Jump to content


All about gun control

Off topic guns killers nutjobs

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
750 replies to this topic

#41 sabills

sabills

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 328 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:53 PM

View PostSabres Fan In NS, on 15 December 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

Humans are the only species that can and do kill indescriminately.

I don't know enough to state any profound opinion on guns, but I will say that the above statement is simply not true. Leopards and jaguars are both known to kill and abandon the carcass for no apparent reason.  House cats often kill mice and leave them. Dolphins have been known to kill porpoises for shits and giggles. There are quite a few examples of apes killing infants.

My cent and a half on guns is that I do not understand the need for citizens to own automatic weapons. Guns for sport I'm fine with, protection is a two edged sword and I won't own one for that reason, but I at least understand it. I'm not convinced, however, that gun control really does much of anything, unfortunately.

#42 thanes16

thanes16

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Biloxi, MS

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:24 PM

View Postsabills, on 15 December 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

My cent and a half on guns is that I do not understand the need for citizens to own automatic weapons. Guns for sport I'm fine with, protection is a two edged sword and I won't own one for that reason, but I at least understand it. I'm not convinced, however, that gun control really does much of anything, unfortunately.

As can be seen throughout this respectful debate on gun control, I do support the right to bare arms, but let me say I have the same feeling you do about semi-automatic and automatic weapons. I believe one should be allowed to own a gun for protection and for sport. But there is no reason for an individual to own a semi-automatic or automatic weapon. Also, why are armor piercing bullets being sold? Yes, there is the hypothetical situation a person w/ armor could try to attack you, but give me a break. That is being far to hypothetical. If a person has armor piercing bullets, that puts the police in danger. That right there should lead to the ban of armor piercing bullets.

#43 Captain Caveman

Captain Caveman

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 136 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 06:28 PM

View Postthanes16, on 15 December 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

"Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."   Thomas Jefferson

I agree w/ Thomas Jefferson's view on the right to bare arms.

I'd like for someone to explain how laws requiring greater oversight of gun ownership (especially for semi-automatic weapons) would have made things worse for the assaulted in this case.

#44 drnkirishone

drnkirishone

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:BUFFALO

Posted 15 December 2012 - 07:04 PM

I will say the exact same thing I have said after almost every national outrage in a gun incident cause it holds true YET again. The problem is not guns nor is it strictly gun control laws. The problem IS the people using the weapons therefore we should be outraged at how little progress is made in screening gun ownership from thous that shouldn't own and at how broken our heathcare system is in dealing and treating people with mental issues

#45 bunomatic

bunomatic

    bunomatic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,617 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nanaimo,B.C.,Canada

Posted 15 December 2012 - 09:25 PM

View Postsabills, on 15 December 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

I don't know enough to state any profound opinion on guns, but I will say that the above statement is simply not true. Leopards and jaguars are both known to kill and abandon the carcass for no apparent reason.  House cats often kill mice and leave them. Dolphins have been known to kill porpoises for shits and giggles. There are quite a few examples of apes killing infants.

My cent and a half on guns is that I do not understand the need for citizens to own automatic weapons. Guns for sport I'm fine with, protection is a two edged sword and I won't own one for that reason, but I at least understand it. I'm not convinced, however, that gun control really does much of anything, unfortunately.

  I have to agree on the gun control. Canada tried a gun registry and it cost billions and never worked. I know good honest non criminal types that sealed their guns in pvc pipes and buried them in their backyards rather than register. Once you registered the law stated that the police could come into your home without a warrant for the simple reason that you had registered a gun. It was a waste of tax payers money and it never amounted to nothing. That being said though we don't have the proliferation of guns everywhere in our society like the states but if you want to get a gun you can. It would be silly to think otherwise.

#46 Glass Case Of Emotion

Glass Case Of Emotion

    Woah-Oh! We're half way there...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,503 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester/Finger Lakes

Posted 15 December 2012 - 10:40 PM

I don't have the time to get a link, but within 24 hours before the slaughter in CT there was an attack on an elementary school in china, very similar, but no guns, a knife was used. 20 injured, 0 dead.

#47 bunomatic

bunomatic

    bunomatic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,617 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nanaimo,B.C.,Canada

Posted 15 December 2012 - 10:49 PM

View PostLastPommerFan, on 15 December 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

I don't have the time to get a link, but within 24 hours before the slaughter in CT there was an attack on an elementary school in china, very similar, but no guns, a knife was used. 20 injured, 0 dead.

  Now imagine for a minute the carnage had that been a semi automatic knife. Anyways the perp in China obviously had no access to guns otherwise it could have been a real tragedy. Imo the fact that guns are so easy to access is the heart of the matter. Why did that kids mother need all those guns ?

#48 Glass Case Of Emotion

Glass Case Of Emotion

    Woah-Oh! We're half way there...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,503 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester/Finger Lakes

Posted 15 December 2012 - 10:53 PM

View Postbunomatic, on 15 December 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:



  Now imagine for a minute the carnage had that been a semi automatic knife. Anyways the perp in China obviously had no access to guns otherwise it could have been a real tragedy. Imo the fact that guns are so easy to access is the heart of the matter. Why did that kids mother need all those guns ?
Because her son was a psychopath?

#49 bunomatic

bunomatic

    bunomatic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,617 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nanaimo,B.C.,Canada

Posted 15 December 2012 - 10:59 PM

View PostLastPommerFan, on 15 December 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

Because her son was a psychopath?

  I suppose. You have to ask yourself though why does a kindergarden teacher need a collection of guns ? And apparently a bulletproof vest ? Not sure about America but its illegal to own a bulletproof vest in Canada unless you're a police officer. You can find them in army surplus stores etc. but if you are caught with one it is a crime. I'm sure that don't stop most people especially if they think they may be catching bullets while doing something illegal.

#50 d4rksabre

d4rksabre

    Woof

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,137 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A stolen Panzer

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:10 AM

Can anyone tell me the likelihood of "a well armed citizenry" having to take up arms in a full scale war against the US military?

#51 Doug Glatt

Doug Glatt

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 590 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:34 AM

View PostSwampD, on 15 December 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

All the guns were legally registered to the mother yesterday.

You are right, but as soon as he stole them they became illegal stolen guns! It's the people, it's the illegal guns that are the problem, not the law abiding legal gun owning people.

#52 Hank

Hank

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 485 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Campbell, KY

Posted 16 December 2012 - 02:54 AM

View Postd4rksabre, on 16 December 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

Can anyone tell me the likelihood of "a well armed citizenry" having to take up arms in a full scale war against the US military?

None.

#53 deluca67

deluca67

    67 - The Number of the Beast!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,022 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 December 2012 - 06:05 AM

View Postbunomatic, on 15 December 2012 - 10:59 PM, said:

  I suppose. You have to ask yourself though why does a kindergarden teacher need a collection of guns ? And apparently a bulletproof vest ? Not sure about America but its illegal to own a bulletproof vest in Canada unless you're a police officer. You can find them in army surplus stores etc. but if you are caught with one it is a crime. I'm sure that don't stop most people especially if they think they may be catching bullets while doing something illegal.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out f she registered the guns her name but they belong to her sons.

View PostLastPommerFan, on 15 December 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

I don't have the time to get a link, but within 24 hours before the slaughter in CT there was an attack on an elementary school in china, very similar, but no guns, a knife was used. 20 injured, 0 dead.
This goes to what a lot of people are saying, there are always going to be bad people intent on doing bad things. Removing guns from the equation will greatly diminish the attackers efficiency.

Edited by DeLuca67, 16 December 2012 - 06:18 AM.


#54 HopefulFuture

HopefulFuture

    Swords Forever

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,239 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 December 2012 - 08:22 AM

Interesting to see the diverse amount of thoughts on this subject, everyone one of them which is primarily driven by events of the day as opposed to serious, in-depth thought on the subject overall.
It's always emotions which will control a majority of the collective and individual thought process on this.

In point of fact, nothing has changed since the founders ratified the constitution with the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights. It's merely to be preceived as changed due to the speed with which ammunition can be delivered, but the gravity of the situation in the modern world is no more or less significant in it's purest form of violence with firearms then it was 240 years ago.

Mental health not withstanding, guns in point of fact, do not kill people, people kill people with guns.
Now, the arguement could be successfully made that guns with a lesser ability to deliver large amounts of ammunition should not be put in the general publics hands, but then, that would go against the very fabric of why the 2nd amendment was penned and put in the document which is the rule of law. Many have tried to twist it's meaning into something form fitting, but in the end, it's very exsistence is in a direct response to form militia's and handle dangers at home.

I'd like to believe a majority of gun owners are responsible, and they are, I am one. I own a hand gun and some rifle's and shotguns, yet you don't see 99.9% of the legal gun owners committing these crimes, afterall, the individual in this latest incident was not the gun owner and had no right to have those weapons in his possession, yet killed his mother and took the weapons.

Assault rifles have no business in the public's hands, on the other hand, the citizens have every right to these weapons in defense of their homes and themselves, primarily from our own governing bodies, local, state and federal level. Many arguements can be made on this end as well, Ruby Ridge comes to mind.

When is the line drawn, and at what area? Tough call, I can't say mass murders wouldn't happen without guns, I can say that if the ammo situation was decreased, it's possible lives could have been saved.

#55 wjag

wjag

    Buffalo Sports -- Dysfunction Junction

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just below the Mason-Dixon Line

Posted 16 December 2012 - 09:11 AM

View PostHopefulFuture, on 16 December 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

Interesting to see the diverse amount of thoughts on this subject, everyone one of them which is primarily driven by events of the day as opposed to serious, in-depth thought on the subject overall.
It's always emotions which will control a majority of the collective and individual thought process on this.

In point of fact, nothing has changed since the founders ratified the constitution with the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights. It's merely to be preceived as changed due to the speed with which ammunition can be delivered, but the gravity of the situation in the modern world is no more or less significant in it's purest form of violence with firearms then it was 240 years ago.

Mental health not withstanding, guns in point of fact, do not kill people, people kill people with guns.
Now, the arguement could be successfully made that guns with a lesser ability to deliver large amounts of ammunition should not be put in the general publics hands, but then, that would go against the very fabric of why the 2nd amendment was penned and put in the document which is the rule of law. Many have tried to twist it's meaning into something form fitting, but in the end, it's very exsistence is in a direct response to form militia's and handle dangers at home.

I'd like to believe a majority of gun owners are responsible, and they are, I am one. I own a hand gun and some rifle's and shotguns, yet you don't see 99.9% of the legal gun owners committing these crimes, afterall, the individual in this latest incident was not the gun owner and had no right to have those weapons in his possession, yet killed his mother and took the weapons.

Assault rifles have no business in the public's hands, on the other hand, the citizens have every right to these weapons in defense of their homes and themselves, primarily from our own governing bodies, local, state and federal level. Many arguements can be made on this end as well, Ruby Ridge comes to mind.

When is the line drawn, and at what area? Tough call, I can't say mass murders wouldn't happen without guns, I can say that if the ammo situation was decreased, it's possible lives could have been saved.

I do not believe this country has the fortitude to do what is right.  In my opinion, handguns and assault rifles should not be legal to possess by John Q Public.  Since that opinion will never carry the day in this country I'm in favor of very restrictive ownership rules.  I would require the following minimally:

1.  Annual recertification requirements.  Just like your car needs to be inspected, the owner needs to produce the weapon annually for inspection.  Failure to do so will result in forfeiture of said weapon.
2.  Requirement to report a lost gun within 12 hours of when owner first recognizes the gun is missing.  (not sure what actual requirement is today)
3.  30 day waiting period for the purchase of any gun.  That will allow sufficient cooling down period.  Surely a gun owner can wait 30 days.
4.  A 100 dollar tax on every gun purchase to be used as a victim of gun violence fund.
5.  A 25 cent tax on every bullet sold for same purpose as number four and fund number one.
6.  Requirement to purchase gun locker or provide proof of gun locker before any gun can be sold.
7.  Revoke each and every concealed gun permit, where ever issued excluding law enforcement agencies.
8.  Capacity limit the number of firearms any individual citizen may own.
9.  Increase the guns for cash incentive programs.  Turn in any gun and get cash from number four and five above.
10. Create a consistent set of rules and laws across all 50 states with uniform penalties.


I throw these out for discussion.  Have at it...

I do not believe our Congress and President will do something "meaningful".   I hope they will.  My fear is this story will fade to black next week as the press remembers that cliff thing...

#56 d4rksabre

d4rksabre

    Woof

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,137 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A stolen Panzer

Posted 16 December 2012 - 09:14 AM

View PostHank, on 16 December 2012 - 02:54 AM, said:



None.

My thoughts exactly. The older this country gets, the further we move away from this idea of tyrannical government oppression. It is an outdated concept. The closest this country has come since the Civil War was the Great Depression, and US soldiers wouldn't take up arms against the Bonus Army. There is little to no chance of the United States government taking a war to its own people, because it would spell the end of our country in its entirety. A much bigger problem that 2nd Amendment rights can't solve. And something no political leader in this country could ever hope to accomplish.

We do not need a well armed citizenry. We do not need our government to "fear its people", because they don't. There is no need. And we do not need to fear our military. They are our guardians. You can bet your ass that it wouldn't take more than a minute for our troops to overturn any attempt at disrupting democracy.

We need to worry about protecting the people from the people.

#57 wjag

wjag

    Buffalo Sports -- Dysfunction Junction

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just below the Mason-Dixon Line

Posted 16 December 2012 - 09:27 AM

Interesting to listen to the Colorado Governor on how to deal with the aftermath.  He is not really an advocate of increased gun control.

#58 deluca67

deluca67

    67 - The Number of the Beast!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,022 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 December 2012 - 09:41 AM

View Postd4rksabre, on 16 December 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

My thoughts exactly. The older this country gets, the further we move away from this idea of tyrannical government oppression. It is an outdated concept. The closest this country has come since the Civil War was the Great Depression, and US soldiers wouldn't take up arms against the Bonus Army. There is little to no chance of the United States government taking a war to its own people, because it would spell the end of our country in its entirety. A much bigger problem that 2nd Amendment rights can't solve. And something no political leader in this country could ever hope to accomplish.

We do not need a well armed citizenry. We do not need our government to "fear its people", because they don't. There is no need. And we do not need to fear our military. They are our guardians. You can bet your ass that it wouldn't take more than a minute for our troops to overturn any attempt at disrupting democracy.

We need to worry about protecting the people from the people.
Well said.

It may be hard for many to believe there just isn't any reason to sit at home clutching a AK47 because the Red Coats are not coming down your street.  The debate over gun control is divided with real life tragedies like yesterday on one side and imaginary scenarios on the other side.

We are all stained with the blood of these innocent victims. The NRA and the weekend Rambos who spend millions making sure a person like Adam Lanza has access to the weapons he used yesterday and the rest of us for sitting back and doing nothing.

View Postwjag, on 16 December 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

Interesting to listen to the Colorado Governor on how to deal with the aftermath.  He is not really an advocate of increased gun control.
Thursday he came out saying the "time is right" to talk about gun control.

http://tv.msnbc.com/...on-gun-control/

#59 Sabres Fan In NS

Sabres Fan In NS

    I'd rather be in Sarajevo or, Istanbul (not Constantinople)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Posted 16 December 2012 - 09:44 AM

I generally think your post is good and adds to the discussion, but one point I will take up ...

View PostEleven, on 10 December 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

That's in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a governing document.

View PostHopefulFuture, on 16 December 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

snip ...

2nd amendment was penned and put in the document which is the rule of law.

... /snip

Actually, as Eleven pointed out in another discussion, if I understand correctly ...

The US Constitution, in fact, is not a legally binding document.

Please correct me if I am wrong, Eleven.

#60 wjag

wjag

    Buffalo Sports -- Dysfunction Junction

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just below the Mason-Dixon Line

Posted 16 December 2012 - 09:59 AM

View PostDeLuca67, on 16 December 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

Well said.

It may be hard for many to believe there just isn't any reason to sit at home clutching a AK47 because the Red Coats are not coming down your street.  The debate over gun control is divided with real life tragedies like yesterday on one side and imaginary scenarios on the other side.

We are all stained with the blood of these innocent victims. The NRA and the weekend Rambos who spend millions making sure a person like Adam Lanza has access to the weapons he used yesterday and the rest of us for sitting back and doing nothing.


Thursday he came out saying the "time is right" to talk about gun control.

http://tv.msnbc.com/...on-gun-control/

All he would say today was consider limiting magazines and clips..

#61 SwampD

SwampD

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,454 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Jersey, orig. NT

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:00 AM

Seems like this could all have been avoided with some simple trigger locks.

#62 weave

weave

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,439 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:28 AM

It seems to me that there are two means to dealing with firearm killings, one deals with tthe symptoms and is convenient, easy, and requires little thought to produce.  The other is difficult, expensive, but targets the underlying causes that create these incidents.

Banning firearms, even just certain categories of firearms is easy and convenient and requires no creative thought whatsoever.  And it makes sense that the crowd that wants its government to be the sole protector/provider of their financial well being, and physical well being would be the same crowd that wants their goverenment to protect them from someone else's intentions to the point where they are giving up the fundamental right to take those responsibilities for themselves.  That sort of environment is comfy and cozy but results in a lowest common denominator society, devoid of the greater risk/reward environment we enjoy today.  And, like Prohibition, banning firearms, or classes of firearms, overwhelmingly affects the innocent all out of proportion compared to its effect on those who would do us harm.  The largest effect of a gun ban will be to create an entirely new class of criminal who were not criminals previously and posed no credible threat to society in the past.  Is this really in our best interest?

The real fix is complex, most likley expensive, but is the only real solution to reducing violence in America.  And it boils down to two things (you could argue 3), an increase in awareness and treatment of mental health issues and getting our economy working so that our inner cities, the places with the greatest issues with violence, have the able bodied people working and leading fulfilling lives again.  And it is probably well past time to admit the role that our drug laws have in the violence.  Today, just as in the 1970's, the vast majority of our violence is directly attributed to drug trafficing.  We need to seriously re-think our drug laws.

At the risk of sounding callous, we need to put the events of Friday into perspective.  The death rates in this country from influenza (estimated as high as 49,000/yr) and motor vehicle accidents (~34,000/yr) greatly overshadow the 11,500 that are murdered with firearms annually.  Today there is more than one firearm in America for every household.  Given this, the 11,500 murders annually speaks to how absolutely tiny the percentage of firearms used to kill really is.

Friday was a national tragedy.  I do not want to minimize that.  Yes, it is preventable.  But there is a whole lot of emotion-generated hyperbole driving the discussion., which is not unusual. Should we be discussing ways to reduce access to firearms by those with mental health issues?  Of course.  Should we be having a conversation about what should be done to reduce unauthorized use of firearms in general?  Hell yeah.  We can fix issues regarding access by those who are not supposed to have access and not  punish those who would not do us harm.  But, when the conversatiuon jumps immediately to outriight criminalizing a huge subsection of our population then it is obviuous to me that the conversation is agenda driven and not positive results driven.

View PostSwampD, on 16 December 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

Seems like this could all have been avoided with some simple trigger locks.

We don't know if those guns were locked up.  They may very well have been.  He killed his parents.  It is conceiveable that they were locked up and he obtained the keys without authorization.

#63 Eleven

Eleven

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,439 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:45 AM

View PostSabres Fan In NS, on 16 December 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

I generally think your post is good and adds to the discussion, but one point I will take up ...





Actually, as Eleven pointed out in another discussion, if I understand correctly ...

The US Constitution, in fact, is not a legally binding document.

Please correct me if I am wrong, Eleven.

Check the quote again; we were discussing the Declaration of Independence.  The Constitution is a governing document.  The Declaration of Independence is not.  They are separate documents that were written roughly thirteen years apart.

Edited by Eleven, 16 December 2012 - 10:45 AM.


#64 Sabres Fan In NS

Sabres Fan In NS

    I'd rather be in Sarajevo or, Istanbul (not Constantinople)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:46 AM

View PostEleven, on 16 December 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

Check the quote again; we were discussing the Declaration of Independence.  The Constitution is a governing document.  The Declaration of Independence is not.  They are separate documents that were written roughly thirteen years apart.

:oops:

#65 Eleven

Eleven

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,439 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:51 AM

View PostSabres Fan In NS, on 16 December 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

:oops:

No worries.  I couldn't tell you anything about the documents that govern your country without looking them up!

Just out of curiosity, what do you have up there?  A constitution?  The Magna Carta?  A Trailer Park Boys script?

Edited by Eleven, 16 December 2012 - 10:54 AM.


#66 DGW54321

DGW54321

    Welcome back Ted!!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 611 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germantown, TN

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:53 AM

View PostSwampD, on 16 December 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

Seems like this could all have been avoided with some simple trigger locks.
I don't know.  The kid would have found another way to take care of the mom, then find the key to the locks.
Anyone announce why mom had so many weapons not locked up and if she was trained in their use?

#67 Sabres Fan In NS

Sabres Fan In NS

    I'd rather be in Sarajevo or, Istanbul (not Constantinople)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:54 AM

View PostEleven, on 16 December 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

No worries.  I couldn't tell you anything about the documents that govern your country without looking them up!

:w00t:  ...

That makes two of us!

#68 SwampD

SwampD

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,454 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Jersey, orig. NT

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:21 AM

View PostDGW54321, on 16 December 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

I don't know.  The kid would have found another way to take care of the mom, then find the key to the locks.
Anyone announce why mom had so many weapons not locked up and if she was trained in their use?
She was afraid of economic collapse and wanted to be prepared to protect herself.  Seems like hyperbole from the right is just as much at work here as the hyperbole from the left.

#69 PASabreFan

PASabreFan

    Resistance is futile

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,530 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:26 AM

View Postd4rksabre, on 16 December 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

Can anyone tell me the likelihood of "a well armed citizenry" having to take up arms in a full scale war against the US military?

It's "well regulated militia" -- as in the necessity of the people (white men) to be armed in case they needed to grab their muskets and defend the country.

The text of the amendment is punctuated differently in two versions, and the placement of commas is quite important to the meaning.

As passed by the Congress: 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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: 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.

The first is practically a comma splice where two different thoughts are combined. The second is a clearer justification for the right to keep and bear arms.

It's pretty clear to me what the intent of the Founders was.

Edited by PASabreFan, 16 December 2012 - 11:27 AM.


#70 Sabres Fan In NS

Sabres Fan In NS

    I'd rather be in Sarajevo or, Istanbul (not Constantinople)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:37 AM

View PostEleven, on 16 December 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

No worries.  I couldn't tell you anything about the documents that govern your country without looking them up!

Just out of curiosity, what do you have up there?  A constitution?  The Magna Carta?  A Trailer Park Boys script?

Just noticed your edit.

So, I had to look it up.  Canada is a *Constitutional Monarchy*, with an elected Parliament, but Queen Elizabeth II is our head of state (officially).  Our Constitution is the basic law of the land ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada

All you wanted to know about Canada and were afraid to ask.  If ever you can't sleep at night the linked article will put an end to that, although wikipedia is not always your friend.

#71 deluca67

deluca67

    67 - The Number of the Beast!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,022 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:10 PM

View Postweave, on 16 December 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

It seems to me that there are two means to dealing with firearm killings, one deals with tthe symptoms and is convenient, easy, and requires little thought to produce.  The other is difficult, expensive, but targets the underlying causes that create these incidents.

Banning firearms, even just certain categories of firearms is easy and convenient and requires no creative thought whatsoever.  And it makes sense that the crowd that wants its government to be the sole protector/provider of their financial well being, and physical well being would be the same crowd that wants their goverenment to protect them from someone else's intentions to the point where they are giving up the fundamental right to take those responsibilities for themselves.  That sort of environment is comfy and cozy but results in a lowest common denominator society, devoid of the greater risk/reward environment we enjoy today.  And, like Prohibition, banning firearms, or classes of firearms, overwhelmingly affects the innocent all out of proportion compared to its effect on those who would do us harm.  The largest effect of a gun ban will be to create an entirely new class of criminal who were not criminals previously and posed no credible threat to society in the past.  Is this really in our best interest?

The real fix is complex, most likley expensive, but is the only real solution to reducing violence in America.  And it boils down to two things (you could argue 3), an increase in awareness and treatment of mental health issues and getting our economy working so that our inner cities, the places with the greatest issues with violence, have the able bodied people working and leading fulfilling lives again.  And it is probably well past time to admit the role that our drug laws have in the violence.  Today, just as in the 1970's, the vast majority of our violence is directly attributed to drug trafficing.  We need to seriously re-think our drug laws.

At the risk of sounding callous, we need to put the events of Friday into perspective.  The death rates in this country from influenza (estimated as high as 49,000/yr) and motor vehicle accidents (~34,000/yr) greatly overshadow the 11,500 that are murdered with firearms annually.  Today there is more than one firearm in America for every household.  Given this, the 11,500 murders annually speaks to how absolutely tiny the percentage of firearms used to kill really is.

Friday was a national tragedy.  I do not want to minimize that.  Yes, it is preventable.  But there is a whole lot of emotion-generated hyperbole driving the discussion., which is not unusual. Should we be discussing ways to reduce access to firearms by those with mental health issues?  Of course.  Should we be having a conversation about what should be done to reduce unauthorized use of firearms in general?  Hell yeah.  We can fix issues regarding access by those who are not supposed to have access and not  punish those who would not do us harm.  But, when the conversatiuon jumps immediately to outriight criminalizing a huge subsection of our population then it is obviuous to me that the conversation is agenda driven and not positive results driven.



We don't know if those guns were locked up.  They may very well have been.  He killed his parents.  It is conceiveable that they were locked up and he obtained the keys without authorization.
In 2008 Great Britain had 39 murders by firearms. That's 39. To argue "Banning firearms, even just certain categories of firearms is easy and convenient and requires no creative thought whatsoever" is just wrong.

#72 weave

weave

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,439 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:18 PM

View PostDeLuca67, on 16 December 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

In 2008 Great Britain had 39 murders by firearms. That's 39. To argue "Banning firearms, even just certain categories of firearms is easy and convenient and requires no creative thought whatsoever" is just wrong.

OK, defend it instead of just stating it as fact. Your first sentence did nothing to prove your point.

#73 Eleven

Eleven

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,439 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:29 PM

I just read something that intrigued me.  Don't know to whom it's attributable:

"One failed attempt at a shoe bomb, and now we all take off our shoes at airports.  Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and no change in our regulation of guns."

#74 Spndnchz

Spndnchz

    Ass. Player Agent

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,425 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fracking Shanahan's house

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:31 PM

View PostEleven, on 16 December 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

Check the quote again; we were discussing the Declaration of Independence.  The Constitution is a governing document.  The Declaration of Independence is not.  They are separate documents that were written roughly thirteen years apart.

And how many assault rifles were around back when they wrote that?

I've never owned, fired or even held a gun.  Never will.

#75 Eleven

Eleven

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,439 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:37 PM

View PostSpndnchz, on 16 December 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

And how many assault rifles were around back when they wrote that?

I've never owned, fired or even held a gun.  Never will.

Funny thing is, the Declaration of Independence reference was originally in a discussion about same-sex marriages and not in this thread.

The Second Amendment is obsolete.  I'd prefer that it be removed, and that reasonable allowances for sport and hunting rifles/shotguns, and shotguns for defending one's home, be had in its place.

I'll stick to my view that handguns are weapons of offense, not defense, and that semi-automatics and automatics are not necessary for sport or hunting.  If you can't hit that flying duck with a shotgun, work on being a better shot.

One more thing:  let's ban armor, too.

#76 Ghost of Dwight Drane

Ghost of Dwight Drane

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,208 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:38 PM

View Postd4rksabre, on 16 December 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

Can anyone tell me the likelihood of "a well armed citizenry" having to take up arms in a full scale war against the US military?

View PostSwampD, on 16 December 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

She was afraid of economic collapse and wanted to be prepared to protect herself. Seems like hyperbole from the right is just as much at work here as the hyperbole from the left.

30%

The economic backdrop is going to drive the next decade of periods of chaos and shifting power. There is no way the citizens can defend themselves against a 100% united US Military.....but let's say for instance as the US debt crisis (fiscal cliff is a sideshow....a pimple on the ass of an elephant) hits a breaking point and our main rivals who are rich in natural resources and who have been hedging against a US failure by hoarding hard assets and setting up deals with other unfriendlies.....decide to make a play for extended power. It's happening patiently and has been. But if they want to take a little pain themselves in order to collapse the US $......it is a very possible and real scenario. This would lead to full blown war, which could be started in any number of ways....which is why the developments in Syria and Iran are worth watching so closely.

If things start to unravel in a hurry.....which also is a very real possibility, you could have a whole country that looks like the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy on Staten Island...not in a physical sense, but in a financial, resources, infrastructure, distribution sense. It would take but a week for 80% of the country to be helpless. Now....how the military responds to the possible scenarios that set up would be the moment of truth, and where all hell could break loose.

In chaos, we see how ineffective the government is in small, regional situations. Imagine that on a countrywide scale? It is VERY possible and since 2007, your government and military has been preparing in overdrive for the eventual events that NEED to take place at some point. How deep the pain goes....how fast it happens....how everyone responds.......we don't know.

You are much more likely to see neighborhoods form their own protectionary units for reasons of rioting and looting. At a critical mass, the cops would stay home with their families. That is much more of a realistic issue than full blown war against your own military. Depending on how things unfold, and who the administration is, it is possible to see a breakup in the military and a power struggle. But that is more low single digit percentages......if that happens the Mayans are probably right. But the US reaching a point where everyone will wish they had protection......30%.

#77 weave

weave

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,439 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:47 PM

View PostEleven, on 16 December 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

I just read something that intrigued me.  Don't know to whom it's attributable:

"One failed attempt at a shoe bomb, and now we all take off our shoes at airports.  Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and no change in our regulation of guns."

A proper analogy would look more like, "One failed attempt at a shoe bomb, and now we all take off our shoes at airports. Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and now everybody gets checked at the door to verify what they are bringing in"

We will see guards at school entrances becoming commonplace.

#78 deluca67

deluca67

    67 - The Number of the Beast!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,022 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:51 PM

View Postweave, on 16 December 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

OK, defend it instead of just stating it as fact. Your first sentence did nothing to prove your point.
Only in the American gun culture is 39 deaths in a country with gun control compared to the "11,500" in the United States, not proof of the point. 11,500 may be a small percentage, it is still a stomach turning number which doesn't even include the number of self inflicted deaths as a result of firearms. We have the ability to reduce that number of 11,500 with stricter legislation.

View PostEleven, on 16 December 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

Funny thing is, the Declaration of Independence reference was originally in a discussion about same-sex marriages and not in this thread.

The Second Amendment is obsolete.  I'd prefer that it be removed, and that reasonable allowances for sport and hunting rifles/shotguns, and shotguns for defending one's home, be had in its place.

I'll stick to my view that handguns are weapons of offense, not defense, and that semi-automatics and automatics are not necessary for sport or hunting.  If you can't hit that flying duck with a shotgun, work on being a better shot.

One more thing:  let's ban armor, too.
Let's not forget the 2nd Amendment was written as a result of the American Revolution. We are going into 2013, Eleven we don't often agree, you are 100% correct when you say the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.

#79 Eleven

Eleven

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,439 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:52 PM

View Postweave, on 16 December 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

A proper analogy would look more like, "One failed attempt at a shoe bomb, and now we all take off our shoes at airports. Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and now everybody gets checked at the door to verify what they are bringing in"

We will see guards at school entrances becoming commonplace.

What about movie theaters, coffee shops, malls, and temples?

Here's the interesting thing to me about that quote, though:  It says as much about our absurd response to terrorism as it does about our absurd response to mass shootings.

#80 weave

weave

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,439 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:59 PM

View PostEleven, on 16 December 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

Funny thing is, the Declaration of Independence reference was originally in a discussion about same-sex marriages and not in this thread.

The Second Amendment is obsolete.  I'd prefer that it be removed, and that reasonable allowances for sport and hunting rifles/shotguns, and shotguns for defending one's home, be had in its place.

I'll stick to my view that handguns are weapons of offense, not defense, and that semi-automatics and automatics are not necessary for sport or hunting.  If you can't hit that flying duck with a shotgun, work on being a better shot.

One more thing:  let's ban armor, too.

Necessary has no more to do with it that the "necessariness" of earning more than $40k/yr, riding motorcycles, or owning a boat capable of traveling at 40 knots.  We all likely have hobbies or aspects of our life that someone disapproves of.  There is a good chance that disapproval stems from someone else's negative experience resulting from the activity you persue.  At the end of the day, those activites are what we strive for to make life interesting and pleasureable for us,  The answer isn't in taking away something that someone is participating in legally and without reasonable impact on others.  It is about ensuring that the activity doesn't adversely affect others beyond what is reasonable.

As for armor, I find the recent use of it rather troubling.  I'm not prepared to say "ban it" as I'd hate to see someone using it for innocent purposes lose there life because they couldn't have it.  I guess someone's grandfather in a downtrodden neighborhood who becomes the victim of a home invasion type of scenario.   My first instinct is to make harsher penalties when it is used in the commission of a crime but every case I've seen where body armor was used resulted in a dead suspect.  So I'm not sure that additional penalties would have any effect at all.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Off topic, guns, killers, nutjobs