I didn't say any of that. You made it up, and pretended I said it. What I specifically said was: "And the fact is that events like Sandy Hook are so incredibly rare that they should have no influence on legislation whatsoever."
Nor did I say you said it -- what I pointed out was that you said nothing should be done ... and how ridiculous that position was.
Again; not what I said. Here it is again for your enjoyment:
"And the fact is that events like Sandy Hook are so incredibly rare that they should have no influence on legislation whatsoever."
Again, I didn't say you said it -- I showed you how silly your position was by parody.
Strike three. Here is my reply to you one more time:
"And the fact is that events like Sandy Hook are so incredibly rare that they should have no influence on legislation whatsoever."
So you are still saying we should do nothing, and that anything rare can be ignored and forgotten.
Another poor-quality post from a poster whom I've otherwise regarded as top-notch.
I notice that my "member rating" has once again dropped below 9 -- good, because that means that I am once again annoying people with irrational beliefs and silly positions.
Jon did not say nothing should be done, he said LEGISLATION would not be the right response.
Yeah, so no legislation and don't propose anything else to me means do nothing but pretend it is something? Really?
Legislation aimed at limiting the gun rights of millions of law-abiding citizens is NOT a reasonable solution to a very rare situation caused by crazies. How absolutely irrational and silly can you get?
So we ban the types of guns the "crazies" use and then they can't use them.
Show me a rational civilian need to have guns with interchangeable magazines that carry ammunition. I haven't seen one yet, and I note that these are the guns of preference for the crazies.
You still have guns, so your right to bear arms is not infringed.
Yes you ARE annoying some of us with your irrational beliefs and silly positions. Your arguments here are really really silly.
Really?
So how did the armed guards help at Columbine and Virginia Tech?
If you can't show that they improved the situation then advocating armed guards is school is silly and irrational.
What annoys you is that you don't have the answer you want. The evidence does not support your position. I'm just the messenger -- so address the message not the person.
It amuses me every time someone jeers me because I don't support their irrational beliefs and silly arguments, so keep clicking them Faith.
Honestly, I'm serious about getting guns out of the hands of criminals up to the point where my gun has to leave my hand (while I'm not a criminal). I think this is a commonly held view.
So universal background checks, even for private sales, gun owner photo ID cards to register guns to the purchasers, drug testing for hallucinogenic or mental health drugs?
Its just completely false to say that guns can't be used much of anything else than killing or injuring living beings. You need to stop claiming that.
Target practice is just sublimated killing -- show me a real alternative use.
Re: The case for limiting the number of bullets that can be fired
After much reading I have changed my mind as to what I am arguing.
So we can throw out all your previous arguments. Excellent.
In other words the Federal government can not infringe the right concerning the possession of and bearing of Arms that was available prior to the formation of the Federal government.
You are free to believe that, but that doesn't make it true. One of your duties as a citizen is to be a member of society, to work and live with other people, and to abide by the laws and regulations that society as a whole deems appropriate.
What difference does it make what weapon or weapons they had or did not have?
I asked if they had guns, which is what you claimed, and I asked if killing the homeowner was their intent: answer the question: "How many were carrying guns with the singular intent to shoot the homeowners?"
They had no right to expect a welcome after they kicked in the door or broke the glass and then reached in and unlocked the door.
Was the homeowner supposed to ask the person what their intentions were before he/she fired their weapon?
Yes. That would be the rational and civilized thing to do.
My wife's life and my life, is a lot more valuable that the life of a person that would break into my house to do either my wife or me harm.
So some lives are more valuable than others. How Christian.
That would solve most of the problem. Without hands you couldn't use a knife, cutting instrument, handgun, shotgun, rifle, club, hammer, or fist's. You would have 2 clubs (arms) and feet would still be available.
So the old cut off the hand of a thief approach eh? How civilized.
Most would say less free today and losing more freedoms each day.
How did they get free of Mubarek? That was the question -- what guns did they use?
That depends on what you call free.
There are some that are not on the plantation and have excelled but most are on the plantation and are totaly dependent upon the plantation owners.
Word games don't impress me.
Do they not have the freedom to go where they want, do what they want, work where they want, sit where they want, marry who they want? I could list more, but it should be pretty obvious that this is not what slaves are allowed to do.
Glory, you seem to have had an epiphany.
So what do you think will happen when they have confiscated all the weapons that the people have?
Curiously, my epiphany was over 45 years ago, and it was that guns were not needed in my life, not needed to make enduring change for the greater good in our society, not needed for protection against fantasies and fear.
Non-violent protest (which you ignore) is proven to be more effective in the long term.
Well the second amendment says the government can't infringe my weapons. If I want 30 round magazines why should they be able to deny them?
Because there is no rational civilian need for such systems. Because society as a whole does not see a need for individual civilians to possess such armament, when your second amendment rights are fulfilled by guns that do not have quick change clips\magazines, and only crazy people that shoot up schools "need" such destructive capacity.
If weapons are not the solution why are we spending 1 trillion dollars on the military this year?
Why indeed. We could get by with 1/3rd of the current military budget and still be the biggest spender on the planet.
We could spend the other 2/3rds on improving life at home and abroad.
We could balance the budget instantly and put some away each year against the debt.
Just think how many police we could put in the schools to protect our kids.
Think how many doctors and teachers we could put in schools to protect and teach our kids about good health and getting a good education. Think how many kids living in poverty that could be helped out and into a better life.
Think how universal health care could be funded with a fraction of that cost and benefit every US citizen and other people living here.
So why do you think we are spending 1 trillion dollars on the military this year? To support the military industrial complex, corporations making profits from selling weapons to both sides?
Apparently they already have your vote ... or willing acquiescence to sit fondling your gun while they take over.
Universal background checks for every time a gun changes hands, otherwise it will be as ineffective as current background checks.
... Registration is not good, ...
Without it background checks are pointless. It allows straw purchases as a way to circumvent the checks.
quote:A straw purchase or nominee purchase is any purchase wherein an agent agrees to acquire a good or service for someone who is unable or unwilling to purchase the good or service himself
Straw purchases can be illegal in the United States when made at a federally licensed firearm dealership. If the straw purchaser of the firearm lies about the identity of the ultimate possessor of the gun, he can be charged with making false statements on a federal Firearms Transaction Record. If a firearm is purchased as a gift, the purchaser must indicate the intended recipient on the transaction record. Straw purchases of used guns are not illegal, unless the gun is used in a crime with the prior knowledge of the straw purchaser.[1]
Straw purchases should be illegal for used guns as well as new guns. Registration of the gun owner with the gun ensures this.
... that gives the powers that be too much power to round us up if it comes to that. ...
Paranoid delusion. I gave up boogy-man stories when I was 4.
"They" wouldn't worry about your pop-guns, by the time "they" are through taking your property, your work, your possessions and your savings, your guns will be inconsequential. Or haven't you noticed what has transpired in the last couple of years since Scrubbia helped cause the financial "crisis"?
... Strict standards for qualification for gun possession are good too, ...
Which ties back to registration ... a document that show strict standards for qualification have been met.
... training sessions being mandatory perhaps. ...
With a certain degree of proficiency being maintained on an annual basis in order to keep your registration.
... Drug testing might not be necessary but doctors could supply information about whether an applicant for a gun is on psychiatric drugs. ...
But would not know about hallucinogenic drug use.
... In fact I wouldn't mind if that kind of information was made public. ...
Violation of right to privacy.
... But not gun registration.
Best way to ensure that guns are in the owners hands, rather than someone who stole it or had someone straw purchase it.
Aw, it didn't work in those cases. In TWO cases the armed defenders weren't where they were needed when they were needed. But that's another reason to restrict the gun rights of millions of law-abiding citizens?.
Versus 0 cases of mass homicide where it did work? Still looks like a losing proposition to me.
Wait and see how long it is before another such incident occurs after all Obama's measures are in place. And what will happen? MORE outcry against GUNS. Which are NOT the problem.
I predict one inside a year, but the measures won't be in effect by then -- I also predict GOP foot dragging and misinformation.
You realize, don't you, that Obama and Biden outlined 4 areas to tackle, only one involves any actual gun restrictions, and even there it was only the assault type weapons that were included.
Another calls for universal background checks.
The other areas tackle social aspects such as general school safety and mental health. Of course universal health care would be a benefit here, to help treat those with mental problems.
In addition Obama has signed executive orders to call for more strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations.
That whole package approach seems to me to be perfectly logical and a rational approach to the problem.
... rather than attack EVERYBODY's rights?
What civilian purpose is served by having ammunition in quick change clips\magazines and guns that can empty such clips in seconds?
If there is no civilian purpose then what right within society as a whole is furthered by some individuals owning such weapons?
... tightening laws against guns for MILLIONS OF GOOD GUYS ... is just about the DEFINITION OF INSANITY ITSELF.
Curiously, people that want assault type weapons and ammunition to fight imaginary battles are (imho) the definition of insanity itself.
But then I've never seen a single need to own a gun or carry a weapon in 65 years of happy, peaceful living. I've used guns, long ago, fired them, and then put them down and walked away.
quote:The Reagan assassination attempt occurred on Monday, March 30, 1981, just 69 days into the presidency of Ronald Reagan. While leaving a speaking engagement at the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C., President Reagan and three others were shot and wounded by John Hinckley, Jr.
Reagan suffered a punctured lung and heavy internal bleeding, but prompt medical attention allowed him to recover quickly. ...
Ultimately nobody was killed in the attack, though Press Secretary James Brady was left paralyzed ....
On March 21, 1981, Ronald Reagan, the new President of the United States, visited Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C. with his wife Nancy for a fundraising event. He recalled, "I looked up at the presidential box above the stage where Abe Lincoln had been sitting the night he was shot and felt a curious sensation... I thought that even with all the Secret Service protection we now had, it was probably still possible for someone who had enough determination to get close enough to a president to shoot him."[10][11]
After the shooting, Alfred Antenucci, a Cleveland, Ohio, labor official who stood by Hinckley, was the first to respond.[17] He saw the gun and hit Hinckley in the head, pulling the shooter down to the ground.[25] Within two seconds agent Dennis McCarthy (no relation to agent Timothy McCarthy) dove onto the shooter as others threw him to the ground; intent on protecting Hinckley to avoid what happened to Lee Harvey Oswald,[6]:84 McCarthy had to "strike two citizens" to force them to release him.[17] Agent Robert Wanko (misidentified as "Steve Wanko" in a newspaper report) took an Uzi from a briefcase to cover the President's evacuation and to deter a potential group attack.[26]
Sixteen minutes after the assassination attempt, the ATF found that the gun had been purchased at Rocky's Pawn Shop in Dallas, Texas.[27] It had been loaded with six "Devastator"-brand cartridges which contained small aluminum and lead azide explosive charges designed to explode on contact; the bullet that hit Brady likely exploded in his skull. On April 2
Now I would argue that the Secret Service would be comprised of the best trained armed guards in the nation.
The FACT that they - and DC Police - basically surrounded the president before during and after the shooting did not prevent this shooting.
The FACT that they did NOT shoot back (guns were drawn but not used) is likely due to their training in assessing the situation and the crowd of people that could have been hit. Instead they moved quickly to get the president away, while shielding him with their bodies.
The FACT that Hinckley's weapon was a Rhm RG-14 .22 cal. pistol ...
... meant that only six shots could be (and were) made ... probably saving many lives\injuries compared to the use of an semi-automatic weapon with large interchangeable clip\magazines of ammunition.
The FACT that "Devastator" charges designed to explode on contact were used means that the ammunition was purchased with the prior intent to increase the likelihood of killing a living target (but should not -imho- be legitimate hunting ammunition - ergo most likely a person was the intended target ... ), should have:
been a signal of intent to kill OR
been a banned type of ammunition
Other things to note:
Reagan endorsed the Brady Bill
John Wilkes Booth killed President Lincoln with a single shot Deringer pistol.
CONCLUSIONS
this is probably the best type of scenario for armed guards, several highly trained professional armed guards were present,
they did not prevent, stop or reduce the shooting,
they did not shoot back,
the amount of damage was limited by the capacity of the weapon, both in number of bullets that could be fired and in the ability to reload (much slower without a clip),
restricting weapons to similar capacity for number of bullets that can be loaded and the manner in which they are loaded (ie - banning clips) would similarly restrict the amount of damage that can be inflicted,
the damage done was augmented by the ammunition being explosive,
the damage would have been reduced if explosive ammunition were not used,
such ammunition serves no rational civilian purpose and should be banned,
such restrictions (ammo capacity and type of ammo) won't eliminate shootings, but they will reduce the potential numbers of victims of mass shooting, and
having armed guards to prevent shootings is a false concept, it does not prevent (and may not even stop or reduce) a shooting incident.
In addition I would note that armed guards do not treat the cause of shootings, advocating armed guards allows people to ignore treating the causes of shooting (they have "done something"), and that having armed citizens with less training and disciple that the Secret Service and Police is likely to result in more people shooting more people, rather than less.
I said we COULD legislate standards of qualification, but that it makes no sense to restrict the gun rights of millions of good citizens.
What about those restrictions that good citizens support ... realizing that your definition of "good" may be different from mine ... where "good citizens" -imho- are those concerned with the overall good for society, which includes appropriate restrictions on all kinds of behavior.
No we do not ban GUNS, period, RAZD. Wasn't I clear about that? gthe kinds of guns "crazies" use aren't all that different from the kind needed by ordinary citizens. But I have no problem with banning machine guns and other such weapons. But they are ALREADY banned.
If you have no problem with banning of certain kinds of weapons, then the issue is what constitutes weapons that should be banned ... such as assault type weapons that can load lots of ammunition, fire it at a fast rate, are are easy to reload with interchangeable clips of ammunition.
You ARE being irrational and silly. TWO incidents where guards were present but not available proves absolutely NOTHING. And again I'm for concealed carry more than I am for visible armed guards.
Sorry, we need some other provision than registration. ...
The good citizen gun people I talk to are in favor of registration.
... Funny how the boogymen such as Hitler and others have a way of making use of registration records when they want to round people up. ...
Funny how you have not supported this assertion and repeat it after being shown that it was essential fantasy.
Tell me Faith ... if the government was intent on rounding up people ...
what would be their purpose?
why would they only be interested in gun owners?
if not interested only in gun owners, then what would they need gun registration for?
what prevents them from rounding you up without this information?
Note that criminals with guns can't prevent police from rounding them up.
... No sane person assumes that it can't happen again. ...
No paranoid person is sane.
Perhaps part of the testing for ability to safely carry a weapon should be a determination of how much a persons beliefs are founded in reality.
Irrational beliefs, such as in government conspiracies, should indicate unstable mentality.
It was the whole reason for the Second Amendment in the first place.
Nope, based on actual founder information it was added specifically to get the southern states into the union, by allowing them to keep and kill slaves, hunting slaves with their all white militias. See Message 676.
What deceit. It's never been TRIED. You have TWO incidents where guards didn't work but no others where guards even existed that I've heard reported. ...
Really? ... two cases where it HAS actually been tried, yes, AND there are other instances where there were plenty of armed guards, such as Fort Hood military base. Also see Message 771.
Oh look --- that's FOUR documented incidents ... want me to find more? Or will you rationally concede that armed guards have not worked?
... ONE incident in Oregon where a person had a gun and believes he succeeded in scaring the perp into suicide. Otherwise UNARMED PEOPLE in all the cases. Stop playing games.
One anecdotal incident that could have just been suicide to begin with ... or prevented some other way ... still a zero in substantiated objective evidence.
And I have done that since I received my first gun at age 7, 66 years ago.
Good, so you know that some individual things need to be given up for the sake of that society -- driving laws regulate how we can drive within society, for instance.
Likewise we - as a society - expect that guns be used for the good of that society, some for hunting and some for defense, and that they be organized, trained and disciplined according to those uses: hunters by licensing and regulation of weapons appropriate for hunting; defense by militias or armies, trained, armed and disciplined according to an overall structure of organization, the government of that society.
Please source where I made such a claim.
Go back and look at your claim, and let me know what you were referring to ... it seemed to me that you were citing gun defense against home invasion with intent to kill you with guns, and I'm just asking for what percent of home invasions (an already minuscule percent of overall population imho) were actully for that singular intent and not simply to take a possession or two.
Without a distinction between those groups your statistics are meaningless to me.
And yes the life of my wife and myself is worth much more to me than a persons life ...
While that person probably believes just the opposite ...
You believe that you are better, more valuable, than other people within society that you fantasize about rather than actually talk to, meet, and know ....
... that has just broke into my house to do either of us harm. ...
Again, what is your justification for believing that the purpose of breaking into your house is to do you personal harm. Do you have enemies?
Seems to me it is paranoia more than an actual concern.
... If someone was to break into my house which would be a pretty big job in itself I would not think they were entering for tea and crumpets and therefore I would not ask a question before firing my 44 magnum. ...
IIRC there was a news story about a woman that was being assaulted on a street who went to a house and banged on the door for help and the homeowner shot her through the door and killed her, thinking she was trying to break into his house.
You would be that person, because you would not question the situation nor asses your actual danger before shooting, but you would let yourself be driven by fear first.
... As I would have no way of knowing what their intentions were or what weapons they might have.
Because would not take the time and effort to find out. Killer.
Simple, the army did not obey Mubarek's orders and fire on the people. ...
Why did the army not obey Mubarek's orders? I know the answer, I just wonder if you can figure it out.
I hope you live a long life and never regret your epiphany.
BTW do you have an insurance policy of any kind?
Health, car and Homeowner. Insurance against natural and accidental damages or loss.
Where does the second amendment mention anything about rational civilian needs?
Don't be silly. If we are talking about individual citizens that are not part of the armed forces or existing militias, then we are talking about civilians, and I doubt that arming of irrational civilians was intended (although that may be an invalid assumption on my part given that the intent was to allow southern states to keep and kill slaves).
Rational civilian needs is what we use to assess the worth of something to society as a whole -- it is part of the social contract you agree to as a member of society.
Rational civilian needs would apply to traffic laws for instance. They are there to (Message 1):
... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ...
... that's what the Constitution basically is: a contract with the people for the good of society as a whole, current and future generations.
I don't sit around and fondle my guns. I take them to the range and practice firing them each week so that when our economy crashes which will be very soon. In fact just as soon as the idiots decide to quit buying our bonds as they are worthless and they will never get their principle back we will be in big trouble.
Because in a very short time almost 50% of the people will not have money to buy food with. They will get hungry and in this entitlement society that has been fostered they will do what has been praticed several times in the last few month. You know the stories about a bunch of people entering a business grabbing whatever they want and runing out of the stores. When it comes to food it will be a lot worse.
Shortly there will be a shortage of everything including gasoline and diesel so it won't be long before you can't buy food at any price as there will not be any on the shelves. Then the farmers won't be able to get diesel to plant crops for the next year and things will take a turn for the worst.
Ah the old apocalypse tomorrow fantasy -- you and your mob will be able to steal what you need with your guns and the rest of society be damned?
Alternatively we can work on averting that scenario by cooperation, learning to solve problems with reason rather than guns.
More and more it seems to me that the reasons people give for having guns are very good reasons that they should not have guns.
Would you not agree that in an ideal society people would not need guns for defense in any way?
... Part of the problem that Chicago and other regions with tight gun-control regulations have is that there is still a flow of guns into these areas from outside. It would be akin to me complaining that we shouldn't have pollution regulations because pollution does not stop at the borders. ...
And this is the reason we have the federal laws regarding pollution -- no one area can have effective laws if neighboring areas do not have effective laws.
This is why we need some federal legislation to tackle the cross state border transactions.
Faith, the topic is "how can we regulate guns" and so the question is what regulations do you think would be able to reduce unwanted gun deaths and injury.
What regulations can we make to reduce the numbers of people killed in mass shootings.
What regulations can we make to reduce the numbers of people killed in criminal shootings.
What regulations can we make to reduce the numbers of people killed in gun accidents.
First let me stipulate that I don't think regulations regarding the use of guns for suicide would have a significant impact -- some other means would likely be found. The only thing I can see for this is allowing medically assisted suicide, which would include counseling and approval criteria (incurable painful disease, etc). I don't see the rate of suicides dropping whether regulations are made or not.
Second let me stipulate that I don't think regulations regarding premeditated murder with guns would have a significant effect -- some other means would likely be used. I don't see the rate of premeditated murder dropping whether regulations are made or not.
I would also note that taking these two categories out of the statistics would reduce gun crime statistics considerably, and we could focus on the real issues where regulations might have some effect.
For instance I would think that hunters would like to know that other hunters are well trained in the use of their weapons, trained in the task of hunting, and disciplined enough to hunt without causing accidents, that they are using an appropriate weapon for hunting, and that they are properly licensed to hunt. This could be handled through the hunting license process and repeated each year. It could also entail severe legal action on poaching.
There is no right to hunt animals.
Currently there are bow seasons, black powder seasons and open seasons: would it be appropriate to limit the types of guns and ammunition loading systems that could be used in open seasons? Say I have a rifle that I have to manually load with 5 bullets instead of inserting a loaded clip, would that not be appropriate to use hunting? It takes a couple of minutes to reload, plenty of time while waiting for another deer, yes?
Personally, if I couldn't hit my target animal with 5 shots, then I would consider myself such a lousy shot that I would be better off spending time at a target gallery to improve my ability. Would you agree?
If I couldn't get a consistent bullseye - say I had parkinsons and my hands shake too much - should I be allowed to hunt with a semi-automatic gun?
Similarly with self defense, I would think that self defense advocates would like to know that other self defense advocates are well trained in the use of their weapons, trained in the task of self defense, disciplined enough to defend themselves without causing accidents, that they are using an appropriate weapon for self defense, and that they are properly licensed for self defense. This could be handled through the self defense gun license process and repeated each year. It could also entail severe legal action that was not self defense.
There is no right to hunt criminals, that is the job of the police.
There is no right to shoot people when there is no direct clear and present danger to you personally.
So what regulations do you think could be established to improve things?
Here's a regulation I could go with: Pass a law that there should be at least one armed person on school premises for every couple hundred children or something like that.
Thank you Faith for repeating what has been shown to be a false solution. All it will do is make you feel good, and let you ignore the rest of the issues, ... at least until the next shooting incident shows that it doesn't work ...
Some people I know who favor possession of guns are OK with banning the gun called AR5(?). If it's OK with them it's OK with me.
So it is okay to ban semi-automatic guns that load clips of ammunition rather than manual loading.
So my answer is, this thread is irrelevant to the actual problem you want to solve.
So you don't need to participate further in this thread. Thanks for your help.
™ Version 4.2
