New Gun Control... Necessary or Politically Expedient

Nice link metalman. I was going to say "pot meet kettle" until I saw then end. :-)

Regards,
ltstanfo
 
ltstanfo said:
I offer you and others here the excellent opinion episode done by Penn and Teller on their old show... Bullsh*it: Gun Control.
Click to expand...


2nd Admendment:

"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."
 

If you observe someone violate Washington DC gun laws you can file a police report online.

According to D.C. law, any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition is considered a "large capacity" magazine and is illegal in the district.

Since "Meet the Press" is taped in Washington, D.C., Gregory has violated D.C. official code 7-2506.01.
 
metalman said:

2nd Admendment:

"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."
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this! :-)

Now go learn everyone!

Regards,
ltstanfo
 
metalman said:

If you observe someone violate Washington DC gun laws you can file a police report online.

According to D.C. law, any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition is considered a "large capacity" magazine and is illegal in the district.

Since "Meet the Press" is taped in Washington, D.C., Gregory has violated D.C. official code 7-2506.01.
Click to expand...

And apparently the DC police are investigating. I'll be curious to see what happens. It's even more ironic since the DC police previously told NBC they couldn't use said mag but I guess David Gregory has one set of laws and we have another? ;-)

Regards,
ltstanfo
 
ltstanfo said:
And apparently the DC police are investigating. I'll be curious to see what happens. It's even more ironic since the DC police previously told NBC they couldn't use said mag but I guess David Gregory has one set of laws and we have another? ;-)

Regards,
ltstanfo
Click to expand...
david-gregory-concealed-carry-gun-passes-533x600.gif
 
here's something interesting to think about:

Why Do Gunmen Kill Themselves After Committing Mass Shootings?

....Tim Dees, a criminal justice technology writer, offered his opinion that suicide is the shooter's "last great act of revenge and defiance."..............."This is payback. They go into this situation with the full intent of killing themselves to deny the world its opportunity for retribution."
Click to expand...
But Adam Lankford, a criminal justice professor at the University of Alabama, offered a different opinion .................the more people a shooter kills, the guiltier he feels, meaning he is more likely to kill himself.
Click to expand...
if it's becomes very difficult for such people to acquire bullets will they be inhibited into committing mass killings?
 
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...
First of all, access is one thing, willingness of the patient is another. Many people are just undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. And many of the drugs may have personality altering side effects and can react very poorly when mixed with alcohol. Or worse, people who should be on drugs feel they can stop once they feel good, and then crash. And to top it off, they can still all easily access guns.

Personally, I'm perfectly fine with society being full of psychopaths and lunatics. That's natural, it's how it's always been. What I'm not perfectly fine with is arming them with weapons capable of mass killings. Now THAT is crazy.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, that's part of it. And I also posted in the original thread about the school shooting, about possible safety features that could help lessen the damages. For example, smart trigger systems tied to the owner, or no-magazine kill switch (to prevent accidental shootings when there's still a round in the chamber) . The gun lobbies have done all they can to ensure that firearms are the most unregulated industry in the nation - even regulations that would actually make it safer for the owners themselves. At the very least, we need to change that.
 
ltstanfo said:
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.
Click to expand...
If I wanted to shoot up kids at a school, the armed cop wouldn't deter me at all. Why? Well, I have the element of surprise. The school cop has to be somewhere, most likely walking around to make a presence. Meaning, I can walk up behind him and shoot him in the head. But even if I didn't want to go that route, I can easily walk into a class room, barricade the door and shoot everyone in side. Since most spree killers are suicidal, the fact that a cop will eventually break in and shoot me dead wouldn't really be a concern so long as I can at least get a few kills of my own. And heck, even if he killed me before I shot anyone, that would still traumatize all the kids and parents and ultimately that would be part of my goal as well. I couldn't lose!

This whole "let's arm teachers" or "let's put cops in schools" is just a pathetic ploy by gun advocates who are willing to trade the lives of their kids for their right to masturbate with bullets.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not with modern warfare. A militia might be capable of putting down civic unrest, but modern warfare involves planes and tanks and anti-tank and surface to air missiles, and the fancier the weapon the more training is required, etc. Militias would be completely useless at fending off an invasion.
 
Robert said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I think guns are cool, in the same way I think flame throwers, rocket launchers and hand grenades are cool. I also believe I shouldn't be allowed to own any of those.
 
Glaucus said:
[...] I also posted in the original thread about the school shooting, about possible safety features that could help lessen the damages.
Click to expand...
If you had to get insurance to own a gun, the insurance companies would pretty quickly incentive the sale of "safer" guns.
 
Glaucus said:
Militias would be completely useless at fending off an invasion.
Click to expand...
Yup. But they can make it unattractive to invade. They can make it very difficult to exercise control over the "captured" territory. All the equipment you mentioned is expensive, but a bunch of guys with small arms (and the ingenuity to improvise some explosives) can make it pretty costly to hold land once you set about trying to hold it.
 
Glaucus said:
That would be a lot more believable if you had data to back that up.
Click to expand...
Well, it's last years news really. Here, here and here and more recently here. But, ultimately it derives from a CDC report.

Some drugs are legal and some are illegal and people sometimes think that the difference is that legal ones are safe and illegal ones are dangerous. SSRIs are crack: opiates are heroin; more or less. The "quality control" is better with the prescription stuff, but that alone doesn't render them harmless.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
If you had to get insurance to own a gun, the insurance companies would pretty quickly incentive the sale of "safer" guns.
Click to expand...
Typically I hate insurance companies, but that certainly would be a good use for them!
 
According to FBI crime statistics:
in 2011, there were 323 murders committed using a rifle and 496 murders committed using hammers and clubs.
​
nearly twice as many people are killed using hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.​
​
​
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Well, it's last years news really. Here, here and here and more recently here. But, ultimately it derives from a CDC report.

Some drugs are legal and some are illegal and people sometimes think that the difference is that legal ones are safe and illegal ones are dangerous. SSRIs are crack: opiates are heroin; more or less. The "quality control" is better with the prescription stuff, but that alone doesn't render them harmless.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. For some reason I thought you meant Drs were prescribing overdoses. That's a far more complicated issue though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top