New Gun Control... Necessary or Politically Expedient

[ltstanfo]

Well, you already know how I feel about the subject and my acceptance that the way guns are a part of the culture in your country is something I cannot properly relate to.

I still feel the world would be a lot safer if there was an international ban on the manufacture of anything other than hunting rifles and shotguns.

I respect your view Robert but we will never find a middle ground on this particular topic. In your country, such is essentially in effect as in several other countries. I can only hope that never happens here.

Regards,
ltstanfo

 

[ltstanfo]

I think I disagree at where the benefit is here? There's a pro-gun organization (NRA) there's no anti-gun organization. Pushing knee-jerk reactions increases weapon and ammo sales. Which in turn increases gun manufacturers profits. In response the gun manufactures push the NRA even more money. Again not selling guns doesn't increase anyone's bottom line an in turn there's no anti-gun organization that receives the influx of funding. I see the bigger win for the pro-gun side of the debate. Money keeps the wheels greased and keeps the polititcans greased.

Actually what I see failing here is the state of the mental healthcare industry in this country. We've moved away from treatment facilities into using prisions and jails to house those with mental instabilities and issues. This has moved us away from treatment into turning a blind eye to the problem. It's a side effect of our healthcare system.

Faethor,

There is indeed an anti gun lobby and it is currently known as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence. It is in the interest of the anti gun lobby to keep this tragedy in the news to garner both sympathy and support (including $$) for their cause. Are they as big as the NRA? Not yet but then everything starts small and grows if successful.

EDIT: yes, we can thank the gun grabbers and President Obama / Senator Feinstein in particular for the sudden spike in gun and ammo sales. There's nothing like telling the public what they can't have to increase sales (aka "get it while you can)...

We are in agreement with regards to mental health care however.

Regards,
ltstanfo

 

[faethor]

There is indeed an anti gun lobby and it is currently known as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence. It is in the interest of the anti gun lobby to keep this tragedy in the news to garner both sympathy and support (including $$) for their cause. Are they as big as the NRA? Not yet but then everything starts small and grows if successful.

Yes there are a ragtag handful of anti-gun groups. And yes not as big as the NRA. BCtPV has a budget of under $4Million/year. Whereas the NRA operates with more than $200Million/year.

With each publicized shooting we see more people buying guns, buying ammo, and registrating for gun classes. Those first two help the NRA. So, at best, I might agree publicity helps both sides. But financially and in the long term the NRA clearly reaps the reward.

BTW I'm an NRA member. Though it's expiring and I won't be renewing. Especially after earlier this year when they hung up on me during their member poll.

 

[ltstanfo]

why did the mother feel the need to have guns?

From what I have learned, she grew up around them on a farm, became a collector and enjoyed shooting them... a lot like others here, including me. I would amend your statement to include... did she keep them secure in a safe or use trigger locks? I'm still waiting on the police report to cover those missing details.


Regards,
ltstanfo

 

[ltstanfo]

@Robert,

Thanks. Interesting view from outside of the USA. Within the USA most of us need a car. There are a few exceptions (NYC, Chicago) but for the most part we can't do without them. However, most of us don't need guns and most of the gun owners don't hunt. If trends continue in late 2013 / early 2014 there will be more gun deaths than auto related deaths. Doing away with them is next to impossible. Also, I think it'd be hard for us to sustain our world policing actions if the society itself wasn't gun crazy. For example, the USA has a bigger Navy then the rest of the world combined. I don't think we could do that without guns being branded as a 'good' from a very young age. Clearly the positive messages of guns helps the USA to philosophy that it's okay to be the lone military super-duper power. (not commenting on if that's good or bad, more so that it's a direct relation.)\

@Red,
The USA could not have obtained our independence if not for the help of foreign powers of the era.

Clearly the US government has the firepower to take whatever they want internally. That you and your peashooters are any 'last resort' is a delusion. At best you'll take out a couple of people before you are gone yourself.

It seems the NRA version of the 2nd amendment tend to skip over that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This piece wasn't to guarantee overthrow of the USA but to build a quick militia in the time of foreign invasion.

IMO, it's time the Supreme Court step up and decide what the 2nd Amendment means. Is it militia related? Or is it an unalienable right to own whatever the hell we want (aka grenades, cannons, nukes, etc.) Once that's done either side can then begin modifying the laws accordingly. However, without that clear line in the sand it's difficult for either side to bring forward modifications. As such the rights to guns are kept in a constant state of debate and out of a true direction.

Faethor,

The recent Heller decision before the Supreme Court did, in part, answer your question. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right. The first part of the amendment is wrapped within the individual right (IMO) since at that time it was easier and quicker to assemble a militia as opposed to raising, equipping and maintaining a standing army. I offer you and others here the excellent opinion episode done by Penn and Teller on their old show... Bullsh*it: Gun Control. You can find it easily on iTunes. It's a straightforward explanation that is easy to follow. I don't always agree with Penn Gillette but he was spot on in this episode.

Perhaps you might rephrase your question to say what is US society willing to accept for legal gun owners today?

Regards,
ltstanfo

 

[ltstanfo]

Interesting point and not one I'd really considered.
That said, and no disrespect, but as I explained on the original thread, my concern for US gun control is minimal these days. Another week, another mass shooting in the US of A. It gets a bit like another bunch of civilians slaughtered in Gaza - tragic but so common as to have an ever diminishing impact on callous, old me.

You live in a country where guns are part of the culture. To an outsider, it looks like gun death comes with that. Moreover, it looks like anyone trying to argue otherwise is either wilfully blind or barking mad. The statistics seem to reinforce that.

However, it's your country and I stopped worrying about it awhile ago. As long as they're hard to get a hold of over here, I'm happy enough. Unfortunately, they seem to be getting easier to obtain over here but are still out of the reach of the average citizen so I'm not overly concerned.
Yet.



That's another argument that looks hilariously absurd to outsiders. Hence my back and forths with Lee, going back several years about the individual right to bear arms being logically extended to nukes.
I'd extend this to include everything from chemical & biological weapons, attack helicopters, fighter jets with heat seeking missiles to land mines, cluster bombs and white phosphorous incendiaries. ;-)

-EDIT-
It also strikes me that one of the main reasons that people are so anti-gun control is that shooting guns is fun.
Clearly this is true; shooting guns is great fun. My uncle loved it.
However, most people realise that "my personal fun" is a pathetic counter to "your personal safety" so they drag out the old constitution nonsense to deflect from the real reasons.

Respectfully Robert that last statement is apples and oranges as far as I am concerned. Those of us who legally obtain and own firearms are no more a risk to "your personal safety" than my nuke is to your house. ;-)

With respect to this country's gun culture i think we do need to explore how to better police the acquisition process as well as ownership responsibility. That is where I would like to see the discussion go.

Regards,
ltstanfo

 

[ltstanfo]

Yes there are a ragtag handful of anti-gun groups. And yes not as big as the NRA. BCtPV has a budget of under $4Million/year. Whereas the NRA operates with more than $200Million/year.

With each publicized shooting we see more people buying guns, buying ammo, and registrating for gun classes. Those first two help the NRA. So, at best, I might agree publicity helps both sides. But financially and in the long term the NRA clearly reaps the reward.

BTW I'm an NRA member. Though it's expiring and I won't be renewing. Especially after earlier this year when they hung up on me during their member poll.

I see your points about the NRA and on the surface, I agree. However, the NRA is only effective if the public joins and supports the NRA. Wayne LaPierre can be the NRA's worst enemy on occasion... Jack booted thugs comes to mind as well as his latest press fiasco. As far as being an NRA member and future participation, that's your choice.

Regards,
ltstanfo

 

[ltstanfo]

btw, this asshole - Sheriff Arpaio sending armed posse to protect schools - wants to make things worse.

This concerns me. The only people carrying firearms in schools (which I support) should be law enforcement (be it school resource officers-SRO, retired cops as SRO or active police. Anyone else in this particular case, however well intentioned may induce unnecessary risk or lawsuit. Also, it should be up to the school systems to decide if they participate.

Regards,
ltstanfo

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Faethor,

[...] at that time it was easier and quicker to assemble a militia as opposed to raising, equipping and maintaining a standing army.

It still is. The founders were against having a standing army. A militia can be raised quickly for defense but standing armies are inevitably used to invade other countries and suppress the populace. A standing army is also incredibly expensive, especially once the profiteers get involved.

 

[Robert]

Your dislike of firearms is noted.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I have no inherent dislike of firearms, other than I think their availability should be regulated and restricted.

 

[Robert]

I respect your view Robert

As do I yours, Lee.
Despite our quite opposite opinions on the subject, I've always enjoyed discussing it with you, squire.

but we will never find a middle ground on this particular topic.

Indeed, and we both knew that before we even started.

 

[Robert]

Respectfully Robert that last statement is apples and oranges as far as I am concerned. Those of us who legally obtain and own firearms are no more a risk to "your personal safety" than my nuke is to your house. ;-)

I meant it in a more abstract way but point taken.

With respect to this country's gun culture i think we do need to explore how to better police the acquisition process as well as ownership responsibility. That is where I would like to see the discussion go.

Fair enough. Feel free to lead the way.

 

[faethor]

I see your points about the NRA and on the surface, I agree. However, the NRA is only effective if the public joins and supports the NRA.

Not quite true the NRA isn't as 'grassroots' as they'd lead one to believe. The NRA is funded not only from gun owners but gun manufacturers. They're more lobbiest and industrialists backed. http://www.thenation.com/blog/171776/does-nra-represent-gun-manufacturers-or-gun-owners#

Wayne LaPierre can be the NRA's worst enemy on occasion... Jack booted thugs comes to mind as well as his latest press fiasco.

As long as the GOP and Gun Manufacturers see him doing a good job. He'll remain.

@Fluffy

It still is. The founders were against having a standing army. A militia can be raised quickly for defense but standing armies are inevitably used to invade other countries and suppress the populace. A standing army is also incredibly expensive, especially once the profiteers get involved.

Strangely those GOP who declare they want the USA to return to it's Founding (Paul for example). Somehow want to maintain a standing army. The military is the single largest discrectionary spending in the USA's Budget. If we want to balance the Budget it should face the largest in cuts. No standing army is going to be impossible. The USA spends more than all other nations combined on our military. It's time to be more conservative there.

 

[the_leander]

I think you may have misunderstood me. I have no inherent dislike of firearms, other than I think their availability should be regulated and restricted.

Perhaps. Tbh I'm fairly neutral when it comes to regulation, I think Fluffy is right to suggest that they be held to a similar level as vehicles, I imagine depending where you are that is already the case.

But if as Virginia plans, mental health provisions are to be completely defunded, it seems kind of irrelevant.

Looking back through the thread I wonder if we aren't all that close in our views, just that we're emphasising different things?

 

[ltstanfo]

It still is. The founders were against having a standing army. A militia can be raised quickly for defense but standing armies are inevitably used to invade other countries and suppress the populace. A standing army is also incredibly expensive, especially once the profiteers get involved.

On this point we are mostly in agreement.

 

[ltstanfo]

I meant it in a more abstract way but point taken.



Fair enough. Feel free to lead the way.

Alright then. In my situation I choose to keep my firearms locked up in a safe (more than one actually). I choose to take NRA firearms training to be proficient with the firearms that I own (including the "evil assault weapons").. that includes safety, cleaning and proper maintenance. I also choose to participate in local competitive shooting events (IDPA) to help maintain my skills. What good are they if you don't know how to use them? I choose to only purchase legal firearms (although I could easily get those "gray area" items should I so desire... don't care to lose my rights so I never will). I choose to obtain the appropriate legal documents to allow me to protect myself. I openly encourage those, especially with children to emulate all of the above.

Notice my consistent use of the word "choose". I personally advocate the above but do not think that those choices should be regulated... at least at the federal level. Should such requirements be levied by each state, I would be far more inclined to agree (or at least complain less). California has many if not all of the above mandated and yet they not only have some of the highest gun crime rates in the nation (LA comes to mind) but their gun buy back programs consistently turn in thousands of firearms with relatively few "assault weapons" (approx 78 out of 2300 plus in the recent event in LA). I think that population density and socioeconomic situation have a lot to do in this case. I also give you Chicago.. tightly regulated on firearms but currently (if I recall correctly) leading the US on gun crimes. I suspect (but am not certain) that New York City also has its share of problems (again tightly regulated).

I do agree that mental health needs reevaluation and review. I also think that while we are at it, we need to also look at violence on TV / film and possibly even (currently acceptable) social "norms" (values). As Hillary would say, it takes a village (and not just an assault weapons ban).

Next? ;-)

Regards,
ltstanfo

 

[ltstanfo]

Not quite true the NRA isn't as 'grassroots' as they'd lead one to believe. The NRA is funded not only from gun owners but gun manufacturers. They're more lobbiest and industrialists backed. http://www.thenation.com/blog/171776/does-nra-represent-gun-manufacturers-or-gun-owners#

As long as the GOP and Gun Manufacturers see him doing a good job. He'll remain.

@Fluffy
Strangely those GOP who declare they want the USA to return to it's Founding (Paul for example). Somehow want to maintain a standing army. The military is the single largest discrectionary spending in the USA's Budget. If we want to balance the Budget it should face the largest in cuts. No standing army is going to be impossible. The USA spends more than all other nations combined on our military. It's time to be more conservative there.

Faethor,

I won't disagree with your points (above) about the NRA. Still, without the support of the members, it would be far more difficult for the NRA to be as effective as they are. The argument cuts both ways. ;-)

I concur that the military should be reviewed and cut where possible. My concern is that it be done responsibly. I find it most interesting that the DoD auditors have never been able to complete a full audit of DoD programs. Needless to say, there is certainly pork that could and should be cut. The F35 comes to mind... I'm certainly willing to discuss others programs but that should be for another thread.

Regards,
ltstanfo

 

[robert l. bentham]

 

[faethor]

Violent Deaths ranking

 

[metalman]