Gun (Lack of) Control


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:31 am

Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I want to stop the intruder as quickly as possible


All right jazzcyclist, you usually have data supporting your position, so I will ask you two related questions.

1. How many intruders have been stopped by armed citizens in a year (any year you might have). Could be the entire country, region, state. Stats, not stories/testimonials.
2. In the same year, how many accidental shootings were there in the homes of armed citizens?

I honestly have no idea. Have you looked it up? What we need to have in this country is a debate about private gun ownership. Some people in the media have been touting European-style gun laws lately. At least that's a legitimate debate if you can get around the constitutional issues in a democratic manner. But what I don't think makes sense is that you allow people to have guns for hunting (killing animals) and personal protection (killing people) on the one hand, but tell them that their weapons must not be too powerful on the other hand. Keep in mind that the BATF already has limits in place on what you can possess. Automatic weapons require a class III license. Anything larger than .50 caliber requires a class III license. Do we want to go further than that? How about limiting private gun ownership to rim-fire weapons or muzzle-loaders like the founding fathers used? Is that where this is heading?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:41 am

gh wrote:jazz... I'm way cognizant of the concept of "stopping power," but feel a line has to be drawn somewhere. Does every homeowner need an elephant gun? I think not.

I can't swear to it with facts, but I'm convinced that the number of average citizens whose lives have been saved by a big-ass gun (where a peashooter would have served the same purpose) compared to the numbers wiped out by said same weapon of mass-individual destruction is way slanted towards the killing of innocents.

I wouldn't be opposed to mandatory gun safety classes for folks buying guns. Also, I don't think it makes sense that gun owners can sell their weapons without leaving a paper trail for the government. When you buy a car, you must leave a paper trail whether the car is new or used, but when you buy a gun, you only have to leave a paper trail when it's purchased new from an FFL dealer.

gh wrote:And back to my major point. Whatever caliber/load/jacketing, who needs magazines with countless rounds? If, indeed, a homeowner has a weapon with the ultimate stopping power you espouse, why does he need one with ultimate times x? If you can't get it done in the first couple of shots, you be a dead man already. Unless you really believe the Sons Of Anarchy en masse are the ones knocking at your door.

That's a good point and that's why I think we'll definitely see large capacity (greater than 10 or 15 rounds) magazines banned in the future. I already have my stockpile so I'm good anyway. :wink:
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:43 am

Blues wrote:I thought we were talking about gun owners in general rather than hunters specifically. Isn't it possible that restricting hollow points and armor piercing ammo for handguns wouldn't necessarily restrict the most effective ammo choices for hunting rifles?

There are definitely different issues involved when talking about handguns vs long guns. No one hunts with a 9mm.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby kuha » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:51 am

jazzcyclist wrote:You used the word pathetic, but nonsenical is the word that popped in my head when I read your post.


And on that note, I will observe that you over-value your own rhetoric on this issue. You are convincing only to the already convinced.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:24 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
kuha wrote:Yup. That is the lamest reason yet for all the obscene weapons and ammo floating freely through our society. We're putting up with the ramifications of that shit just so a bunch of hobbyists aren't unduly put out in the woods? Seriously? Think about how pathetic that argument actually is. And try not to cry.

I guess I just don't understand folks like you and gh. I explained why hunters preferred weapons with superior stopping power, but I assumed that it would be self-evident why stopping power was even more important in self-defense situations. If I hear someone breaking into my home in the wee hours of the morning, I want to stop the intruder as quickly as possible, I have no interest in giving him a fighting chance. You used the word pathetic, but nonsenical is the word that popped in my head when I read your post.

Nonsensical and self-righteous is what I thought too, jazz. He might actually believe that but it is Kuha with too much self-regard for his own opinion. The reason wasn't lame, it was rational. Kuha's assessment of how hunters SHOULD think is just as arrogant as German automakers refusing to put cupholders in their cars that were being exported to America because the German automakers believed that Americans should NOT be drinking while driving. Laziness is rational. Not wanting to chase a deer through shrubbery is rational. Building a gun that is more likely to drop an animal in his tracks so you don't have to chase him is rational. (it's like most things in our lives: they are wants, not needs)

The ramifications of user error in cars kills 5 times as many people as are killed by guns and yet people don't seem unduly put out by these "hobbyists" to curtail driving privileges altogether, rollback max speeds to 12 mph or making one lane to everywhere to force traffic that slows everyone down.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:42 am

kuha wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:You used the word pathetic, but nonsenical is the word that popped in my head when I read your post.


And on that note, I will observe that you over-value your own rhetoric on this issue. You are convincing only to the already convinced.

Let's be honest. It is very seldom that anyone changes anyone's mind on issues like these on the board, and it's even less likely to happen when you personalize the debate. So I'll make a deal with you in the future, if you don't personalize these issues with me, I won't personalize them with you.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:24 am

preston wrote:Nonsensical and self-righteous is what I thought too, jazz. He might actually believe that but it is Kuha with too much self-regard for his own opinion.

Though I have never found that to be true regarding kuha, there does seem to a lot of that going on around here . . .

which is precisely why I have little hope for substantive change in gun control. Too many NRA-types think they have a divine right to owning guns that couldn't possibly be for any purpose except to kill LOTS of people.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21081
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:27 am

Marlow wrote:
preston wrote:Nonsensical and self-righteous is what I thought too, jazz. He might actually believe that but it is Kuha with too much self-regard for his own opinion.

Though I have never found that to be true regarding kuha, there does seem to a lot of that going on around here . . .

which is precisely why I have little hope for substantive change in gun control. Too many NRA-types think they have a divine right to owning guns that couldn't possibly be for any purpose except to kill LOTS of people.


More nonsense from 7sided. What else is new?

    Preston is a known shit-disturber who walks the fine line. Advice from management, so you don't get caught up in a purge: keep your cool and avoid all-caps postings.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48507&p=806048

Advice I intend to follow...
Last edited by Conor Dary on Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby kuha » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:35 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
kuha wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:You used the word pathetic, but nonsenical is the word that popped in my head when I read your post.


And on that note, I will observe that you over-value your own rhetoric on this issue. You are convincing only to the already convinced.

Let's be honest. It is very seldom that anyone changes anyone's mind on issues like these on the board, and it's even less likely to happen when you personalize the debate. So I'll make a deal with you in the future, if you don't personalize these issues with me, I won't personalize them with you.


Of course, you are exactly right on the general failure of arguments to convince the other side. I've made note of that in the past, also. But there is nothing personal here; there's no point to that. You referred to my statement as "nonsensical." I don't believe that it was. My response was simply to alert you to the fact that your very lengthy posts haven't been all that convincing on this overall issue. There is, certainly, some "nonsense" in all of this, but we need to be more attentive to unchallenged dogma, simple assertions taken as fact, and cherry-picked data points being elevated into larger trends or truths.

At the end of all this, I guess I have a very simple question. In what ways do your views deviate from official NRA/gun industry positions? Those points of difference--if any--would provide ground for a more interesting dialogue.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:52 am

Conor Dary wrote:
Marlow wrote:
preston wrote:Nonsensical and self-righteous is what I thought too, jazz. He might actually believe that but it is Kuha with too much self-regard for his own opinion.

Though I have never found that to be true regarding kuha, there does seem to a lot of that going on around here . . .

which is precisely why I have little hope for substantive change in gun control. Too many NRA-types think they have a divine right to owning guns that couldn't possibly be for any purpose except to kill LOTS of people.


More nonsense from 7sided. What else is new?

    Preston is a known shit-disturber who walks the fine line. Advice from management, so you don't get caught up in a purge: keep your cool and avoid all-caps postings.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48507&p=806048

Advice I intend to follow...

Conor, I know that you think I was talking about you when I mentioned child pornography on your hard-drive, but I wasn't; you never crossed my mind. I also mentioned that child rapists wouldn't last another day if murder was legal and that also hasn't come to pass. The point: it's not all about you, even though you have your own demons to contend with.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Blues » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:58 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Blues wrote:I thought we were talking about gun owners in general rather than hunters specifically. Isn't it possible that restricting hollow points and armor piercing ammo for handguns wouldn't necessarily restrict the most effective ammo choices for hunting rifles?

There are definitely different issues involved when talking about handguns vs long guns. No one hunts with a 9mm.


Right. I just wanted to make the point that using hunters as a group to demonstrate the importance of needing hollow point ammunition or powerful guns may not necessarily be relevant to the discussion of whether sales or possession of hollow point and armor piercing bullets, high capacity magazines, and assault rifles should be restricted. There's a pretty good chance that any hollow point restriction would apply to handgun ammunition only, and I'm sure there aren't too many hunters who require assault rifles or 30 cartridge magazines to take down their game... I realize that Daisy's comment involved hunters and that you were replying as such, but I just wanted it to be clear that the gun control improvements that were initially suggested here might very well not affect hunters much, if at all.
Blues
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:33 am

kuha wrote:At the end of all this, I guess I have a very simple question. In what ways do your views deviate from official NRA/gun industry positions? Those points of difference--if any--would provide ground for a more interesting dialogue.

I'm not an NRA member and I don't know what their official position is off the top if my head, but I'm not a lockstepper. As I stated earlier, I think there should be regulation on the transfer of guns from one person to another (gun show loophole). Some folks are worried that the government wants to close this loophole so that they will know who has all the guns when they decide to seize them in the future. I'm not worried about this since these things have been grandfathered in in the past. For example, the Gun Control Act of 1968 allowed people who already possessed automatic weapons to keep them. I also wouldn't be opposed to reasonable limits on magazine capacity. I realize that with the Second Amendement as with the First Amendment, there have to be limits - you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre or threaten to kill the President and you can't buy a Tomahawk cruise missile or an M1 Abrams tank. To me the central question is what are reasonable limits for private ownership of weapons. I'm defintely opposed to the limits that Michael Bloomberg and Carol McCarthy are advocating.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:33 am

preston wrote:Conor, I know that you think I was talking about you when I mentioned child pornography on your hard-drive, but I wasn't; you never crossed my mind. I also mentioned that child rapists wouldn't last another day if murder was legal and that also hasn't come to pass. The point: it's not all about you, even though you have your own demons to contend with.

How apropos for Conor to find and cite this post:

gh wrote:Preston is a known shit-disturber who walks the fine line. Advice from management, so you don't get caught up in a purge: keep your cool and avoid all-caps postings.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21081
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:35 am

Blues wrote: Right. I just wanted to make the point that using hunters as a group to demonstrate the importance of needing hollow point ammunition or powerful guns may not necessarily be relevant to the discussion of whether sales or possession of hollow point and armor piercing bullets, high capacity magazines, and assault rifles should be restricted. There's a pretty good chance that any hollow point restriction would apply to handgun ammunition only, and I'm sure there aren't too many hunters who require assault rifles or 30 cartridge magazines to take down their game... I realize that Daisy's comment involved hunters and that you were replying as such, but I just wanted it to be clear that the gun control improvements that were initially suggested here might very well not affect hunters much, if at all.

For the record, my ammo of choice for personal protection is Glaser safety slugs.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:47 am

Here's an interesting tidbit regarding automatic weapons in the U.S.:

"Regarding these fully automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the United States, political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime."

This suggests to me that any automatic weapons that have been used in a crime have either been smuggled into the U.S., or illegally converted from semi-automatic weapons, which is not that easy despite what another poster said earlier in this thread. It makes sense that the type of person that would go through the expense and hassle of buying an automatic weapon legally would also keep it in a very secure location.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:03 am

jazzcyclist wrote:For the record, my ammo of choice for personal protection is Glaser safety slugs.

jazz, for your personal protection, do you use a revolver or a semi-automatic? I ask because a police officer friend of mine recommends the revolvers for personal protection.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Daisy » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:05 am

preston wrote:because a police officer friend of mine recommends the revolvers for personal protection.

What is your friends rationale?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:07 am

Daisy wrote:
preston wrote:because a police officer friend of mine recommends the revolvers for personal protection.

What is your friends rationale?

Revolvers are less likely to jam.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby gh » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:26 am

I would also rate a revolver (of which I have two) as being "safer" in the sense that you aren't as likely to spray random shots all over the place with little regard for backdrop.
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Cooter Brown » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:27 am

jazzcyclist wrote:This suggests to me that any automatic weapons that have been used in a crime have either been smuggled into the U.S., or illegally converted from semi-automatic weapons..


I'd bet in these mass killings, the weapons are rarely set on automatic. You can't purposely hit anything when you empty a magazine in 3 seconds or less. Even most soldiers exclusively set their rifles on semi-automatic or 3-shot burst in fire fights.

Get rid of the 30+ round magazines that allow you to keep shooting with no break. There's no legitimate reason for private people to have them. Limit rifle magazines to 3 or 5 rounds.
Cooter Brown
 
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Austin

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:36 am

One other thing: another police officer friend of mine doesn't even like firing his gun. He said he does the once-per-year target practice and hopes he never has to fire it again.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby DoubleRBar » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:42 am

I'm not sure if this has already been discussed, but there are some people who believe that the Second Amendment does not say a citizen has a right to own a firearm, just as no citizen has the right to own a coat or a car.

Some might say that the Second Amendment was written so that we, the American public, may have a collective militia (army) for the common defense of our country.

It does not have anything to do with individual rights.

Most of these words were recently published in a local newspaper I read.

What do you think of the Second Amendment?
DoubleRBar
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:21 am
Location: Mineral City

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Pego » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:44 am

preston wrote:One other thing: another police officer friend of mine doesn't even like firing his gun. He said he does the once-per-year target practice and hopes he never has to fire it again.


I like your friend. A lot.
Pego
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby odelltrclan » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:09 am

DoubleRBar wrote:I'm not sure if this has already been discussed, but there are some people who believe that the Second Amendment does not say a citizen has a right to own a firearm, just as no citizen has the right to own a coat or a car.

Some might say that the Second Amendment was written so that we, the American public, may have a collective militia (army) for the common defense of our country.

It does not have anything to do with individual rights.

Most of these words were recently published in a local newspaper I read.

What do you think of the Second Amendment?


I think it helps to look at those who crafted the 2nd amendment and state laws in existence at that time. It was much clearer where people stood in the language of some of those states. For example, Virginia, in its demand for a Bill of Rights requested "that the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power."

Other states had similar language in their requests for a Bill of Rights. Other cities had laws specifying the right to keep and bare arms. I think it was understood at the time what was meant. The wording of the 2nd amendment is poor. But, the Supreme Court has upheld the right to keep and bare arms to defend yourself.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:51 am

preston wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:For the record, my ammo of choice for personal protection is Glaser safety slugs.

jazz, for your personal protection, do you use a revolver or a semi-automatic? I ask because a police officer friend of mine recommends the revolvers for personal protection.

Most of the time, I have a revolver near where I sleep at night, but occasionally I've had a 9mm near me too.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:54 am

Cooter Brown wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:This suggests to me that any automatic weapons that have been used in a crime have either been smuggled into the U.S., or illegally converted from semi-automatic weapons..


I'd bet in these mass killings, the weapons are rarely set on automatic. You can't purposely hit anything when you empty a magazine in 3 seconds or less. Even most soldiers exclusively set their rifles on semi-automatic or 3-shot burst in fire fights.

As far as I can recall, which is over the last 25-30 years, automatic weapons have never been used in mass killings in the U.S.

Cooter Brown wrote:Get rid of the 30+ round magazines that allow you to keep shooting with no break. There's no legitimate reason for private people to have them. Limit rifle magazines to 3 or 5 rounds.

It's already illegal to hunt with magazines bigger than 3 or 4 rounds in most states.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:10 pm

Pego wrote:
preston wrote:One other thing: another police officer friend of mine doesn't even like firing his gun. He said he does the once-per-year target practice and hopes he never has to fire it again.


I like your friend. A lot.

I wish that all policemen and soldiers abhorred killing as much as his friend. My Dad served in Vietnam from the middle of 1967 to the middle of 1968 as an infantry captain, mostly in the Mekong Delta, so if you're 60 or older, you shouldn't have a hard time imagining what he went through. Once when my brother was about 12, he asked my Dad if he had ever killed a man, at which point my Dad just sat on the sofa speechless staring at the wall. Based on his reaction, it didn't take my brother long to realize that he had hit a nerve, at which point he began apologizing to him and trying to console him as his eyes began to tear up.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jeremyp » Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:47 pm

Obviously the void between the gun lovers and the gun haters will never close. I'm not in favor of "no guns" nor am I in favor of "whatever" but this argument is getting down to one thing, and one thing only. Are you going to get serious about our countries gun deaths or not? Those who love guns never seem to get off the "I'm a hunter and I'm paranoid (but won't admit it), and oh did I mention the constitution?" shtick. The NRA and the gun industry have had us in their scopes and by doing so have paralyzed the politicians. Every excuse has been proffered and every solution has been trotted out except one: WE HAVE TOO MANY GUNS AND IT'S TOO FREAKING EASY TO GET THEM! To change that would be to attack an industry with big bucks and political power and I see no sign of political balls on the horizon. Look how hard it is to get the Republicans to raise taxes on the wealthy! Look how hard it is to cut the military industrial complex! The fix is in. Big business has bamboozled enough people to not mess with PROFITS!
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby kuha » Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:57 pm

odelltrclan wrote:The wording of the 2nd amendment is poor.


That, of course, is debatable. There may be some slight linguistic ambiguity there, but not that much, really. The key point is that the wording is inconvenient to certain interpretations.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:11 pm

Finally some members of Congress have decided to point at the elephant in the room.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has introduced one of Congress' first pieces of legislation related to the tragedy in Newtown, Conn.: a bill to study the impact of violent video games on children.

"This week, we are all focused on protecting our children. At times like this, we need to take a comprehensive look at all the ways we can keep our kids safe. I have long expressed concern about the impact of the violent content our kids see and interact with every day," said Rockefeller, who is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Rockefeller's bill would direct the National Academy of Sciences to lead the investigation on video games' impact and submit a report on its findings within 18 months.

The legislation comes after reports suggested that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza may have played video games like "Call of Duty" and "Starcraft."

Other lawmakers, such as Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), have also expressed support for scrutinizing the content of video games.

"Recent court decisions demonstrate that some people still do not get it," added Rockefeller. "They believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better. These court decisions show we need to do more and explore ways Congress can lay additional groundwork on this issue. This report will be a critical resource in this process."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... 30741.html

It seems that many folks on this board believe that our Second Amendment rights need to be curtailed, but how many would be okay with further restrictions on our First Amendment rights?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:12 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Pego wrote:
preston wrote:One other thing: another police officer friend of mine doesn't even like firing his gun. He said he does the once-per-year target practice and hopes he never has to fire it again.


I like your friend. A lot.

I wish that all policemen and soldiers abhorred killing as much as his friend. My Dad served in Vietnam from the middle of 1967 to the middle of 1968 as an infantry captain, mostly in the Mekong Delta, so if you're 60 or older, you shouldn't have a hard time imagining what he went through. Once when my brother was about 12, he asked my Dad if he had ever killed a man, at which point my Dad just sat on the sofa speechless staring at the wall. Based on his reaction, it didn't take my brother long to realize that he had hit a nerve, at which point he began apologizing to him and trying to console him as his eyes began to tear up.

jazz, what is most odd about his stance is he works in the city with the highest crime rate in the entire state - a state that consistently ranks within the top-10 or 20 states nationwide. (The largest city in that state is ranked on the FBI list as one of the top-10 dangerous in the nation.) The only gun he has is his police dept issued gun.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jeremyp » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:23 pm

kuha wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:The wording of the 2nd amendment is poor.


That, of course, is debatable. There may be some slight linguistic ambiguity there, but not that much, really. The key point is that the wording is inconvenient to certain interpretations.

You mean like "Thou Shalt Not Kill" really meaning the death penalty is O.K?
OR: "We the people.......and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves" only pertains to Europeans.
OR: "Nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Except of course torture and the death penalty.

Yes the constitution is so clear to those who have the power to interpret and enforce it.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jeremyp » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:27 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Finally some members of Congress have decided to point at the elephant in the room.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has introduced one of Congress' first pieces of legislation related to the tragedy in Newtown, Conn.: a bill to study the impact of violent video games on children.

"This week, we are all focused on protecting our children. At times like this, we need to take a comprehensive look at all the ways we can keep our kids safe. I have long expressed concern about the impact of the violent content our kids see and interact with every day," said Rockefeller, who is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Rockefeller's bill would direct the National Academy of Sciences to lead the investigation on video games' impact and submit a report on its findings within 18 months.

The legislation comes after reports suggested that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza may have played video games like "Call of Duty" and "Starcraft."

Other lawmakers, such as Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), have also expressed support for scrutinizing the content of video games.

"Recent court decisions demonstrate that some people still do not get it," added Rockefeller. "They believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better. These court decisions show we need to do more and explore ways Congress can lay additional groundwork on this issue. This report will be a critical resource in this process."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... 30741.html

It seems that many folks on this board believe that our Second Amendment rights need to be curtailed, but how many would be okay with further restrictions on our First Amendment rights?

Wow? It's because of folks like you that Lincoln had to get the 13th ammendment. Just stand on the corner and say you would like to kill Obama and see where #1 gets you.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby lonewolf » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:28 pm

I think this, like capital punishment, is a subject that no amount of argument or statistics is likely to change anyone's intuitively held opinion.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:45 pm

jeremyp wrote:Wow? It's because of folks like you that Lincoln had to get the 13th ammendment. Just stand on the corner and say you would like to kill Obama and see where #1 gets you.

Please tell me what the hell you're talking about because I have no idea. Are you sure you didn't inadvertently omit a word or a dozen?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Pego » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:53 pm

reports suggested that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza may have played video games like "Call of Duty" and "Starcraft."


This is an issue of correlation vs causation. Did those violent videos twist his mind or did his twisted mind seek violent videos? So far, the evidence I saw was never supportive of the former.
Pego
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby kuha » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:09 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:It seems that many folks on this board believe that our Second Amendment rights need to be curtailed, but how many would be okay with further restrictions on our First Amendment rights?


An entirely valid question. However, I would suggest that it's not a matter of 2nd amendment rights being "curtailed" so much as a burning need to have them reconciled with a) the actual intent of the 2nd Amendment (all of it), and b) the truly profound difference in "arms" and private ownership of arms in the 1780s vs. the 21st century. The general concept of "gun rights" has survived, but that is all--the specifics have changed out of all recognition, and that is a far from trivial or purely technical matter.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:17 pm

kuha wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:It seems that many folks on this board believe that our Second Amendment rights need to be curtailed, but how many would be okay with further restrictions on our First Amendment rights?


An entirely valid question. However, I would suggest that it's not a matter of 2nd amendment rights being "curtailed" so much as a burning need to have them reconciled with a) the actual intent of the 2nd Amendment (all of it), and b) the truly profound difference in "arms" and private ownership of arms in the 1780s vs. the 21st century. The general concept of "gun rights" has survived, but that is all--the specifics have changed out of all recognition, and that is a far from trivial or purely technical matter.

If you think about it, both the First and Second Amendments were crafted at a time when communication and weaponry were much more primitive than they are today.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby kuha » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:24 pm

Absolutely--vastly more primitive.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Daisy » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:49 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:It seems that many folks on this board believe that our Second Amendment rights need to be curtailed, but how many would be okay with further restrictions on our First Amendment rights?

This is the bit I don't really understand. In what way does gun control curtail the second amendment? I just don't see that being the case. Even if every semi-automatic were taken out of circulation, and obviously that is not going to happen, you'd still have guns.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 7 guests