Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
"one student shot (are we supposed to rejoice at that number?) near Portland, Oregon, on Tuesday morning, police agencies said.

The suspected shooter is also dead, the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office said. It was not immediately clear how the shooter died.

There was only one shooter involved in the incident, police said.

About an hour after the shooting, Oregon State Police said the area was secure and the situation was contained.

The shooting happened at about 8 a.m. (11 a.m. ET) at Reynolds High School in Troutdale, about 12 miles east of Portland, said Sue Strickland of the Troutdale Police Department.

A semiautomatic weapon was involved in the shooting, she said."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/justice/oregon-high-school-sho...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
It seems every time you turn around there's another senseless shooting involving some ammosexual.

Luckily, we're not calling all these acts "terrorism" otherwise we'd actually have to do something.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
A semiautomatic weapon was involved in the shooting, she said."

So?

Tuni,

I can make even a fully automatic firearm from commonly available parts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm

You cannot effectively control firearms. The people you don't want to have them will have them.

Bob

Some insights into school shootings:

DecadeSchool Shooting Incidents% where there was a strong connection with the school

1980's 31 83% to 90%

1990's 30 87% to 90%

2000's 34 88% to 91%

2010's 37 (so far) 89%

What I draw from this is the notion that “criminals attack schools because they’re gun-free zones” is likely hogwash. Criminals rarely attack schools; of the roughly 105,000 schools and educational institutions in the US, there have been an average of fewer than 4 school-related shootings per year. And of those, only about 10% of the incidents can be attributed to criminals choosing to attack a school; the rest of the cases are of people who are attacking THAT school because the individual person they want dead happens to be at that school, or because they were bullied and have other such emotional ties to the school that that’s where they choose to commit their crime.

That doesn’t change the validity of the whole argument of “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” That’s plainly, blatantly, obviously true — whether the good guy with the gun is the police or a CHL holder, there are basically only two reasons why school shooters stop shooting: they either shoot themselves, or are stopped by someone with a gun.

Approximately 90% of the school shootings (as listed in that Wikipedia article) are done by troubled students or former students, or troubled/former employees of the school.


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/daniel-zimmerman/gu...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
You cannot effectively control firearms

We could if we had less boneheads in this country.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You cannot effectively control firearms

We could if we had less boneheads in this country.

Tell us how you would do things differently than other Countries, say England and Australia, for example:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732377720...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We could if we had less boneheads in this country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime#mediaviewer/File:...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 31
You cannot effectively control firearms. Tell us how you would do things differently.

It's so good to see you come to Atheist Fools with an open mind on the subject, bringing constructive ideas from the website of the "only non-compromising lobby in Washington."

I understand you have been traumatized by armed criminals. I understand you toe the NRA line and then some.

There are a bunch of things that could be done to reduce the flow of guns into the hands of criminals and mentally handicapped people. The NRA has steadfastly opposed such concepts.

As an gun lover, you have the arguments against new regulations all queued up. I've seen them. Been there. Done that. So let's not waste our time rehashing NRA talking points.

More effective regulations would reduce gun related violence. Effecting these regulations is a political challenge because there are so many poorly educated people in this country.

We could improve things if we had less boneheads in this country.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
News said there'd been 74 school shootings since Sandy Hook.

Makes me glad I have a dog and no kids - since no one's walking into vet's offices and indiscriminately shooting dogs and cats.

We have a mental health crisis in this country disguised as a gun and weapons problem.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
We could if we had less boneheads in this country.


Fewer. Fewer boneheads.

Sigh.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Fewer. Fewer boneheads.

Sigh.

SLL




I started to post that.
But I decided that those to whom it's important already know it.
Those who don't know it don't care. It's like lecturing rocks.
And, apparently, there are only three people in the entire United States of America who know the difference between the words "then" and "than."

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
We have a mental health crisis in this country disguised as a gun and weapons problem.

We have a mental health crisis in this country. The problem is exacerbated by the ability of people with mental health issues to buy/own/access guns.

The 2nd amendment rights of people who have mental health issues are of less importance to me than public safety.

I do not understand how one rationalizes that the 2 issues are unrelated when an increasing number of shootings are being done by people who have long histories of mental issues.

As USA population soars and becomes more dense, and the number of available firearms increases, do you not want to this nation to reduce the confluence of guns and people with mental problems?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
A semiautomatic weapon was involved in the shooting, she said."

I also don't get the point of this line. Are not all handguns semiautomatic? I would think that 99.9+% of all shootings are performed with at least a semiautomatic weapon.

Semiautomatic simply means that the gun will fire one round per each squeeze of the trigger and then load the next round. Only single round guns (some rifles and some shot guns), bolt action rifles, and pump shotguns would be considered something less than semiautomatic.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Fewer. Fewer boneheads.

Sigh.


I thank you, dear lady, for your tolerance.

I was more interested in surfing during elementary school. The grammar lessons bored me to tears.

"‘Less’ or ‘fewer’?

People often don’t know when to use less and when to use fewer in a sentence. Here’s how to get it right.

Use fewer if you’re referring to people or things in the plural (e.g. houses, newspapers, dogs, students, children). For example:

People these days are buying fewer newspapers.

Fewer students are opting to study science-related subjects.

Fewer than thirty children each year develop the disease.

Use less when you’re referring to something that can’t be counted or doesn’t have a plural (e.g. money, air, time, music, rain). For example:

It’s a better job but they pay you less money.

People want to spend less time in traffic jams.

Ironically, when I’m on tour, I listen to less music.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Tell us how you would do things differently than other Countries, say England and Australia, for example:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732377720......


I remember Dunblane pretty well. It still shocks me to think of it. Why? Because things like that rarely happen over here. Evidence: the next case of note was 14 years later (actually 23 years after the one mentioned in England, rather than Scotland). Further evidence: the fact that possession of firearms is enough to make the news as shown by the examples in your link.

Is it a problem? Of course. Any source of untimely death is.

Is it fair to equate it with the situation in the US? Hell no. We have about 1/40 the rate of deaths from firearms and about 1/100 the rate of homicides. That's about 25 deaths per year from firearms in a country with more than 60 million people.

How should the US do things differently from the UK? I'm not sure but doing it the same would be a great start!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And, apparently, there are only three people in the entire United States of America who know the difference between the words "then" and "than."

Then what hope is there of irradicating "could care less" and "different than"?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But I decided that those to whom it's important already know it.
Those who don't know it don't care. It's like lecturing rocks. And, apparently, .....


Miss Brown taught us that we shouldn't start a sentence with a conjunction. One can, but one shouldn't. Rocks? Really?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Are not all handguns semiautomatic?

google 'semi automatic versus revolver'
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 39
And, apparently, there are only three people in the entire United States of America who know the difference between the words "then" and "than."

Then what hope is there of irradicating "could care less" and "different than"?


We could start by eradicating irradicating.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I understand you have been traumatized by armed criminals.

True.

I understand you toe the NRA line and then some.

Not always - I agreed with the NRA staffer who recently called the open carry' rallies 'downright weird' http://news.yahoo.com/nra-calls-open-carry-rallies-142822502... and was very disappointed to hear Cox retract the staffer's statement, on behalf of the NRA. I am thinking about cancelling my NRA membership, though I do like the firearms floater and firearms liability insurance policies that they offer members. Personally, I'd rather see Cox step down, or get ousted, and the staffer replace him.

There are a bunch of things that could be done to reduce the flow of guns into the hands of criminals

Yeah, like Operation Fast and Furious - And, of course, Holder knew nothing about that badly bungled matter. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-fas...

and mentally handicapped people.

We agree on this point, except that I have some concerns about how it might be implemented. If I should see a counselor to get counseling on marital issues or about experiencing "bullying" by a supervisor at work, could/would I be seen as unfit to own a firearm, even though I have never displayed a violent temperament. I can see where/how such a law *could* be abused, and even dissuade some from getting help. Besides, such laws are already on the books, so all you need to do, bonehead, is write your representatives and impress upon them how much you want these laws enforced:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/poss...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Besides, such laws are already on the books,:

No, effective laws are not on the books.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/poss...

Those laws mainly deal with people who have already been adjudicated or committed. By then it's too late.

so all you need to do, bonehead, is write your representatives and impress upon them how much you want these laws enforced

Reps have their positions staked out. They know who butters their bread. Some, like Darryl Issa, (who had his own gun legality problems) are total boneheads.

I had lunch with a DA last week. He agreed with albaby that while we can and should modify gun regs, it's unlikely to occur because there are too many boneheads that oppose modifying regulations. It's a politically unpopular thing to do because there are so many boneheads.

You linked a website whose banner proudly claims to be 'uncompromising' on gun control issues. Why link to support your position if you don't support those boneheads?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You linked a website whose banner proudly claims to be 'uncompromising' on gun control issues. Why link to support your position if you don't support those boneheads?

I did so because the article, "Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives", made some valid points and backed the points they made with some valid references, including:

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
DD: Then what hope is there of irradicating "could care less" and "different than"?

About the same as eradicating irradicating.

CNC
... My fave is still the use of "it's" to mean "belonging to it".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I did so because the article, "Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives", made some valid points and backed the points they made with some valid references, including:

Meanwhile, back on topic: mental health and guns......

You got anything constructive to add or just more 'guns r good' stuff?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Besides, such laws are already on the books,:

No, effective laws are not on the books.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/poss......

Those laws mainly deal with people who have already been adjudicated or committed. By then it's too late.


OTOH, I think I probably could live with something like Indiana's law, maybe expanded to include all guns and ammunition:

Indiana Ind. Code §35-47-2-7 a person may not transfer a handgun to an individual who the person has reasonable cause to believe:

Is mentally incompetent.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
We have a mental health crisis in this country. The problem is exacerbated by the ability of people with mental health issues to buy/own/access guns.

While I think the US should limit gun ownership (or actually enforce the laws that are already on the books), there have been lots of stabbings lately too with people with mental health issues.

Ex-cons not being allowed to legally obtain guns wont matter if you're in an elevator with a schizophrenic with a knife.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/brooklyn-eleva...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think I probably could live with something like Indiana's law, maybe expanded to include all guns and ammunition:

Indiana Ind. Code §35-47-2-7 a person may not transfer a handgun to an individual who the person has reasonable cause to believe:
Is mentally incompetent.


If mental health issues are not reported, there will be no red flag on a background check.

http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/few-gun-sales-denied-me...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ex-cons not being allowed to legally obtain guns wont matter if you're in an elevator with a schizophrenic with a knife.

...or in a Japanese subway when an Aum Shinrikyo decides to dump sarin gas.

But we're not talking about that either.

This is about guns easily being accessed by people with mental problems.

Tell me why I don't like Mondays...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You got anything constructive to add or just more 'guns r good' stuff?

My 2-year older sister has worked as an RN in mental health care all of her adult life. We talk a lot. Though I voted for Obama, twice - Go figure. She really hates Obama's Administration, especially his cutting funding for mental health care during his first term of office, though his Administration has backed funding Mental Health Care more during his 2nd Administration. She once commented that a co-worker had mentioned that seriously mentally ill people were being packed into wards in hospitals in CA with physically ill and injured people, with way far less than the appropriate care that they needed. That needs to be addressed!

She and her husband, who is an ordained minister, don't own firearms, but she and he haven't criticized me for owning the ones that I do - They know I like to hunt and fish, and have really enjoyed fishing with her husband. They know that the city where I work is one of the most violent in the U.S., that I was pistol whipped and shot at in an armed robbery, that I never owned a pistol until then and that I wouldn't shoot anyone, unless there is no other option. We get along very well - I love and respect them, very much.

Bob
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Tell me why I don't like Mondays...

You have to work and idiots had all weekend to think of stupid questions to ask?

just a guess.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
This is about guns easily being accessed by people with mental problems.

That's how you see this thread. I don't see mass attacks in schools different when committed by mentally disturbed individuals simply because 1 uses a gun versus another who uses a knife. The main issue is still the same - we have a mental healthcare crisis.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Bob,
The NRA has to step up to the plate and, instead of spending all that time and money on the promotion of firearms for all, regulate the buyers and the owners by at least requiring some sort of sane and effective background checks.

Its way past time!!! Too many innocents have been gunned down by the kind of vigilante mentality we are now experiencing in this once, great nation. We are no longer a law-abiding country.....our greed and paranoia re. perceived and radical "threats by our government" have taken the place of sanity.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I don't see mass attacks in schools different when committed by mentally disturbed individuals simply because 1 uses a gun versus another who uses a knife. -

Principal Metrochick, there's a person on top of the gym with a knife.

Principal Metrochick, there's a person on top of the gym with what appears to be an AR-15 on his back, and 2 pistols in his hands.

Gun crime overwhelms other methods of homicide.

http://sbcoalition.org/2011/04/gun-violence-and-the-census-s...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is about guns easily being accessed by people with mental problems.

The latest report I heard on NPR was that the guns were secured but the shooter (now confirmed to be Jared Padgett) either broke into a safe or somehow obtained the key and that it was not immediately known if he had any mental health issues. He had a rifle and a handgun with something like nine clips of ammunition in a duffle bag or a musical instrument case.

On a related note, when the police searched the school, they found another "person" (student or adult) with a gun and that person was taken into custody. They do not believe the incidents are linked.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
You cannot effectively control firearms. The people you don't want to have them will have them.

Right, because all those other industrialized nations couldn't figure it out either...oh, wait...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
More (with some clarifications)

http://heavy.com/news/2014/06/jared-michael-padgett-reynolds...

Snips:

There was no known link between Padgett and Hoffman (the murdered student) and police have not revealed Padgett’s motive.

Padgett Was an ROTC Platoon Leader & His Brother Served in Afghanistan.

More on his brother:

Lucas Padgett attended Special Forces school at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center in Fort Bragg, his Facebook school said. The 24-year-old now works as a sales agent for Farmers Insurance. He graduated from Reynolds High in 2008.

(and because I am a firm believer in full and honest disclosure:)

Among his innocuous likes on Facebook, such as Old Spice and Best Buy, Padgett also liked Facebook pages for 2 tactical knife companies, a number of gun manufacturers, body armor companies, as well as a number of political pages such as, “Conservative American Military Veterans Against Barack Obama,” and, “We WILL NOT Be Disarmed.”

---------

I am sure the last sentence will be made more significant than it really is, but "C'est la vie."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Principal Metrochick, there's a person on top of the gym with a knife.

Principal Metrochick, there's a person on top of the gym with what appears to be an AR-15 on his back, and 2 pistols in his hands.


Tell that to the parents of the 2 kids in Brooklyn who were stabbed to death because they were in an elevator with a schizophrenic with a knife. I notice you haven't said a d@mn thing about that case.

Those kids are still dead. Not having a gun didn't matter for the guy.

And your gun violence statistics include all the drug and illegal trade markets - that isn't going to change.

Most of the parents of the troubled kids getting the guns - probably would pass any kind of background check. The kids aren't the ones buying the guns. So attempting to stop someone without mental health issues from obtaining a gun probably isn't going to change much compared to if our society actually got care to the people with mental health issues.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I notice you haven't said a d@mn thing about that case.

You haven't asked me about it. Would you prefer that he had a pair of Glocks and a dozen high capacity clips?

Most of the parents of the troubled kids getting the guns - probably would pass any kind of background check.

Correct. Do you think, perhaps, that Adam Lanza's Mommy was well-advised by her kids physicians and counselors? She broke no laws, after all.

Is there perhaps, something we should be doing with respect to all these parents who express their surprise when little Jimmy shoots up the mall/school/movies/neighborhood? "Gee, we thought little Johnny was fine as long as he was on his meds. We're so shocked and sorry!"

So attempting to stop someone without mental health issues from obtaining a gun probably isn't going to change much compared to if our society actually got care to the people with mental health issues.

As noted, other civilized nations have their share of crazies yet only a tiny fraction of crazies shooting up the place.

I'm surprised there's been no discussion on how Adam Lanza's mommy did or didn't secure her arsenal.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
So attempting to stop someone without mental health issues from obtaining a gun probably isn't going to change much compared to if our society actually got care to the people with mental health issues.

Problem is the medical profession isn't particularly good at resolving mental health issues. There are a handful of disorders that can be alleviated with a pill, but the rest requires an enormous amount of time without any guarantee of a cure. In addition, in the 1970s the ACLU through law suits has made it very difficult to involuntarily institutionalize folks based on a mental disorder. There were probably valid reasons for this, however a consequence is that unless the individual admits to a problem there really isn't much one can do.

This is one of those issues where civil liberties bumps up against public safety. So how much of your individual freedoms are you willing to give up to protect yourself from a category of event that, while truly horrendous when they occur, accounts for a very small percentage of violent incidents?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Bob,
The NRA has to step up to the plate and, instead of spending all that time and money on the promotion of firearms for all, regulate the buyers and the owners by at least requiring some sort of sane and effective background checks.

Its way past time!!! Too many innocents have been gunned down by the kind of vigilante mentality we are now experiencing in this once, great nation. We are no longer a law-abiding country.....our greed and paranoia re. perceived and radical "threats by our government" have taken the place of sanity.


I hear you, Tuni. I have had more immediately pressing matters on my plate at work, but will get a letter off to the NRA with this, and follow up: http://boards.fool.com/ok-so-its-time-to-ask-cox-to-step-dow...

At the same time, I trust that you understand that Senators like CA Senator, Dianne Feinstein, are not among my favorite Senators - While she had a right to defend herself, and did so with a concealed firearm, she would take away that same right from other sane and law abiding citizens. http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/32591-busted-gun-control-leg...

Bob
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
So how much of your individual freedoms are you willing to give up to protect yourself from a category of event that, while truly horrendous when they occur, accounts for a very small percentage of violent incidents?

What individual freedom would I be losing if the USA required a clean psych eval as a condition for buying guns and ammo? None that I can see.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
CA Senator, Dianne Feinstein, are not among my favorite Senators - While she had a right to defend herself, and did so with a concealed firearm, she would take away that same right from other sane and law abiding citizens.

That's not true and you know it.

Feinstein promoted banning a list of roughly 150 firearms like Thompson submachine guns, belt fed guns, tech, minis, uzi's.... you know the drill.

You know how many guns types that leaves on the market? Thousands of different makes and models of rifles shotguns and handguns.

Thousands of Rugers and Colts and Remingtons and SW's and Mossbergs and on Berettas and on and on and on.....

So don't lie and say she wants to take away the right to defend oneself.

It's a stupid, tired, and easily discredited lie.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
What individual freedom would I be losing if the USA required a clean psych eval as a condition for buying guns and ammo? None that I can see.

That's because you think a psych eval is like an HIV test, where there is an objective and reproducible result. Don't think it works that way. Someone has to make a subjective judgement, and suddenly what started off as medical test becomes more like profiling. Bet a black dude with anger issues will be more likely to be red flagged than an Asian guy with the same problem.

And where should society draw the line? If someone is not considered fit to own a handgun, should they be allowed to work in a day care? Or use heavy machinery? Or work with toxic chemicals? I'm generally not a big fan of slippery slope arguments but I can see the danger here. Mental disorders are often not particularly well defined and can be very difficult to diagnose. Not the easiest thing to use as a criteria for taking away a constitutional right.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Feinstein promoted banning a list of roughly 150 firearms like Thompson submachine guns, belt fed guns, tech, minis, uzi's.... you know the drill.

You know how many guns types that leaves on the market? Thousands of different makes and models of rifles shotguns and handguns.


Yeah, right - All submachine guns were banned long before Dianne Feinstein, and Feinstein's self-admitted objective, in her own words:

Dianne Feinstein 1995 - Ban all guns, Mr & Ms America Turn In Your Guns http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rA6oX6eWWs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sorry, I will ask my last post pulled - You aren't making credible points for your points, as it is.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Feinstein's self-admitted objective, in her own words:

Dianne Feinstein 1995 - Ban all guns, Mr & Ms America Turn In Your Guns http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rA6oX6eWWs

You really don't know even your own Senator, do you, Sano - Bonehead


Clever editing.

Only a bonehead would believe she was talking about all guns. She was talking about the assault weapons ban. Feinstein has been quite consistent wrt restricting assault weapons.

If you want to pretend that she was talking about all guns, go right ahead. It just destroys your credibility.

I know she wasn't.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you want to pretend that she was talking about all guns...

She, very clearly, stated that she was.

I know she wasn't.

Uhuh.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sorry, I will ask my last post pulled -

No need. I've been called much worse than bonehead for a lot less than an argument about gun control.

As I look across the blue pacific at san diego discussing gun control it's hard not to remember the San Ysidro McDonalds massacre in the context of those 'open carry texas' boneheads that you so strongly support.

See what I did there?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
in the context of those 'open carry texas' boneheads that you so strongly support.

See what I did there?


Yes, you attempted to totally undermine my post(#438446) on this board.

Are all Atheist Fools as foolish as you?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Could we perhaps have a moratorium on the spell-checking and grammar police? It adds nothing to the discussion and it is usually just a means to be juvenile and belittle others.

No one here can profess to be be perfect at either and those that go around correcting others while at the same time making their own mistakes, just end up looking "assinine."

http://boards.fool.com/a-very-high-price-to-pay-to-make-his-...


http://boards.fool.com/search/solr.aspx?q=angelmay+assinine&...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 25
You cannot effectively control firearms. The people you don't want to have them will have them.


If I could have only one item of gun regulation reform it would be this; every gun confiscated during the commission of a crime should be back tracked to determine how the gun fell into the criminals hands, and then this information must be made public.

This alone would go miles towards stemming gun violence because the public will be outraged and demand action when they see how criminals actually get their guns and who is complicit in this trade.

Of course the NRA and the gun industry would never tolerate such reform, it would severely erode their position and their profit. The thing the NRA and the gun lobby fears most is the gathering and dissemination of data on gun violence, the truth...it burns.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I wouldn't shoot anyone, unless there is no other option...

Bob


Then don't pull the gun. He who hesitates is toast. Your assailant will shoot you in a heartbeat (literally).

This kind of inhibition can be fatal.

CNC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
See what I did there?

Yes, you attempted to totally undermine my post


Not even close.
...and if you really believe that clipped edit of Feinstein means what you think it means, we're done here.

Ciao bambino
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You cannot effectively control firearms. The people you don't want to have them will have them.

You're right, this is an insoluble problem, just like universal healthcare. Only the wrong people get to see doctors and stuff, while the normal folks die of all kinds of horrible diseases.

rj
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
See what I did there?

Yes, you attempted to totally undermine my post

Not even close.
...and if you really believe that clipped edit of Feinstein means what you think it means, we're done here.


Yeah, right - Bye, Bye.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You cannot effectively control firearms. The people you don't want to have them will have them.

You're right, this is an insoluble problem, just like universal healthcare. Only the wrong people get to see doctors and stuff, while the normal folks die of all kinds of horrible diseases.

rj


I like the guaranteed insurability that the ACA brought. I don't care for (really, don't have time for) the paperwork blizzard that goes with subsidized premiums and benefits, and refer people who are looking for that to The Marketplace, when another open enrollment period or LQE (Life Qualifying Event) takes place.

Meanwhile, I called my United Health Care subsidiary, Golden Rule, to cancel my health insurance policy effective 7/1 when I will become eligible for Medicare and a Medicare Supplement policy - probably a Plan G policy through Mutual of Omaha.

Bob
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I wouldn't shoot anyone, unless there is no other option...

Bob

Then don't pull the gun. He who hesitates is toast. Your assailant will shoot you in a heartbeat (literally).

This kind of inhibition can be fatal.

CNC


I realize that, but thank you!

Bob
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We could start by eradicating irradicating.

Touché (hopefully the accent allows redemption!).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
About the same as eradicating irradicating.

Guilty (I can't even claim English-English vs American-English). My work computer doesn't have spell check which I've grown to rely on!


My fave is still the use of "it's" to mean "belonging to it".

That annoys me to but over the past few months I've suddenly started making school boy errors like that and like their/there. No idea why that started but it irks me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Prevention+is+better+tha...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Ex-cons not being allowed to legally obtain guns wont matter if you're in an elevator with a schizophrenic with a knife.

No, but it will stop you from being shot by an ex-con.

Given two separate problems, apply two separate cures. Just because you can't fix one (knife crime) doesn't mean you shouldn't try to fix the other (gun crime).

Would I rather everyone had a knife or everyone had a gun and a knife?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
This is about guns easily being accessed by people with mental problems.

This is no accusation towards you but is there a bit of a variation of a No True Scotsman fallacy in here? Those who use guns to kill loads of people must have mental issues. It's a bit late to say, "Well, we need to stop these people with mental issues getting guns because it's only people with mental issues doing the killing." Howabout we stop people getting guns? Clearly we're not very good at preventing guns from getting to the wrong people so let's cut off the supply.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Those kids are still dead. Not having a gun didn't matter for the guy.

I don't see what difference gun laws would make here, unless you are advocating giving kids guns.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
If I could have only one item of gun regulation reform it would be this; every gun confiscated during the commission of a crime should be back tracked to determine how the gun fell into the criminals hands, and then this information must be made public.

I think this is already largely done. They just don't go and make an annoucement on the nightly news. It is usually part of the public police record.

For example, we already know that this kid stole the guns from his parents secured storage. We know with the shooting prior to this one that the guy bought them legally 1-2 years prior at different locations.

This alone would go miles towards stemming gun violence because the public will be outraged and demand action when they see how criminals actually get their guns and who is complicit in this trade.

In the case of most crime (street crime), IIRC the guns have been stolen and or obtained via other illegal means. I don't think this information would have the impact you expect it to have.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
President Obama: "There's No Advanced, Developed Country on Earth That Would Put Up with This"

.....He also stressed that the only thing that is going to reverse this alarming trend is public opinion.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/06/11/theres-no-advanced...

He's right, but wrong of course. After 20 children are murdered by a domestic terrorist nothing, not even a little symbolic thing, came out of the Democrat controlled Senate. Obama alluded to that in his good talk. The politicians, including the Democrats of course, are just afraid because of majority of those voting/funding do express their opinion. 20 children just aren't enough to get any little symbolic thing out of the Senate. Trigger the nuclear option for the 20 kids and force a little something symbolic. Nothing.

Anyway, good to see Obama doing Tumblr and bypassing the cable news dinosaurs. Who could possibly care what Ed Henry says Obama said about anything?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What individual freedom would I be losing if the USA required a clean psych eval as a condition for buying guns and ammo? None that I can see.

That's because you think a psych eval is like an HIV test, where there is an objective and reproducible result.


Telling another poster what they think and then basing the rest of your post on that strawman is sooo talkradio.

But this is written word. You can't go to commercial, come back, and have everybody forget that the basis for your argument is a strawman.

Psych evals aren't perfect, but as others have noted, firearms are serious business and we cannot let the quest for perfection be the enemy of practicality.

..and, we have appeals processes in this country.

Elliot Rodger would have blown like a cherry bomb in an appeals hearing by a competent evaluator.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
President Obama: "There's No Advanced, Developed Country on Earth That Would Put Up with This"

What does that have to do with my comment?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't see what difference gun laws would make here, unless you are advocating giving kids guns.

I'm advocating making mental healthcare a greater priority. If the schizophrenic had gotten proper care (and if he'd had a physical medical condition such as a serious heart issue while in prison he would have gotten proper care for that) than he might not have tried to kill the children (or even be in the elevator with the kids).

I'm a realist - you won't get the support to greatly limit guns - too many folks on both sides of the isles own guns. Therefore instead of continuing to waste time on a fight you can't win, I'd rather see energy put in another option that might prevent some of this crime - proper and better access to mental health care.


There's a 40/57 split between gun owners who vote Dem/Rep - dems would not have enough of a vote to pass much real change.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/12/19/gun-ownershi...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is no accusation towards you but is there a bit of a variation of a No True Scotsman fallacy in here? Those who use guns to kill loads of people must have mental issues. It's a bit late to say, "Well, we need to stop these people with mental issues getting guns because it's only people with mental issues doing the killing." ?

Sgt Joe Basilone (namesake of Camp Pendletons main road) killed lots of people. I don't think he had mental issues.

Howabout we stop people getting guns

Impossible and undesirable. I enjoy hunting and shooting trap and also uphold the right to defend my home. I also support mandatory testing and maintenance standards.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm advocating making mental healthcare a greater priority.

1) As others have pointed out, many people do not want the stigma of mental health issues on their record. They will lie on psych evals to avoid the red flag.

2) Society cannot compel a person to submit to healthcare treatments or force him/her to take prescribed meds.

Owning/buying guns is a right with responsibilities. Just as a pilot must appeal to regain his pilots license, a person who wants to buy/own guns should have to prove fitness. I know that isn't the current state of affairs, but that's where we need to be.

If the USA is okay with the rising trend in school/workplace shootings, then this whole conversation is moot.

When we finally do get fed up, the solution will have to addresss mental health care AND responsible gun ownership.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'm advocating making mental healthcare a greater priority.

I agree. There was a clear and blatant failing in this case.


I'm a realist - you won't get the support to greatly limit guns - too many folks on both sides of the isles own guns. Therefore instead of continuing to waste time on a fight you can't win, I'd rather see energy put in another option that might prevent some of this crime - proper and better access to mental health care.

I see your point but it doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the issue of gun ownership. You could use a similar argument about many political issues: there's only not enough support until there is enough support. I'd been vocal about same-sex rights for a while even though I didn't think there was political support for it but all of a sudden there was! Maybe the same turnaround will happen with guns.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I'm a realist - you won't get the support to greatly limit guns - too many folks on both sides of the isles own guns. Therefore instead of continuing to waste time on a fight you can't win, I'd rather see energy put in another option that might prevent some of this crime - proper and better access to mental health care.

Actually a greater emphasis by the NRA on responsible gun ownership would help. Some stats show that a large number of gun owners are irresponsible with respect to storing guns. http://smartgunlaws.org/youth-gun-violence-gun-access-statis... (my bold)

"1. Children and young adults (24 years of age and under) constitute 38% of all firearm deaths and non-fatal injuries.

2. In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms.

3. More than 75% of guns used in suicide attempts and unintentional injuries of 0-19 year-olds were stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend.

4. A 2000 study found that 55% of U.S. homes with children and firearms have one or more firearms in an unlocked place; 43% have guns without a trigger lock in an unlocked place.

5.The practices of keeping firearms locked, unloaded, and storing ammunition in a locked location separate from firearms may assist in reducing youth suicide and unintentional injury in homes with children and teenagers where guns are stored."

Looks to me like a great deal can be done to make guns more difficult for minors to obtain.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Sgt Joe Basilone (namesake of Camp Pendletons main road) killed lots of people. I don't think he had mental issues.

I was referring to non-military killings - mass murderers.


Howabout we stop people getting guns

Impossible and undesirable


I wouldn't say it's impossible. Very hard maybe, but not impossible.

I would also say that it would be undesirable for some but desirable for others.


I enjoy hunting and shooting trap and also uphold the right to defend my home.

I'm not fussed about hunting or shooting trap but I also uphold the right to defend my home. I don't need a gun to do so.

I understand the many reasons why people want a gun but I also understand the desire to get rid of them.

If the US could start from scratch, what would you realistically want the gun situation to be and how do you think it would pan out?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This kind of inhibition can be fatal.

CNC


Practice helps - Many gun enthusiasts follow guys like Jerry Miculek and Bob Munden:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM&list=PLFWh-_7...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS9uGktUCrY
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If the US could start from scratch, what would you realistically want the gun situation to be and how do you think it would pan out?

Good question, but I don't think there is one answer that would be effective from the birth of the nation to the present, and from the present to whatever the future holds.

Your question is a good argument for changing the terms of the 2nd amendment so that owning firearms becomes a right, with restrictions, not to be unreasonably withheld.

Clearly we are not "well-regulated ."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Owning/buying guns is a right with responsibilities. Just as a pilot must appeal to regain his pilots license, a person who wants to buy/own guns should have to prove fitness. I know that isn't the current state of affairs, but that's where we need to be.

Actually it is the current state of affairs (current law) in some states. Nothing keeps other states from adopting such a law.

But, it is not within the power of the fed gov to create such a restriction. Each state would have to do it.

You can see this same thing at work with the right to vote and mental disabilities. Some states limit voting rights based on such. The Constitution does not extend the right to vote based on mental capacity so states are free to regulate it. States can do the same with guns.

But I digress. As it has been shown in our previous thread, a tiny tiny percentage of all shootings are mass murders or attempted mass murders and such a mental health restriction is not likely to have a major impact on gun violence. It might reduce the number of sensational news stories but the vast majority of gun violence, unfortunately, is committed people who are otherise mentally competent.

As a bit of a footnote:

73 homocides committed in Indianapolis in 2014. All but six were committed with a firearm.

http://wayback.bartlies.com/homicide.php
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Your question is a good argument for changing the terms of the 2nd amendment so that owning firearms becomes a right, with restrictions, not to be unreasonably withheld.

The USSC left the question of regulation wide open. What the USSC struck down was total prohibition. The 2nd amendment is not a barrier to a wide variety of gun control laws many of which are very restrictive.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I think this is already largely done. They just don't go and make an annoucement on the nightly news. It is usually part of the public police record.
.....
In the case of most crime (street crime), IIRC the guns have been stolen and or obtained via other illegal means. I don't think this information would have the impact you expect it to have.


Not true. The gun lobby desperately wants to keep it a secret that majority of criminals get their guns through straw sales, and this occurs because secondary transfer of firearms are very loosely regulated if regulated at all. People need to know this and most will be outraged when they understand the reality. It is true that some guns are stolen from legitimate owners (this in itself raises questions about securing firearms). But the lion's share make it into criminal's hand through straw sales and unscrupulous firearms dealers. Please take the time to read this report:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/gu...

excerpt:

Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.

According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What the USSC struck down was total prohibition. The 2nd amendment is not a barrier to a wide variety of gun control laws many of which are very restrictive.

but easily circumvented:

"Presently, 18 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Colorado (§12-26.1-101 and § 24-33.5-424, CRS), Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, and Illinois). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handguns, but not long guns, purchasers at gun shows. Seven states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner

What could possibly go wrong?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I wouldn't say it's impossible. Very hard maybe, but not impossible.

I would also say that it would be undesirable for some but desirable for others.


This country has tried banning alcohol and drugs. One failed and the other is an ongoing failure. Each time the action helped organized crime.

Why would it be different this time?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Your question is a good argument for changing the terms of the 2nd amendment so that owning firearms becomes a right, with restrictions, not to be unreasonably withheld.

I thought that the 2nd amendment refered to the right to bear arms, not guns specifically. Arms can refer to anything from a stick to nukes. Where should the line be drawn and why?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
This country has tried banning alcohol and drugs. One failed and the other is an ongoing failure. Each time the action helped organized crime.

Alcohol prohibition failed because it can be made so easily. I can (and often do) make alcohol at home. From there, distilling to harder liquor is reasonably straight forward. It's unpoliceable.

In my opinion, the strategy on drugs was terrible. Too much resource was spent hammering the little guy and not tackling the importation of drugs. Once importation is mostly stopped, then go after the domestic production.

Guns are very different in a couple of ways:
1. They aren't perishable
2. They aren't produceable at home (3D printing excepted)

That means you can concentrate resources on restricting supply (it's easy to stop domestic commercial production and therefore you try to limit imports) but you have a big problem with the stockpile of guns already in the country.


Why would it be different this time?

I didn't say it would be different. I said it's not impossible to stop people getting guns. Just because something isn't impossible doesn't mean success is guaranteed. It would be really difficult to do and would need a clever plan and a lot of resource but could be done (perhaps to getting rid of every single gun but certainly making a huge dent in the number.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ha! DirtyDollie has made the best point EVER!
I vote for sticks.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
2. They aren't produceable at home (3D printing excepted)

Yeah, they are. One of my friends grew up in Saigon. He told me kids there made functioning guns from water pipes all the time. There are many websites that offer plans on how to make submachine guns from commonly available hardware store parts, such as this site:

http://thehomegunsmith.com/

or ones like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQqjxZTTjgs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
He told me kids there made functioning guns from water pipes all the time.

I have a hunch Dolly was referring to mass produced guns that sate a market of crazies.

Adam Lanza and Elliot Rodger were not likely to have made guns.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
DirtyDollie has made the best point EVER!
I vote for sticks.


On second thoughts, perhaps the right to bear arms actually means that you are allowed to wear short sleeved shirts...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I suppose guns can be made at home if you happen to have things like a hydraulic press. Most people don't. To make alcohol, you need a bucket, some sugar and some yeast. Much more common.

Do you have any comments about my actual point or are you just arguing semantics?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I suppose guns can be made at home if you happen to have things like a hydraulic press. Most people don't. To make alcohol, you need a bucket, some sugar and some yeast. Much more common.

Do you have any comments about my actual point or are you just arguing semantics?


A hydraulic press is not required. A milling machine would be really nice, but a drill press and a router can and have done the work for more than a few. A vise is definitely handy, as is a calipers. All of these can be had at Harbor Freight, cheap.

Under current laws in many jurisdictions, one can buy most, if not all, of the parts to make an AR-15, except for a finished receiver, over the counter - No licensing/registration is required. You can buy what's called an 80% receiver over the counter. Until it's finished, it's just a piece of metal, no more regulated than a paper weight. From what I've seen, they're not that hard to finish. The finished product has no serial number and does not need to be registered. I can legally own one. I can't sell it. A machinist can't make one for me without becoming a manufacturer. He can show me how to use a milling machine - There's nothing illegal in that. And, he can let me use his milling machine to machine metal. He can not perform the actual processes involved w/o a Type 7 manufacturer's license.

http://monderno.com/monderno/legally-build-an-unregistered-a...

Before you start talking about something, you really should learn some more about the subject you're talking about. In reading your posts, you really don't have adequate information to speak intelligently on the subject.

Bob
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I suppose guns can be made at home if you happen to have things like a hydraulic press. Most people don't.

Dollie, tons of guns are made in middle east village, primitive homes and shops, with minimal tooling, one at a time. These guns look just like production Kalashnikovs, popular pistols, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4alk5WwdFnI

I'm not suggesting that such a cottage industry would develop in the USA, but it's well known that banned components such as semi to auto conversion kits and silencers are often available in the parking lots of gun shows.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Why would it be different this time?>>

I didn't say it would be different. I said it's not impossible to stop people getting guns.

Certainly, but the people you would stop, in that scenario, would, overwhelming, be law abiding citizens who obey laws and aren't mentally ill. That won't prove a significant help, if not a detriment.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
No less than St Ronald the Reagun endorsed a ban on assault weapons such as the one that failed to go anywhere in 2013.

May 3, 1994

To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

Sincerely,
Gerald R. Ford
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
No less than St Ronald the Reagun endorsed a ban on assault weapons such as the one that failed to go anywhere in 2013.

I hear you, Sano - Happy Father's Day!! (I'm looking forward to splitting a 3# Maine lobster with my Daughter, along wid sum steamed baby red potatoes, sweet corn and a medley of broccoli, carrots and cauliflower - Good Eats!!)

Bob
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I didn't say it would be different. I said it's not impossible to stop people getting guns.

Certainly, but the people you would stop, in that scenario, would, overwhelming, be law abiding citizens who obey laws and aren't mentally ill. That won't prove a significant help, if not a detriment.


I didn't present a scenario. It seems that you are attributing things to me incorrectly.

I simply said that getting rid of guns would be difficult but not impossible. I haven't suggested how this might be done. If I knew the best way, I would suggest it. I don't know how it would be done but I was hoping that it would spark discussion about the possibilities.

Making conclusions based on assumptions that are unfounded isn't very helpful.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Certainly, but the people you would stop, in that scenario, would, overwhelming, be law abiding citizens who obey laws and aren't mentally ill. That won't prove a significant help, if not a detriment.

That meme 'only law abiding people will be stopped from getting guns' is BS.

If sales were better regulated, if prudent gun storage was mandated, many mentally handicapped and small time criminals wouldn't have a clue how to get a gun.

I wonder how many people in the 16th 17th and 18th centuries shot up schools and workplaces with muskets?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Under current laws in many jurisdictions, one can buy most, if not all, of the parts to make an AR-15, except for a finished receiver, over the counter

But these laws can be changed. Making a gun from prefabricated parts is (I imagine) not much more difficult than assembling flat pack furniture. The point is that it's easy to enforce laws to make it prohibitively difficult to make guns but it's not easy to enforce laws to prohibit making alcohol.


In reading your posts, you really don't have adequate information to speak intelligently on the subject.

In reading your posts, you are an expert in logical fallacies. You purposely misrepresent my views and address side issues rather than the main point.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That meme 'only law abiding people will be stopped from getting guns' is BS.

Absolutely - I very much agree. I don't get your point, if you're even trying to make a counter.

If sales were better regulated, if prudent gun storage was mandated, many mentally handicapped and small time criminals wouldn't have a clue how to get a gun.

Certainly worth some thought. I don't want my firearms locked in a safe when I'm home or at work. Locking them in a safe when I'm not is a good idea.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Under current laws in many jurisdictions, one can buy most, if not all, of the parts to make an AR-15, except for a finished receiver, over the counter

But these laws can be changed.

Yup, the U.K., where, from your profile, you live, pretty much, did that. How much impact it's had on violence in the U.K. is debatable, and has been, pretty thoroughly, debated - It's a mind boggling matter to compare, by many, different, sources. A couple of sources:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/...

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checkin...

FWIW.

In reading your posts, you are an expert in logical fallacies.

Actually, I aced logic and all of my math courses in high school and college and had offers to work for International CPA firms, but I was 21 at the time and didn't care to stay up working w/o sleep for weeks on end.

You purposely misrepresent my views and address side issues rather than the main point.

Yeah, right.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Actually, I aced logic and all of my math courses in high school and college

There's a difference between logic applied to mathematics and logic applied to deductive reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Types_of_logic

Regardless, knowledge of logical fallacies does not prevent someone from using them. Logical fallacies are typically used in a deceitful way.


You purposely misrepresent my views and address side issues rather than the main point.

Yeah, right.


My point (as is obvious to see) was that PSUEngineer's analogue with alcohol prohibition failing was not a valid one because it is so easy to manufacture alcohol at home with things commonly found in the home: policing it would be effectively impossible. Manufacturing guns is significantly more difficult and typically requires obtaining items and skills that one wouldn't normally have.

Did you address my point? No. You pointed out that guns can be made at home if one happens to have the equipment required. You didn't address the relative ease of manufacture and therefore the relative ease of policing.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Did you address my point? No. You pointed out that guns can be made at home if one happens to have the equipment required. You didn't address the relative ease of manufacture and therefore the relative ease of policing.

-------------



Also what has not been addressed, except to say it's impossible, is my claim that owning/ shooting a gun could be made illegal in this country.

Yes, there are millions of people and millions of guns. But if the penalty for owning or firing one is severe enough the law could be enforced. There is always someone out there who will rat you out if they know you have one. The police get such a lead and you are toast.

Turn them over or go to prison. Shoot one and go to prison. Shoot somebody and go to prison for life. Gun sales? No such thing. Ammunition? Out of business. All those guns currently out there would just rust away if no turned in.

At first, yes, there would still be violence with guns. But eventually - and probably not all that long a period of time - it would dwindle down to nearly nothing as the laws were enforced and weapons confiscated.

It COULD be done. Of course our wimpy, kiss-the-NRA's-hollow-pointed-arse congress will never pass such laws. That's the only reason it won't work.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Shoot one and go to prison.

No more duck/pheaant/quail/goose hunting? No more deer/elk/wild goat hunting? No more wild hog hunts?

I think you'll run into opposition from more than the NRA.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Also what has not been addressed, except to say it's impossible, is my claim that owning/ shooting a gun could be made illegal in this country.

I've been saying it's possible. It would be really difficult but possible. As you point out, it would be far from painless, though.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

No more duck/pheaant/quail/goose hunting? No more deer/elk/wild goat hunting? No more wild hog hunts?




I am personally against the killing of animals for "sport" (ridiculous word to use as a label for this kind of senseless killing) - BUT - my own personal feelings on the subject wouldn't carry much sway and I'm smart enough to realize that.

However, there is a way around everything. If hunting requires a license currently, then when the person goes to get the license they could also be handed a gun which is temporarily licensed in their name for that purpose. And the gun would have to be turned in within a day or so. That's just one idea. I'm sure there are others.

Everything I've proposed is very harsh - and I realize that. But the main gist of what I'm saying is that if the gun nuts don't back off - if they don't own up to the problems they are causing - it really could come down to some very harsh measures. And they won't have anyone to blame for it but themselves.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Shoot one and go to prison.>>

AM

-----
No more duck/pheasant/quail/goose hunting? No more deer/elk/wild goat hunting? No more wild hog hunts?

I think you'll run into opposition from more than the NRA.

Sano

------

I am personally against the killing of animals for "sport" (ridiculous word to use as a label for this kind of senseless killing)

AM


------------

Even though plenty of good food is grown in New York State, one of every eight New Yorkers reports trouble feeding his or her family. More than 2.1 million people in New York use emergency food programs like food pantries each year...

Since 1999, the Coalition, based in Bath, NY, has coordinated the collection, processing and distribution of more than 413 tons of venison-equal to more than 3.3 million servings of healthy, low-fat, high-protein meat-for distribution by regional food banks. They work with 110 meat processors in 50 counties throughout the state.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/pubs/77259.html

Just 1 example of the outcome of such senseless killing.

I can see this is the wrong board to continue discussion on these senseless matters. I'm out.

See you, Sano - Take care.

Bob
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

Just 1 example of the outcome of such senseless killing.

I can see this is the wrong board to continue discussion on these senseless matters. I'm out.

See you, Sano - Take care.

Bob




I told you that it was my opinion.
It's not up for debate so you have nothing to worry about.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
NoID: Since 1999, the Coalition, based in Bath, NY, has coordinated the collection, processing and distribution of more than 413 tons of venison-equal to more than 3.3 million servings of healthy, low-fat, high-protein meat-for distribution by regional food banks. They work with 110 meat processors in 50 counties throughout the state.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/pubs/77259.html

Just 1 example of the outcome of such senseless killing.

Wouldn't it be more humane (and more efficient and cost effective) to just "farm" the deer? Erect fences to direct their motions, including some chutes which would be used at harvest time. Of course the sport-minded killers wouldn't get their jollies killing a defenseless animal.

My brother's two oldest sons bought a 40 acre site in Texas. They use it for deer "hunting". This means they sit in a blind they put up in a tree, and shoot the ones they want to "cull". They usually have more meat that they can use themselves, so they keep my brother's freezer well stocked (and who knows how many others.) I can't really disagree with their activity. Gets them out of the house (out from under foot), and the deer herd has few other predators. I suppose being shot with a rifle is better than being ripped apart by a cougar or a pack of coyotes.

CNC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Of course the sport-minded killers wouldn't get their jollies killing a defenseless animal.

You have it backwards.

A commercially raised animal is defenseless.

Critters in the wild have 2 defenses: hiding and fleeing.

Hunting is not a sure thing. Most days spent hunting are spent hunting, not getting.

That's why it's called hunting.

Lots of deer and elk hunters fail to get their tags punched, and not for lack of trying.

Same deal on the water: It's called a fishing trip, not a catching trip.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I am personally against the killing of animals for "sport" (ridiculous word to use as a label for this kind of senseless killing) - BUT - my own personal feelings on the subject wouldn't carry much sway and I'm smart enough to realize that.

Then all killing is senseless. There is no difference in killing a deer, cow or chicken when it comes to eating.

However, there is a way around everything. If hunting requires a license currently, then when the person goes to get the license they could also be handed a gun which is temporarily licensed in their name for that purpose. And the gun would have to be turned in within a day or so. That's just one idea. I'm sure there are others.

That would lead to senseless maiming. A hunter should properly sight-in the gun he/she uses and be proficient shooting it. Your idea would not allow that.

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Wouldn't it be more humane (and more efficient and cost effective) to just "farm" the deer? Erect fences to direct their motions, including some chutes which would be used at harvest time. Of course the sport-minded killers wouldn't get their jollies killing a defenseless animal.

Since most people are adverse to letting large predators roaming the neighborhood, it's up to hunters to reduce the population. Otherwise, you leave starvation and cars as the method of herd reduction.

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That would lead to senseless maiming. A hunter should properly sight-in the gun he/she uses and be proficient shooting it. Your idea would not allow that.

PSU




Probably, as you say, a bad idea. It was just off-the-cuff. Requires more thought than I gave it.

AM
...but....no longer eat animals - of any kind....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Since most people are adverse to letting large predators roaming the neighborhood, it's up to hunters to reduce the population. Otherwise, you leave starvation and cars as the method of herd reduction.

PSU



Well, at least that's one of the less costly ways of controlling the deer population. $500,000,000+ revenues in licensing fees from 30,000,000+ licenses beats taxpayers paying to cull the population, at least to my mind.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Of course the sport-minded killers wouldn't get their jollies killing a defenseless animal.>>

You have it backwards.

A commercially raised animal is defenseless.

Critters in the wild have 2 defenses: hiding and fleeing.


You left out attacking - While squirrel hunting one day, a raccoon about 25 yards from me, for some reason (might have been rabid, I suspect), charged me at full gallop. It was out of season, but when it got within 7 yards I shot it - The heck with waiting any longer for it to change its mind.

Hunters, and others, sometimes, get mauled by deer, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15ut0KUHO9E
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I stated: IIRC the guns have been stolen and or obtained via other illegal means.

You stated, Not true... Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales.

What is it you did not understand about the phrase "or obtained via other illegal means?"

Did you miss the recent SCOTUS rulling upholding the ban on straw sales?

You spent all that time trying to argue with me when you should have simply read the quoted section a bit slower.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What is it you did not understand about the phrase "or obtained via other illegal means?"

-------------

Alberto Islas, a security expert based in Mexico, said it is common knowledge that the easiest way for the average citizen to buy a gun is to ask a friendly local police officer.

"The cop will bring it to your house and show you how to load it," Islas said. "Of course, it is technically illegal."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Did you miss the recent SCOTUS rulling upholding the ban on straw sales?

Can you point me to the actual verbiage that makes that ruling effective in all 50 states?

A ban on straw sales is powerless to stop straw sales unless it is combined with a regulation that ALL sales and transfers go through an FFL and are subject to a background check.

A background check is meaningless if the background is not filled in with relevant data in a timely manner.

'We got a long way to go and a short time to get there'
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Hawkin: Did you miss the recent SCOTUS rulling upholding the ban on straw sales?


Me: Can you point me to the actual verbiage that makes that ruling effective in all 50 states?


Never mind. I read the majority and minority opinions.

Abramski lied on the ffl form at a store. The abramski case only deals with the narrow issue of sales made 'at the counter' of an ffl in which the buyer lies on the ffl forms.

The ruling does not address gun transfers between private individuals; the secondary market and "gifts."

The secondary gun market remains not 'well-regulated', so that you, criminals, and mentally ill people can still buy guns without a background check.
Print the post Back To Top