Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Near Future & Gun Control

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 10>
Author
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 December 2012 at 6:13pm
Lets look at an example of the effectivness of 'gun' bans. Mexico where it is illegal to own a 'military' styled firearm (definition is varied and yet inclusive, look at the case of the imprisoned ex US Marine and the antique firearm he was in possetion of)should be by 'progressive' logic as one of the safest countries on earth with very limited legal firearm possetion.

Now who owns, uses and controls the majority of the military styled weapons in Mexico, and no it is not the Mexican military,or the law abiding citizen, it is the CRIMINAL drug Cartels, and look American exceptionalism meant that we had to supply them with even more 'assault weapons' (Fast and Furious).

This whole arguement of gun control is flawed and a political agenda. Nancy Fienstien (D-CA) was in talks with BATF of bringing back her 'gun' bans even prior to Newtown, why was this not an issue in 2009, 2010, because Obama knew he could not 'win' if he and his wanted to continue this avenuse to gun control.
2-300m guns already out there, so the 'simple' solution s to target the legal owner for he/she will not put up the resistance the illegal owner (criminal) will, and does anyone here really, really believe that 'infringing' on the gun 'rights' of legal citizens will really curb gun violence.
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 December 2012 at 6:23pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Lets look at an example of . . .
 

Looking at global gun laws to crime rate as a simple correlation is never going to work. The world is simply too complicated. 

England has very strict firearm laws and few handguns and a very low homicide rate, and a minuscule firearm-homicide rate. Mexico, as you pointed out, also has strict firearm laws, yet has an enormous issue with both raw homicide and firearm-homicide. 

Global comparison of homicide and firearm-homicide rates requires a lot more than simply looking at numbers and laws and attempting to draw a conclusion. Geographical positioning combined with internal political strife and heavy socioeconomic injustice (In the case of South Africa and Honduras) can add to higher numbers of illegal weapons AND more murders with said firearms. That doesn't mean that more guns = more murders. Each country, in this situation, is its own case study. 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 December 2012 at 6:41pm
The comman denominator in all this is the 'human' operator of the tool, whether he abuses the tool or uses it responsibly.

Again where does a criminal feel safer committing his illegal act with a tool he is going to abuse. An area with a 'Gun Free Zone' sign placed prominantly, or near a 'cop' bar with no sign but well known.

Now let's look at another slant, there are advocates that state the 1st Amendment 'free speech' right can and does leads to violent reaction and violence towards others. Now if the 1st Amendment was deemed to be illegal unless you were permitted by the government whould you abide or question the governments assault on your right.

What is your definition of 'infringed'? "as in the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 December 2012 at 6:56pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:


Again where does a criminal feel safer committing his illegal act with a tool he is going to abuse. An area with a 'Gun Free Zone' sign placed prominantly, or near a 'cop' bar with no sign but well known.

If the idea you're proposing is that more guns directly correlates to less crime, you'll have to explain why we don't have the lowest crime rate on Earth. 


In the same way, in no way am I trying to argue that less guns automatically equals no crime. 

Quote Now let's look at another slant, there are advocates that state the 1st Amendment 'free speech' right can and does leads to violent reaction and violence towards others.
 

There are laws against that very thing. Precedent has shown that the right to freedom of speech can be limited for public safety -- the classic example of "fire in a crowded theater," the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire case for "fighting words," Feiner v. New York on inciting a riot, etc. 

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution has been curbed and limited over time in various ways due to public safety. 

Quote What is your definition of 'infringed'? "as in the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 

Finish out the language of the amendment. 


Edited by agentwhale007 - 21 December 2012 at 6:56pm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
BARREL BREAK View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Prettiest Princess in all the lands

Joined: 08 September 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10707
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BARREL BREAK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 December 2012 at 7:22pm
This article is from 1995 but it is very worth reading now, the argument that the second amendment seeks to secure the right of private ownership of guns is deeply flawed. Not that I think intent should be the prime mover of law, but since it is a favorite of the NRA and gun advocates, it's worth examining the weak ground the claim is made on.
Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 December 2012 at 7:26pm
I ♥ the fact that Whale seems to think that murder rates in the US have more to do with the number of guns than they have to do with the american mindset and cultural conditioning.

The media (not just news, but all media, from dime novels to Hollywood blockbusters) have glorified firearms from the days of the old west up through today. Just over thanksgiving, I was up late playing a game of STALKER: CoP on my pc when my 3-year-old niece instantly identified that my character was using a gun. Her family doesn't own or keep any weapons in the house, she's never been shooting, never seen a gun in real life, but she knows what one looks like and what it is. We're exposed to them regularly, and unfortunately in a less-than-realistic sense. Not only are we wrongfully informed that any scary-looking black rifle can fire a gazillion bullets without reloading, but we also are wrongfully taught that you can easily survive being shot (the heroes always do!) or that being shot can even be comical. The good guys almost always carry guns. From G.I. Joe to John McLane in Die Hard, the exception to the rule being certain superheroes, but even then, guns have worked their way into the hands of many a hero's hands from members of the X-Men to Captain America and many, many others. We're taught that the only reason we were able to successfully throw off the yoke of tyranny was because we had guns to fight back with. The only reason the Union won in the war was because they could make more guns and bullets than the south, etc. etc. Our society is the epitome of the "American Cowboy" attitude that carries as our stereotype through out the world. It's a mindset, and until we stop glorifying violence, and 3-year-olds can stop identifying guns at first sight, then we're going to continue to have this problem.
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 December 2012 at 7:42pm
If these people are so unstable, that they shouldn't be around firearms. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed in society?

If criminals are deemed incapable of owning firearms. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed in society?
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 December 2012 at 7:55pm
Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:

I ♥ the fact that Whale seems to think that murder rates in the US have more to do with the number of guns than they have to do with the american mindset and cultural conditioning.
 

I think those those things play a role as well? 


"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 December 2012 at 8:24pm
The first amendment IS subject to restrictions. You need a permit for an organized protest, since it affects the public. They can't tell the KKK to piss off when they apply to march, but, they still need a permit. I don't seem to see the harm in needing a permit for an AR (which I would argue effects the public) or to carry, providing they aren't arbitrarily denied.

Places that have high ownership and low crime like Switzerland are places with compulsory military service and training, along with registration and storage requirements. Background checks aren't an infringement because they don't deny you to purchase a firearm unless you have been stripped of that right through legal due process. Non-infringement doesn't mean no regulation, it means you're allowed to have a gun and keep one in your house. I wouldn't argue like some have lately and vocally that this means you're allowed to have a flintlock musket only anymore than I would claim free speech doesn't apply to mediums that didn't exist in 1787, though as it stands, what types of guns can be regulated according to the SCOTUS.

I keep digging through that giant link I put up earlier, and it seems that by conservative estimates, firearms are used in the prevention of crime somewhere between a half-million and a million times a year, and "military style assault weapons" are used in about 2% of crimes involving firearms (this stat includes SKS rifles which have never been classified as assault rifles, and real-deal select-fire firearms and machineguns) . There are no statistics I can find showing how often "military style semi-automatics"  are used in defense against a crime, anecdotally, I've only used them in the process of defending domestic animals from other animals (which is when the mini-14 was declared potentially dangerous garbage). The amount of firearms retrievals in defense far, far, surpasses murders with firearms and firearms accidents, fatal and non-fatal, so yes, you are theoretically not more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than to use a firearm defensively.

To BB, since his concepts interest me, should police officers be allowed to keep guns in their homes since it would seem that would keep them from killing their wives in a domestic dispute?

Back to Top
BARREL BREAK View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Prettiest Princess in all the lands

Joined: 08 September 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10707
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BARREL BREAK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 December 2012 at 8:38pm
That's a matter for PD's and administration, I don't know how on-duty/off restrictions work, and that is peripheral to the issue.
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 December 2012 at 9:10pm
Let's say they live outside their jurisdiction. Your stance against having a gun in a home seems to indicate that you would be against police doing so, since domestic violence happens even in the homes of police officers. I'd like to talk a little more about your scenario of gun crimes in domestic situations and specifically allow small people to defend against larger people, or against more than one attacker, or someone with a baseball bat etc. I firmly believe taking a gun out of the options for self defense really takes us farther away from equal rights in those cases.
Back to Top
BARREL BREAK View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Prettiest Princess in all the lands

Joined: 08 September 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10707
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BARREL BREAK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 December 2012 at 9:17pm
In that specific situation the person most likely to use, and know how to use, the gun, would be the police officer, which has no effect as an equalizer. There are many other options that are not so lethal. Kind of like suicide, a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 December 2012 at 9:35pm
There are plenty of female officers. What are self-defense options when there's a disparity of force (let's pretend the attacker or attackers do not have firearms in this situation)that a civilian case use? (Many states ban tazers and carrying of large knives, all states theoretically allow civilians to carry firearms). Tazers are useless if there's more than one attacker, and pepper spray just pisses some people off. Until we have phasers with a stun setting, the firearm still shines in this regard. A Tazer/Derringer comparison is a better example of a permanent V. temporary solution.
Back to Top
Rofl_Mao View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
request denied

Joined: 27 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rofl_Mao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 December 2012 at 11:55pm
Canada recently abolished the long-gun registry because it was a waste of tax-payers money and did not affect gun-related crimes in the country.

A quote from this article:
Originally posted by article article wrote:

The evidence shows that the long-gun registry has not been effective in reducing criminal violence. Nor is the Canadian experience unique. No international study of firearm laws by criminologists or economists has found support for the claim that restricting access to firearms by civilians reduces criminal violence. And so ending the long gun registry is consistent with the basic principles of good fiscal management. Arguably any government program that fails to achieve its objectives should be shut down.


And just because it is long-gun registry does not change anything.
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 December 2012 at 12:00am
Originally posted by Rofl_Mao Rofl_Mao wrote:

And just because it is long-gun registry does not change anything.

Except everything. 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
Rofl_Mao View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
request denied

Joined: 27 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rofl_Mao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 December 2012 at 12:16am
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by Rofl_Mao Rofl_Mao wrote:

And just because it is long-gun registry does not change anything.

Except everything. 


HOW IS THAT? Guns are guns. They all shoot bullets. One looks scarier than the other. Whats the difference?

As people have stated before in this thread they can load and shoot a rifle in under 3 seconds. If anything, bolt-action rifles should cause more damage than a 9mm glock.
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 December 2012 at 12:19am
Originally posted by Rofl_Mao Rofl_Mao wrote:

 

HOW IS THAT? Guns are guns. They all shoot bullets. One looks scarier than the other. Whats the difference?


Licensing/registering rifles and shotguns is silly, which is why I generally don't support it. 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
Rofl_Mao View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
request denied

Joined: 27 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rofl_Mao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 December 2012 at 12:20am
That graph doesn't mean jack. Take out any item in it and another one will rise substantially.
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4025
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 December 2012 at 1:22am
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:


 
<div style="color: rgb0, 0, 0 !imant;">
<div style="color: rgb0, 0, 0 !imant;">So your hampering is a wait and about $300? <div style="color: rgb0, 0, 0 !imant;">
<div style="color: rgb0, 0, 0 !imant;">tinyviolin.jpg 


Yes. Your argument is because I am rich I should have more rights than the poor? Good one.

Those are ancillary costs. The actual cost of a license is up from R50 when I first applied in 1999 to R174 now. That isn't a bad increase. But if that is all you do, the application will get rejected because it needs to be written in legalease. I can afford the ~R1000 per application. I happen to live in a nice part of town, have a secure house with armed response and use a reliable car for transport. I actually have a very small need for a self defense firearm. But I can afford it, so I deserve it, right? Those costs are also excluding the R180 for a competency certificate and the ~R400 for the competency course. But hey, costs are immaterial because I'm rich.

The wait? Like I said, it is a hamper. It means I have not shot the firearm I legally own in 2 years. I can buy an illegal firearm in about an hour. THAT is the key point. There is 17000% more obstacles in the way of a legal firearm owner than there are for illegal ones. The law does not make it harder for criminals to buy one. It does mean as a legal firearm owner I have to jump through many many hoops and pay a lot of money to meet arbitrary requirements.

Quote
Quote I know they are different. I was using it as proof that laws don't prevent anything. Criminals can get what they want.
 <div style="color: rgb0, 0, 0 !imant;">
The idea that criminals exist therefore laws don't work is something you're a big fan of repeating, despite the inherent legal and philosophical fallacies inherent. 




Actually, it is true. Case in point it is illegal to murder a class room full of children. The laws in place did nothing to stop it. How will adding MORE laws work? Oh wait. It won't.

Preparation will mitigate the effects when it happens, laws allow you to punish the transgressor. That is all they ever do. Honestly.

Laws didn't stop Rosa Louise McCauley Parks from breaking them.

All laws are is a bunch of rules we have agreed to follow as a society. They can be changed to suit the general wishes, but they don't actually stop someone doing something they want to. Sometimes for good, often for "bad".

Effective policing of current laws will always be more effective than passing new ones, albeit more expensive and often less "flashy". If people cared about doing their jobs properly instead of grabbing headlines there would be less need for new laws.

Ironically enough I agree with stricter gun control. I'm of the opinion it should be like a driver license though. There isn't anything preventing you buying what you want or need once you have proven to be safe and sound (sometimes not even that) from an auto dealership.

KBK

Edited by Kayback - 22 December 2012 at 1:24am
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
usafpilot07 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth

Joined: 31 August 2004
Location: Tokelau
Status: Offline
Points: 4447
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote usafpilot07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 December 2012 at 1:25am
It bothers me that when talking about limiting law abiding citizens' constitutional rights, it is apparently their job to justify that right, and they are treated as the dangerous ones instead of vice-versa.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.218 seconds.