Near Future & Gun Control

Linus wrote:  Waiting periods are all but useless once someone already owns a gun

Just as prohibition made alcohol 'illegal' and banned, how well did that work, and why did it not work?
Speed limits are the law and everyone of you flaunt those laws almost daily.
We can go on, and the comman denominator in why these laws all failed is?

If man is intent on breaking a law for whatever purpose he will, you make more laws, man just finds a justifacation to break them in his/her own mind.

Whale, do you speed, can your driving at excessive speed over the posted legal speed lead to a potential death of an innocent? And your justifacation for that illegal act is? But the 'law' is clear with the posted speed limit.

You 'ban' a series of weapons in the US, all you do is establish another 'black' market where the 'criminal' elements control the access, aquisition, and price, just like prohibition with alcohol, and current drug laws the 'product' will always be available. I can purchase an illegal full auto weapon any time I choose, or a RPG, simple trip to NYC, and where I know that they are probably still for sale,it is not 'they are banned' the question is how many and for what price.

Wait, a 'law abiding' citizen within the vast majority ogf motor vehicle operators and owners...say it ain't so. But how do we control the others that don't obey the law, what can we 'ban' to make them comply?

What ever happened to the 'Big Brother' fear of George Bush? The current admins attack on privicy makes Bush's plan look like a half arsed attempt.

oldsoldier wrote: What ever happened to the 'Big Brother' fear of George Bush? The current admins attack on privicy makes Bush's plan look like a half arsed attempt.

Still here and still against it, Obama has continued and expanded on the Bush admin's assault on liberty. 

 I am a Canadian citizen and therefore cannot vote in the US. Had I been able to, I would have voted for Jill Stein, though I'm not particularly enthused about her.  

Edited by BARREL BREAK - 22 December 2012 at 10:00pm

 

SSOK wrote: want to take away a constitutional right.

If you care to read the article I posted earlier, or this newer one, there is very little merit to the idea that the second amendment works the way you think it does.

e: Newer, shorter, and far less in depth...

Edited by BARREL BREAK - 22 December 2012 at 10:11pm

BARREL BREAK wrote:   SSOK wrote: want to take away a constitutional right. If you care to read the article I posted earlier, or this newer one, there is very little merit to the idea that the second amendment works the way you think it does. e: Newer, shorter, and far less in depth...

Edited by SSOK - 22 December 2012 at 10:31pm

agentwhale007 wrote: SSOK wrote: Whale, what is your simplified, few sentences, view on firearms ownership?  I'm not really sure I've got such a thing. Complicated issues don't work well when simplified down.

That right there is the main problem with the shooting community. It is such a wide and encompassing field that there is literally people from every walk in life in it.

Hunters, birders, clay shooters, bullseye shooters, long range shooters, IDPA, IPSC, people training for combat, people just plinking, some totally dedicated to whatever avenue they persue, some just having a passing interest and pretty much everything in between.


Anti gunners seem to be a more or less homogenous group and this makes it easy for them to band together. Even if their aims are not totally in line they wil back pretty much any move if it going to futher their agenda.

Shooters don't do that. While there are some that will back everyone's use there are also many who are willing to sacrifice other's useage to prevent the gun grabbers taking their own. I know plenty of cops who think only cops should have guns. I know plenty of hunters who think anyone with a pistol or a semi auto rifle is a hazard and should be locked up. I know wing shooters who think anyone with any sort of rifle or pistol is a thug. I know Olympic Pistol shooters who are happy to have their pistols kept at the club because they only ever shoot there and think anyone who shoots out doors needs their head read.......

There is a lot of "I don't need it, so why should you" going on.

IMHO if people want to try something and don't "get it" or even if they don't want to try it and still don't "get it" that is fine. I'm happy for them to live their lives how they want. I just want that same respect shown to me.

I happen to like guns. They are fantastic pieces of machinery and the skill to use them effectively is beyond many people. Many people can use them to a level of acceptability, but to truely wring them out, those are few and far between.

Yes I will happily admit firearms get used in crimes and many of those crimes are heart wrenching. No to sound callous but they are also in very much a minority. The number of people who are killed by illegal use of firearms, especially in mass shootings, pales in comparison to many other forms of untimely death that are taken for granted with very little call to legislate against them.

I stand by my argument that legislating against the legal use of a tool is the incorret method in dealing with the killings. Totally random "qualities" that have been decided make a weapon more dangerous are questionable at best. I'll grant that a semi automatic action does make a firearm a little more "killy" as does an easily replaceable box magazine, none of which are truthfully needed to be dangerous. Plenty of people died from stripper clip fed internal magazine bolt action rifles over the years. Plenty other were killed by tube fed lever action rifles. Single action pistols also took their fair share.

It isn't the tool, it is the person doing the killing that needs countering when it happens and preferably treatment or confinement before it happens.

KBK