somehow doubt there's a direct relation but if the NRA is right that there is a relation it appears to be inversely related. Heck schools encourage you to take each other out daily in gym. That's what Dodge Ball is all about.
Click to expand...

I'm mostly just ragging on you, faethor. I don't care what income bracket you are in. You made a comment some weeks(months) back that opened you up to some friendly ragging.

"Dangerous" is different from area to area. A bad neighborhood in South Florida is probably different than a bad neighborhood in your state. You make an interesting point though, one you probably different mean to make. If gun ownership is up and violent crime is at a historic low, is there a cause an effect at play?
 
If gun ownership is up and violent crime is at a historic low, is there a cause an effect at play?
Click to expand...
I think not. My reason is that criminals are frequently not very rational. Else they wouldn't do that crap in the first place. I bet more people shoot themselves or a friend on accident than total crimes are deterred by guns.
 
Here's a comparison for the countries of the most regular posters on here. Apologies if I've missed anyone:
screenshot20121227at182.png

From:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/

-EDIT-
For the record, the chart for homicide by any method has a similar shape so perhaps guns aren't the issue after all. Maybe Americans just like killing each other a bit more than the other nationalities on Whyzzat. :p
 
The probability that my kids or my friends kids schools will fall victim to a school shooting is a very tiny number, close enough to say 0. However, the probability that some school within the USA will fall victim to gun violence is very large enough to say that it's a certainity.
 
One of the things I have read repeatedly in the wake of this attack is not that there was mental health care available, but that it is difficult to access, worse, is having funding cut in a number of states.

You can argue either way about gun regulation, but without adequate and easy/quick access to mental health care, this sort of crap will continue to happen regardless.

@Robert

How do you feel about re-enactment societies, given their penchant for owning death dealing devices such as muskets, swords, long/crossbows etc? :-D
 
the_leander said:
@Robert

How do you feel about re-enactment societies, given their penchant for owning death dealing devices such as muskets, swords, long/crossbows etc? :-D
Click to expand...

My comments regarding a ban of everything outside of shotguns and hunting rifles are specifically aimed at firearms. With the exception of the musket, the things you mentioned are not firearms.

With regard to the musket, if you are in a re-enactment society, I'm not aware of any reason why you would need your musket to be able to fire real bullets. In fact, live bullets in a re-enactment strikes me as a flat-out stupid idea, likely to lead to serious accidents. However, I'm happy to listen to an explanation.
And even if there is a valid reason, you should still require a licence, same as you would for a shotgun.
 
the_leander said:
You can argue either way about gun regulation, but without adequate and easy/quick access to mental health care, this sort of crap will continue to happen regardless.
Click to expand...

That goes both ways, in my opinion. Not everyone who goes nuts with a gun is showing signs of mental illness prior to the event.

You can argue either way about adequate and easy/quick access to mental health care but without adequate gun regulation, this sort of crap will continue to happen regardless.

It's not a case of one or the other. Both are necessary and even then this sort of incident will continue to happen, just hopefully a lot less often.
 
That goes both ways, in my opinion. Not everyone who goes nuts with a gun is showing signs of mental illness prior to the event.
Click to expand...
Many gun deaths aren't 'nuts'. Crimes of passion - shooting the people in the affair, would be one example. Or just plain stupidity shoots self or doesn't secure the weapon. 4 year old shoots 2 year old . It does happen but it's rare that someone is shot in defense of a crime.

Here's a good Twitter feed to follow - http://twitter.com/GunDeaths
 
Love the outrage in this article:
Sen. Feinstein's 'Assault Weapon' Ban Really Handgun Ban

DiFiAssaultWeapon.jpg

by AWR Hawkins 27 Dec 2012 589 post a comment
contributor-80x100-awrhawkins.png

After all the Democrats' emphasis the dangers of so-called "assault weapons," the details of Senator Dianne Feinstein's pending assault weapons ban show that her real goal is to ban handguns.

That's right, after all the criticism of the AR-15 and the holier-than-thou speeches about how no one needs a military-style rifle with a 30-round magazine the details of the ban betray a gun grab that includes semi-automatic pistols that use "a detachable magazine" and have "one military characteristic."
This can only mean that the most popular handguns in the world for both civilian and military use are being targeted. These would include Glocks, Sig Sauers, Smith & Wesson M&Ps, H&K, and Colt, yet would by no means be limited to these handguns alone.
Ironically, I was just talking to a friend this morning about how the "assault weapons" ban is just way for the Democrats to get their foot in the door and ban handguns. And now, before the legislation is even introduced, they've gone ahead and shown their hand.
But an even bigger problem lurks -- right now the focus is only on "assault weapons" and semi-auto handguns, however, as soon as a public crime is committed with a double-action revolver, Feinstein and Co. will try to add those to the list as well.
The bottom line: If we are foolish enough to embrace a ban on any weapon in the coming Congress then we are unwittingly embracing a ban on every weapon.
The Democrats cannot be trusted with our freedoms, and they will politicize every tragedy to accomplish their ends.
Proof of this lies in the fact that Feinstein was just waiting for a open door to push a gun ban anyway. In other words, this isn't because of Sandy Hook. Reports from early Nov. 2012 were already indicating the she planned to push a assault weapons ban if Obama were re-elected.
Now more than ever, Republican Senators and Reps. must stand up for the individual right to keep and bear arms. Liberty itself is at stake.
Click to expand...
:lol:
Absolutely hysterical.
The comments are almost as funny:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...s-Assault-Weapons-Ban-Is-Really-A-Handgun-Ban
 
the_leander said:
One of the things I have read repeatedly in the wake of this attack is not that there was mental health care available, but that it is difficult to access, worse, is having funding cut in a number of states.

You can argue either way about gun regulation, but without adequate and easy/quick access to mental health care, this sort of crap will continue to happen regardless.
Click to expand...
and it's not as if Connecticut doesn't have money. we just need a better system.
 
Robert said:
With regard to the musket, if you are in a re-enactment society, I'm not aware of any reason why you would need your musket to be able to fire real bullets. In fact, live bullets in a re-enactment strikes me as a flat-out stupid idea, likely to lead to serious accidents. However, I'm happy to listen to an explanation.
And even if there is a valid reason, you should still require a licence, same as you would for a shotgun.
Click to expand...

Any muzzle loaded weapon would have to have a clear barrel or some kind of guard that was removable for the purposes of cleaning, at which point, it could be rigged to fire without such a guard. Basically any muzzle loader could fire a live round.

My point about longbows/crossbows, is that they can both fire more rapidly than a musket, which even with the best will in the world will only offer 3 rounds a minute. Your dislike of firearms is noted, but you seem to be happy to ignore weapons that are even more lethal simply because of their not using gunpowder as a means of propellant. To be clear with a compound bow I can easily loose 8 rounds in a minute with reasonable accuracy. With a half decent modern crossbow I can possibly stretch that into double figures and maintain the same level of accuracy.

With regards mental health care, right now in many US states (and frankly, in the UK as well) it is significantly easier to get a gun (of any type) than it is to get care.

I'm not arguing that gun laws need to be ignored or left as is, but right now the difficulty in accessing psychiatric care coupled with the cuts slated for the near future (at least to me) would seem to be the priority.
 
Wayne said:
2) Help *is* available for the mentally imbalanced. Why -- if as she reportedly suspected he was crazy -- didn't SHE take steps to get him help?
Click to expand...

This is really a most horribly unfair comment. This mother lived with her son for two decades and knew him well. She had money and resources and she was involved in her difficult son's life. If he was on the autism spectrum then he likely could have suffered from outbursts of rage but they tend to be short lived. Going to the extent of planning a violent rampage and carrying it out would be highly unusual. However, there are rumours that what may have precipitated the event was the that the mother was planning on having her son committed into care, something that would indicate that she could no longer cope with him. Perhaps he had been recently deteriorating.
 
Any reason why guns shouldn't be regulated like cars? Your guns are registered to you and must be properly transferred when the gun moves on (else you remain liable for whatever is done with it unless you report it stolen) and you must carry insurance in case your gun causes injury or death. If you are caught drunk in charge of a fire arm then you face the possibility of confiscation or loss of license. Etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top