Reality vs. Gun Control Ideas

[Desertrat]

I brought this up just to show how the real world can affect some of the not-so-bright ideas offered by some. It speaks to the one of the ideas for "smart guns", as seen by a sheriff's deputy.

"*Paging the idiots pushing smartguns*

My county uses the Identix LiveScan system for taking fingerprints from accused critters in our jail. Basically, it requires that all four fingers be placed on a scan pad and scanned into the system, then each finger is individually scanned and compared to the four-finger group.

If the two back-to-back scans match, the system allows you to print and/or transmit a set of fingerprints.

This is the idea behind fingerprint recognition smartgun systems. You match your prints to your prints already in the system, and the system allows you to fire the weapon.

Okay.

This system sits in a four-foot tall shockproof metal case, it has an entire harddrive dedicated to nothing but the scan program and we have 'round the clock technical support.

We can't get the bloody thing to match the individual prints to the four-finger set anywhere from 50% to 80% of the time.

Today, for two hours before the start of my eight-hour shift, and all eight hours of my shift we had to re-boot the whole system before each critter was printed.

Print critter. Get next critter. Re-boot system. Wait five minutes for system to come back on-line. Print second critter. Get next critter. Re-boot system. Wait five minutes. Print third critter. Get fourth critter. Re-boot system...

As far as I know, the next shift is still having to do this.

This is the wonder technology that they want to stick in our firearms?

It doesn't work sitting in a shock-proof metal case -- how the hell is it going to work in a recoiling .45ACP?

The scan plates have to be meticulously cleaned with special lint-proof, non-abrasive, delicate, unobtanium pads, otherwise the plates get scratched and the machine can't read the prints reliably -- everday holster wear scrapes bluing off of guns, not to mention delicate scan pads.

It requires an entire hard-drive worth of space to hold the program -- I don't care how high-tech a Glock is, you ain't gonna find room for a hard-drive in the grip.

The critters' fingers damned near have to be surgeon-level clean, otherwise any oil, grease or other staining materials etch the scanning pad and confuses the machine on the next set of prints, meaning you have to pay through the sinuses for a new set of scanning pads -- and if oil left on fingers from an oil change the previous day eats into the scan pad that badly, I don't want to know what various gun care/cleaning products will do to them.

Critter is sweating -- you know, like the sweaty palms you get in a shooting situation -- forget it. System won't reliably read the prints.

Critter is shaking and smearing the print -- you know, like the shakes you get during an adrenaline dump -- forget it. System won't reliably read the prints.

Bloody fingers? Hah! Forget it. And clean those plates before the blood etches them!

When the fonging LiveScan goes into a sulk, we just swear and haul out the printers ink and the print cards. An 80% failure rate isn't a big deal, it's just inconvienent as all get out.

On a handgun, an 80% fail rate is a very big deal.

Why the hell does anyone think this sort of thing is a good idea on a handgun?

LawDog"

I mostly brought this up for general information as folks run across various "reasonable" ideas for "reasonable" gun control.

FWIW, 'Rat

[Ugg]

'Rat, you might want to remember where you are:D What kind of computer/processor/software was this? My guess is that it didn't have the little apple with a bite out of it logo. That's half the problem right there!

Early guns had the nasty habit of blowing up when fired. Talk about collateral damage. As with all forms of technology there is always lag time between the invention and a useful and safe product. Just because it doesn't work well now doesn't mean that it will never work.

[Desertrat]

Re Apple: :D

"Early guns had the nasty habit of blowing up when fired." Yeah, 300 years ago? And, I'd imagine there were some blowups with the advent of smokeless powder--100+ years back. Trouble is, some folks want to pass laws RIGHT NOW!

Note that in places like Maryland and California, where laws requiring smart gun technology be mandatory by some calendar date for any new handguns to be sold in those states, law enforcement personnel are exempted.

Legislators do not think your life is as important as a policeman's, from the standpoint of reliable self-defense...

:), 'Rat

[Thanatoast]

Sounds perfect to me.

Guns that don't fire = Less sales of guns

Less sales of guns = Less morons with the ability to shoot someone

Less morons with the ability to shoot someone = Good Thing

Ever seen "Bowling For Columbine"? It's not just about gun control. It asks why we seem to have such a violent society.

The answer I got out of it was that we are a people driven by fear. We're afraid of our neighbors, locally and globally. And so we lash out at anything and everything, sometimes without cause and sometimes without thinking.

Bottom line for me: less guns is better than more guns.

edit: spelling

[Desertrat]

"The answer I got out of it was that we are a people driven by fear."

Then nobody ever really has to worry about any other people being gratuitously violent? No ex-husband ever stalked and beat/stabbed his ex-wife? No man ever forced his way into a woman's residence and committed rape? No guy and his date were ever accosted by a group armed with knives or clubs?

I'm really glad I have nothing to fear...

For the honest citizen, a gun is nothing more than a tool, a form of insurance beyond a piece of paper for which a premium is paid. And, like automobile or homeowner's insurance, the honest citizen hopes never to need it.

The reality is that car wrecks and fires do happen, and that insurance is needed.

Sorry, but the full house of reality will always beat the busted flush of wishful thinking.

'Rat

[jefhatfield]

i have given to only one cause in recent memory

it's the fraternal order of police officers...it's for the familes of fallen police officers

i don't actually know if the gun laws are strict enough in the usa of if the laws are fine but they are not being enforced...i have no problem with regular citizens with guns, but then one has to define regular citizen and define guns...that is where every gun control person, every nra person, and every goa person will wield a different explanation and words, fists, and bullets will fly on hair splitting definitions and honest debate

like abortion, gun control is not ruled by two clearly drawn sides and the amazing amount of gray areas here will make this an unsolved issue for americans for generations to come

on one end, i am a democrat, pro gun contol, and a social worker who sees the dangers of a free and loose society of guns and how it makes my job dangerous when approaching gangs when they don't have to buy illegal guns because the gun stores in town will sell to them since most of them have no criminal records, or records at all since they have fake ids and are not even us citizens

on the other end, my father is a world war II vet and has fought for the rights we have in the usa, i am former cia and dod and i know the need for personal protection, and i know a nation without guns, even the usa, can turn into a communist entity in time and then leave the rest of us with no recourse but to follow a dictator...like the bumper sticker reads, china has gun control

guns are truly a tough issue to debate on one side or the other and anytime i open my mouth, i am attacked from both sides since this is an issue that most people will crucify you for seeing some good points from both sides of the issue

[Thanatoast]

Funny how you should bring up insurance as an analogue. Insurance is another scam also run by fear. But I have dropped thousands more into insurance than I have ever taken out.

Let me ask this, who is more likely to be the safer driver, the one who is secure in the knowledge that his car will be replaced if it is totalled? Or the one who if his sole transpotation is totalled, he is SOL, not to mention in trouble with the law?

Buying a gun to make you feel safer against the world outside does two things. First, it makes your safety dependent on the gun. If you feel safe with the gun, you will feel unsafe without it. And if you don't feel unsafe without it, then why do you need it?

Second, it makes the gun the judge, jury and executioner of any disagreement. The person pointing the gun is always "right", right? But how about when they're not? What if the burglar has the gun? (usually not the case (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm)) Having a gun of your own does not mean there is less a likelyhood of someone being shot. Actually, the opposite is true. And is your stereo really worth someones life?

Continuing use of the gun as a safety blanket and ultimate arbiter does nothing to answer the tough questions about the ills affecting society. If anything, it only perpetuates and compounds them.

Rip away.

[manitoubalck]

In Judge Dread there was a palm print recognition system on the guns. Just thought I'd throw that in.

Also Bowling for Colombine is a great movie about how Americans love to kill each other? Why they do? don't ask me, I live in australia where we don't have a cowboy running the country.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by manitoubalck

Also Bowling for Colombine is a great movie about how Americans love to kill each other? Why they do?

good question.

it's in our culture to use violence as a means to an end.

i'd say it's some combination of: education problems, lack of gun control, media portrayal, bellicose foreign policy, class problems, lack of cultural homogeny, etc.

[Desertrat]

manitoubalck, one of the reasons I originated this thread is that people seem to think that what's in a movie is real. The Judge Dread deal is a good example, I'd imagine; probably there are some folks out there who think that palm-ID is easy.

The thing to remember about Columbine is that it was a rather rare event, given the general decline in personal discipline extant. And, given the excessive use of psychotropic drugs which is now regarded as the proper control of one's children in today's world, I'm surprised we don't have more such events.

Delving through federal government numbers from our Center for Disease Control and from the Dept of Justice, some interesting things arise about "violent" Americans. It seems that if one omits the homicides associated with the tragedy of our ghettos, with black-on-black and drug-related crimes (turf wars over sales territory, e.g.), our homicide rate per 100,000 is in the middle of the range for Europe. By focussing on guns as a national problem, we have spent some forty or more years avoiding dealing with the causes of misuse of guns. "I'm for reasonable gun control" is a copout in lieu of admitting, "I don't have a clue about how to keep kids from becoming criminals and killing other people."

[Desertrat]

Thanatoast, your comments puzzle me a bit:

"Let me ask this, who is more likely to be the safer driver, the one who is secure in the knowledge that his car will be replaced if it is totalled? Or the one who if his sole transpotation is totalled, he is SOL, not to mention in trouble with the law?"

What does this have to do with one's decision-making about self-defense? How does it relate? I've been driving cars since 1946, and my behavior has never been a function of money or insurance. (Well, to cavil a bit, there were times I didn't push my race car to the max, for budgetary reasons. :) )

"Buying a gun to make you feel safer against the world outside does two things. First, it makes your safety dependent on the gun. If you feel safe with the gun, you will feel unsafe without it. And if you don't feel unsafe without it, then why do you need it?"

First of all, my safety is not dependent upon the gun. It is dependent upon things like judgement and situational awareness, with the gun as a last resort if or when the first two fail. That's the reason for my specific use of the word "insurance".

Through the decades, I've tried to avoid places and situations where I would feel unsafe without a gun. I wander around in my own patterns, generally feeling quite safe. The problem is that there are no guarantees that some Bad Guy won't take it upon himself to intrude into my arena. Again, insurance.

Under the law of any state in the U.S., I and only I am solely responsible for the safety of my individual person. And that's a fact. Numerous courts have so held.

:), 'Rat

[Desertrat]

jefhatfield, would it be fair to characterize you as on who would oppose gun control laws which are demonstrably inefficacious as to crime, but which merely create hassles for law-abiding citizens?

As to your example of no-record criminals buying legal firearms for criminal misuse, there are already laws on the books against that. How to reasonably enforce them? I don't know. "SStraw man" purchases are illegal, as is a sale or "gift" to somebody wherein it is reasonably known that some illegal activity is planned.

'Rat

[manitoubalck]

Quote: Joseph Stalin,
One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic,

Also my country was founded with a public vote, not a war.

[manitoubalck]

In Aus I can't buy a fully or semi-auto rifle, or a pump action shot-gun, I need to have a gun licience to buy a fire arm of any description.

This will never happen in the US, but after the incodent @ Port Arthur where some 35 people were shot, it was the only reasonable solution.

Ask youself why do I need and Uzi, MPMG-60 or a Styer? Pig shooting with tracer fire to boot? I think not, remove the guns to remove the problem. But with a cowboy running your country that's not going to happen.

[Desertrat]

Bush has nothing to do with whether or not U.S. citizens have guns. That's a right under the 2nd and 14th amendments to our Constitution, as well as a number of federal court decisions.

The right to self-defense against either Bad People or Bad Governments is independent of the existence of government. Governments can only deny rights through accumulated power. Governments can only grant privileges...

Say, Jefhatfield, did you ever deal with folks at USOM/FOA? My mother worked through them in the 1950s, in the Philippines. She was involved in President Magsaysay's programs of land reform, etc., during the days of the Hukbalahap's "Communist Revolution".

:), 'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Here's my take, as a liberal democrat, on gun issues.

Long guns should be sold without registrations.

Handguns should be sold to licensed owners who have a permit and classroom/field training.

Assault rifles? Join the military. You don't get to keep it, but you don't pay to rent it either. They'll even give you free ammo.

Smart gun mandates are stupid. Crooks will simply find a way around the countermeaures, and locked drawers are good enough for kids.

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Bush has nothing to do with whether or not U.S. citizens have guns. That's a right under the 2nd and 14th amendments to our Constitution, as well as a number of federal court decisions.

The right to self-defense against either Bad People or Bad Governments is independent of the existence of government. Governments can only deny rights through accumulated power. Governments can only grant privileges...

Say, Jefhatfield, did you ever deal with folks at USOM/FOA? My mother worked through them in the 1950s, in the Philippines. She was involved in President Magsaysay's programs of land reform, etc., during the days of the Hukbalahap's "Communist Revolution".

I'm well aware of the amendments, but having a President who is increasing defence spending buy the day (US defence spending is larger than the Australian annual budget) can't help the matter.

[Thanatoast]

Desertrat, my analogue was that the person with car insurance is more likely to participate in risky behavior, as is the person with the gun. Guns make people feel like they are in control of a situation when they may not be. Look at our own nation's actions for proof of that adage.

As for judgement and situational awareness, I don't trust people's judgement on the freakin' highway, so I definitely have no confidence in the average American's ability to rationally handle a deadly weapon. Military training may mitigate this problem, but then, once a person is out of the military I would think that they would use that judgement to avoid dangerous situations in the first place.

If you are solely responsible for your safety, ask yourself, do you feel more safe knowing that every nutter around you may have a gun?

Concealed carry permits are especially stupid, in my opinion. If the point is too reduce crime, how will a person ward off a criminal act if the criminal doesn't know he has a gun? All these permits do is create the opportunity for mayhem. A robbery gets turned into a shootout between a firghtened criminal and a frightened victim. Open carry permits *might* make a little more sense, but I still wouldn't trust the carrier. Who needs a freakin' gun just to walk around town? Sorry if I'm sounding peevish, the gun fetish in this country annoys me sometimes. Thank you for answering my questions with considered thought and patience. :)

[revenuee]

Originally posted by Desertrat
That's a right under the 2nd and 14th amendments to our Constitution, as well as a number of federal court decisions.

The right to self-defense against either Bad People or Bad Governments is independent of the existence of government. Governments can only deny rights through accumulated power. Governments can only grant privileges...



Okay, but that was right given to people during a time when you had to protect yourself from a Tyrannical King, and you had to protect your land.

But now, although with the huge terrorist thread i agree that measures must be taken, but the individuals with guns aren't going to do the job, the only way a system like that would work is if there was marshal law, and citizens patrolled the streets, not just had a gun in the house.

different times, different methods

[meta-ghost]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Bush has nothing to do with whether or not U.S. citizens have guns. That's a right under the 2nd and 14th amendments to our Constitution, as well as a number of federal court decisions.

:), 'Rat

from the bradycampaign.org:

The Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The NRA tends to omit the first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment — the words referring to a "well-regulated militia.

When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" — a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was "well-regulated" in the sense that its members were subject to various requirements such as training, supplying their own firearms, and engaging in military exercises away from home. It was a form of compulsory military service intended to protect the fledgling nation from outside forces and from internal rebellions.

The "militia" was not, as the gun lobby will often claim, simply another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 — hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.

The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias.

In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.. .[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see — and I am a gun man." Burger also wrote, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...[S]urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ‘Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebriefs/second.asp

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat

By focussing on guns as a national problem, we have spent some forty or more years avoiding dealing with the causes of misuse of guns.

i agree. mr. moore's film drove this home for me, in that canadians are just as armed as we are, but w/o nearly the homocide rate.

i've listed what i think some of those causes are, above. the best way, imo, to attack it is to make everyone feel included in society. that means education, health care, standard of living.

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by zimv20
i've listed what i think some of those causes are, above. the best way, imo, to attack it is to make everyone feel included in society. that means education, health care, standard of living.

I agree totally, Remember what the Canadian Priminister said in the movie about winning election on the promice of better education, and health services. Then it cuts to Bush at a US army base saying that Congress should continually increase spending on Defence.

Australia and Canada are much the same, excpet we have and idiot running the country.

[revenuee]

Originally posted by manitoubalck
I agree totally, Remember what the Canadian Priminister said in the movie about winning election on the promice of better education, and health services. Then it cuts to Bush at a US army base saying that Congress should continually increase spending on Defence.

Australia and Canada are much the same, excpet we have and idiot running the country.

thats alright... we don't understand half the things the guy running our country says... but i think he's done a pretty good job... well there are certain issues... i think he should of supported big brother (US) in recent endeavors, but alas, we can't have everything.

[Desertrat]

meta-ghost, a couple of points: First, read the preamble to the Bill of Rights, where it speaks to the purpose of that package of amendments. It speaks to restraints against abuse of power by the state.

Question: If the goal is restraint of the central government, how can it also be restraint of the citizens?

I'd agree that the meaning and intent of the writers of any amendment or law have no legal force. However, they do serve to show that intent. Jefferson is reportedly the primary writer of the BOR. His own writings in letters on the subject of individual arms indicate a strong belief in an individual right.

Thanatoast, your "If the point is too reduce crime, how will a person ward off a criminal act if the criminal doesn't know he has a gun?" is a good question, but I think that experience in Florida has answered it.

Violent crime decreased, there, after the passage of their CHL law. Interviews with known criminals showed that the uncertainty about a possible victim's being armed made the criminal less likely to attack. This was borne out after some attacks at tourist rest stops along the Interstates, where the crooks said they knew tourists were less likely to be armed. And, for a while, rental cars from airports became targeted for the same reason.

Nationwide, in the thirty-some states with carry laws, there have been no histories of "blood in the gutters" nor gratuitous shoot-outs among the general population.

Note that the arrest rates for any violation of any sort is much lower among CHL people than the general population. Something like two percent as much. People are more responsible than you seem to believe...

:), 'Rat

[mactastic]

Let's get to the heart of your argument 'Rat. Do you want all gun control legislation abolished? Do you want some laws kept and others abolished? Or do you think all the laws we have are fine and that we should just stop making new ones? In your opinion, what are reasonable methods to stop guns from killing innocent people? (Not from a parental standpoint, but legislatively from a policy standpoint.)

[revenuee]

Originally posted by mactastic
Let's get to the heart of your argument 'Rat. Do you want all gun control legislation abolished? Do you want some laws kept and others abolished? Or do you think all the laws we have are fine and that we should just stop making new ones? In your opinion, what are reasonable methods to stop guns from killing innocent people? (Not from a parental standpoint, but legislatively from a policy standpoint.)


give them to people that need them, not want them and only think they need them :rolleyes:

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Nationwide, in the thirty-some states with carry laws, there have been no histories of "blood in the gutters" nor gratuitous shoot-outs among the general population.
And thank goodness for that. But was the best way to reduce crime to arm everyone and their grandmother? That seems to be a cynicists solution. I'd rather determine the root cause of crime and work on that.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Bush has nothing to do with whether or not U.S. citizens have guns. That's a right under the 2nd and 14th amendments to our Constitution, as well as a number of federal court decisions.

The right to self-defense against either Bad People or Bad Governments is independent of the existence of government. Governments can only deny rights through accumulated power. Governments can only grant privileges...

Say, Jefhatfield, did you ever deal with folks at USOM/FOA? My mother worked through them in the 1950s, in the Philippines. She was involved in President Magsaysay's programs of land reform, etc., during the days of the Hukbalahap's "Communist Revolution".

:), 'Rat

i was with a contractor gathering anti usa info put out by the then soviet union press, and also with dmdc, defense manpower data center which warehoused hr records of military personnel ;)

[Desertrat]

Aks mac, "Do you want all gun control legislation abolished?"

No.

"Do you want some laws kept and others abolished?"

A definite yes. My opinion, but I think that almost everything since the GCA of 1968 is mostly cosmetic foolishness. I admit that I like the idea of the NICS. (National Instant Check System) I can live with the NFA '34, except for the portion speaking to "silencers". "Suppressors", the more accurate word, are over-the-counter items in a couple of the Scandinavian countries...

"In your opinion, what are reasonable methods to stop guns from killing innocent people?"

Aside from the argument about whether people kill people or guns kill people, there are no reasonable methods. Even in the USSR during the heyday of the KGB, etc., there were illegal firearms used in murders. This, in the face of the Gulag or a death penalty for mere possession. As long as people are in existence as a species, there will be killings. "There are no deadly weapons; only deadly people."

'Rat

PS: Gonna be gone and travelling for some ten days or so. I'll check in from Terlingua, time permitting. Be back here in Jawgia for a sawbones' appointment on the 24th.

[revenuee]

Originally posted by Desertrat
"There are no deadly weapons; only deadly people."


yes but give deadly people the means, and easy access and it will be more common. Get rid of the guns, and you may not eliminate the problem, but you will reduce it.

[mactastic]

Sorry, I phrased that badly. I meant how do you stop PEOPLE from using guns to kill innocent people. As in what kind of laws would do that without putting undo hassle on the legitimate gun owner, yet be as effective as possible at preventing gun crime?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Note that in places like Maryland and California, where laws requiring smart gun technology be mandatory by some calendar date for any new handguns to be sold in those states, law enforcement personnel are exempted.


The trouble here is that when the law is finally in effect, you are going to have some lawyer representing a 'nice-honor-roll-kid-that-happened-to-get-into-the-wrong-crowd-doing-carjackings-who-shot-at-the-police' claim that the police officer shot his client with an unsafe handgun. Then, you are going to have police agencies mandating that police departments use these smart guns in order to forestall multi-million dollar awards. Then, you are going to have cops that are killed because the smart guns are not well-maintained with the lint-free paper and charged batteries.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
The trouble here is that when the law is finally in effect, you are going to have some lawyer representing a 'nice-honor-roll-kid-that-happened-to-get-into-the-wrong-crowd-doing-carjackings-who-shot-at-the-police' claim that the police officer shot his client with an unsafe handgun. Then, you are going to have police agencies mandating that police departments use these smart guns in order to forestall multi-million dollar awards. Then, you are going to have cops that are killed because the smart guns are not well-maintained with the lint-free paper and charged batteries.

Ah I love a good straw man argument. You do realize that you are using the same logic you liked when it benefited Arnold when the Cali court said it would be prior to the actual harm done to claim that punch card ballot casters would be harmed by a possible outcome.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by manitoubalck In Judge Dread there was a palm print recognition system on the guns. Just thought I'd throw that in.

Also Bowling for Colombine is a great movie about how Americans love to kill each other?

Judge Dredd... isn't that a science fiction comic book character adapted to a feature film by Hollywood?

Americans do not love to kill each other. You have psychopaths that make up less than a fraction of 1% of the population that gets a lot of the media attraction because such incidences are rare.

You also have inner-city gangs dealing in drugs that use violence to protect their market-share from other rival gangs. Such a business-model is made possible by federal and state drug control laws, akin to what Prohibition did.

When was the last time you saw HP executives ordering a hit on Gateway middle-managers in order to protect their market-share?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

When was the last time you saw HP executives ordering a hit on Gateway middle-managers in order to protect their market-share?

enron? (http://www.google.com/search?q=enron+murder&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by manitoubalck
This will never happen in the US, but after the incodent @ Port Arthur where some 35 people were shot, it was the only reasonable solution.

One law-abiding person carrying a concealed weapon for his/her defense among those 35 people could have stopped the murder/injury of 35 people.

So, you would have a law that tells people they cannot own guns. Which type of people are likely to follow that law? The law-abiding, or the criminals?

Disarming people because of the misdeeds of a few evil scumsuckers is like having your mom take away your teddy bear because you yelled at your brother when he tried to take it from you.

[jefhatfield]

i know that there could be bad consequences of making gun laws too lax, even with law abiding citizens

when texas let certain counties let non criminal citizens carry concealed weapons, 19 armed bank robberies occured on the first day of that law, all from people who had no prior criminal records

instead of banning guns altogether or letting everybody carry them under their shirt, common sense has to be used

when my friend visited his brother in texas, he went to a shopping mall that had a huge barely manned liquor joint, a strip joint and a gun store (equally large and empty of employees) next to each other...when he came back to california, people at the police academy where he went could hardly believe it

frohickey, in the texas incident on that first day of allowed concealable weapons, how would you then define a criminal vs a regular citizen? would you let your five year old kid carry a handgun? he's not a criminal, right?

i am not saying where to draw the lines with gun laws, or how to enforce current gun laws, but extreme positions one way or the other is unwise

should i be allowed to take martial arts to protect my person? how about carry a knife? a sword? a gun? a hand grenade? mustard gas?...all methods can protect me, right?

[revenuee]

Originally posted by mactastic
Sorry, I phrased that badly. I meant how do you stop PEOPLE from using guns to kill innocent people. As in what kind of laws would do that without putting undo hassle on the legitimate gun owner, yet be as effective as possible at preventing gun crime?

what is the definition of a legitimate gun owner?

who really needs a gun?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
If you are solely responsible for your safety, ask yourself, do you feel more safe knowing that every nutter around you may have a gun?

Concealed carry permits are especially stupid, in my opinion. If the point is too reduce crime, how will a person ward off a criminal act if the criminal doesn't know he has a gun?

Yes, I would feel safe in knowing that every 'nutter' around me may have a gun. As long as I do not see the gun, I'm safe, because in order to use the gun, it would first need to be taken out of its holster. Same with someone in a trenchcoat or a jacket with the gun in the pocket, I'd see the behavior as not normal to someone trying to ward off the cold.

CCW permits are a good idea. You have law abiding citizens given classroom lessons on the proper use of weapons and situations of self-defense, as well as range time to become familiar with the weapon. It reduces crime because a criminal would need to accurately assess whether his mark/victim is unarmed or not. Having it concealed makes it much more difficult.

You only need to look at what happened in Florida shortly after their CCW law was passed. Crime against Floridians dropped, while crime against foreigners driving in rental-cars with large rental-company stickers rose. Criminals started targeting foreigners because it made it more likely that they would NOT be CCW holders.

The CCW law sure made criminals change their behavior, eh?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by revenuee Okay, but that was right given to people during a time when you had to protect yourself from a Tyrannical King, and you had to protect your land.

But now, although with the huge terrorist thread i agree that measures must be taken, but the individuals with guns aren't going to do the job, the only way a system like that would work is if there was marshal law, and citizens patrolled the streets, not just had a gun in the house.


Tyrannical King... tyrannical government. There is no difference either way. Best be prepared for both.

As to individuals with guns, remember what happened in Los Angeles in April 29, 1992? Riots happened, where people..correction...thugs, looted stores and burned buildings, while the police retreated. After the smoke cleared, the only stores left standing were the ones with Korean shop-owners who stood on the roof of their stores with their friends protecting their livelihood with semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines (aka assault weapons)

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Yes, I would feel safe in knowing that every 'nutter' around me may have a gun. As long as I do not see the gun, I'm safe, because in order to use the gun, it would first need to be taken out of its holster. Same with someone in a trenchcoat or a jacket with the gun in the pocket, I'd see the behavior as not normal to someone trying to ward off the cold.

CCW permits are a good idea. You have law abiding citizens given classroom lessons on the proper use of weapons and situations of self-defense, as well as range time to become familiar with the weapon. It reduces crime because a criminal would need to accurately assess whether his mark/victim is unarmed or not. Having it concealed makes it much more difficult.

You only need to look at what happened in Florida shortly after their CCW law was passed. Crime against Floridians dropped, while crime against foreigners driving in rental-cars with large rental-company stickers rose. Criminals started targeting foreigners because it made it more likely that they would NOT be CCW holders.

The CCW law sure made criminals change their behavior, eh?

florida was lucky if attacks dropped, but what about texas?

what about those banks that got attacked? and by people with no prior criminal record...19 friggin banks...not 17, not 18, but 19 banks in one day in 19 separate instances in 24 hours in one state!!!!!!

they were desperate people who, with the new right to carry a concealed weapon, were unable to resist the temptation, and went for the money using their new so called privelidge of concealing a weapon...that being said, the thousands of others who gained that same right that day and had concealed weapons on them did not commit any crimes

but still i would not want to be in a state the day they let people carry concealed weapons...that first 24 hours would be when those, no criminal record, walking timebombs of desperate people would most likely act out

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Tyrannical King... tyrannical government. There is no difference either way. Best be prepared for both.

As to individuals with guns, remember what happened in Los Angeles in April 29, 1992? Riots happened, where people..correction...thugs, looted stores and burned buildings, while the police retreated. After the smoke cleared, the only stores left standing were the ones with Korean shop-owners who stood on the roof of their stores with their friends protecting their livelihood with semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines (aka assault weapons)

maybe to make their stores truly safe, the shop owners should have been given the right to have assault weapons, some AWACS, and coordinated, close air support from a few A-10s

and if that failed, you should give those shop owners a right to have tactical nukes, right??

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic Let's get to the heart of your argument 'Rat. Do you want all gun control legislation abolished? Do you want some laws kept and others abolished? Or do you think all the laws we have are fine and that we should just stop making new ones? In your opinion, what are reasonable methods to stop guns from killing innocent people? (Not from a parental standpoint, but legislatively from a policy standpoint.)

I would like all gun control legislation abolished, since the only ones that obey such laws are the ones that are not inclined to use guns in evil ways. Keep the ones that prohibit known violent people from owning arms until they have proven they have reformed.

Reasonable methods to stop guns from killing innocent people? How about we change your words to omit guns from How about 'reasonable methods to stop killing innocent people' instead? We are in agreement here. No one would like to have innocents suffer.

But how is the innocent housewife (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3486) in the midst of a nasty divorce proceeding with a husband prone to violence and beating going to repel her drunken husband from killing her?

How about the lone pizza-delivery person going to protect himself in an area where it was known that some people were robbing pizza-delivery persons (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBSearch.asp) (do a search on pizza)? Remember, now, its his job, either he delivers pizza and pays the rent or quits.

There are lots of stories like this, and more. How about we disarm the violent criminals instead of the law-abiding ones? I'd say that we start there.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Thanatoast And thank goodness for that. But was the best way to reduce crime to arm everyone and their grandmother? That seems to be a cynicists solution. I'd rather determine the root cause of crime and work on that.

But not everyone is armed. Only the ones that willingly take the responsibility and burden of carrying within the law are armed.

Root cause of crime. Sorry, I do not need to understand what drives the criminal to do their heinous acts. All I want is for it to stop. When you have a rat infestation, you don't go consult a rat psychologist to try understand the root cause. You get out the rat traps and rat poison.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Ah I love a good straw man argument. You do realize that you are using the same logic you liked when it benefited Arnold when the Cali court said it would be prior to the actual harm done to claim that punch card ballot casters would be harmed by a possible outcome.

Wha? Arnold? Punch card ballot casters?
What does the recall election using punch card ballots have to do with Arnold? Nothing. Punch card balloting was just as valid as previous elections. It was just a way for state elections officials to get more of our tax dollars in order to 'fix' a problem that did not exist.

Punch the card, take the card out, look at the back for hanging chads, and pluck them out carefully... how tough is that?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
frohickey, in the texas incident on that first day of allowed concealable weapons, how would you then define a criminal vs a regular citizen? would you let your five year old kid carry a handgun? he's not a criminal, right?

should i be allowed to take martial arts to protect my person? how about carry a knife? a sword? a gun? a hand grenade? mustard gas?...all methods can protect me, right? [/B]

Could you supply me with a url for the 19 texas incidences of CCW permittees committing felony bank robberies?

Is the 5 year old kid with sufficiently developed skills to handle a firearm, and know the consequences of using it? That should be the criteria.

In a different note, some people are responsible prior to passing the age of 18/21. Others are never responsible before they die. Back to topic, the age requirements (18/21) owning/purchasing a weapon is a rough gauge as to what constitutes a responsible person. In this country, you are legally responsible when you pass the age of 18, whether you actually are responsible or not.

Martial arts can a discerning weapon/skill. It can be used in a crowd of people against specific individuals.
Knife is a discerning weapon.
Sword is a discerning weapon.
Gun is a discerning weapon.
Pepper spray is a discerning weapon.
Hand grenade, you are getting to a gray area. Its an area-effect weapon.
Mustard gas... definitely an area-effect weapon.
Nuclear device... positively an area-effect weapon.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by revenuee
what is the definition of a legitimate gun owner?

who really needs a gun?

What is the definition of a legitimate computer user?
Who really needs a PowerMac G5?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
florida was lucky if attacks dropped, but what about texas?

what about those banks that got attacked? and by people with no prior criminal record...19 friggin banks...not 17, not 18, but 19 banks in one day in 19 separate instances in 24 hours in one state!!!!!!

they were desperate people who, with the new right to carry a concealed weapon, were unable to resist the temptation, and went for the money using their new so called privelidge of concealing a weapon...that being said, the thousands of others who gained that same right that day and had concealed weapons on them did not commit any crimes

but still i would not want to be in a state the day they let people carry concealed weapons...that first 24 hours would be when those, no criminal record, walking timebombs of desperate people would most likely act out

[Entire post quoted for effect]

You seem to be saying that people are not responsible enough to be given control over their own lives.

You seem to be saying that everyone of us, you, me, your next door neighbor, could be a ticking timebomb of desperate people.

If you are saying this, aren't you also saying that the ticking timebomb of desperate people could be the distraught mother. (Barbara Graham (http://www.tincher.to/mmm.htm))

Or the ticking timebomb of desperate people could very well be the police officer on the street that are given firearms for their job. (Edward Lutes (http://www.dontbelieve.com/Content/WofS/Yahoo!%20News%20-%20New%20Jersey%20Policeman%20Kills%20Five,%20Then%20Self,%20Authorities%20Say.htm))

Aren't you also saying that the ticking timebomb of desperate people could be the politician? (Dan White (http://www.mistersf.com/notorious/notwhiteindex.htm))

You seem to be saying that we should march right on over to a police state, where the government dictates all aspects of life, because we are not capable enough to do so.

Is that what you are trying to say?

I don't think that is what you are trying to say.

For each of the example above, there are lots of other people that you will never hear about that are able to conquer their evil demons, or not even have had their inner demons come out for them to act in evil ways. These are the people that are harmed in these types of laws. Unfortunately, dead people can't talk, if they could, and you asked them if they could have used a CCW permit to protect themselves before they were killed, some of them might have actually answered 'YES'.

[revenuee]

Originally posted by Frohickey
[Entire post quoted for effect]

You seem to be saying that people are not responsible enough to be given control over their own lives.

You seem to be saying that we should march right on over to a police state, where the government dictates all aspects of live, because we are not capable enough to do so.

Is that what you are trying to say?

I don't think that is what you are trying to say.

Fine, i'll say it, people are irresponsible... the crowd or mob is fickle. and easily swayed.

The democracy has failed.

We are by nature evil, and need government to protect us from yourselves..

civil liberties are miss used... i believe we have already reached a state of anarchy...

A span of several years where civil liberties are revoked is essential.

It is time we began a search for leaders of benevolence and piety ... this will be long and gruelling processes... but once it is achieved... and a "police state" is evoked...

A time of the Republic must begin now, if our civilization is not to implode.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Frohickey
[Entire post quoted for effect]

You seem to be saying that people are not responsible enough to be given control over their own lives.

You seem to be saying that everyone of us, you, me, your next door neighbor, could be a ticking timebomb of desperate people.

If you are saying this, aren't you also saying that the ticking timebomb of desperate people could be the distraught mother. (Barbara Graham (http://www.tincher.to/mmm.htm))

Or the ticking timebomb of desperate people could very well be the police officer on the street that are given firearms for their job. (Edward Lutes (http://www.dontbelieve.com/Content/WofS/Yahoo!%20News%20-%20New%20Jersey%20Policeman%20Kills%20Five,%20Then%20Self,%20Authorities%20Say.htm))

Aren't you also saying that the ticking timebomb of desperate people could be the politician? (Dan White (http://www.mistersf.com/notorious/notwhiteindex.htm))

You seem to be saying that we should march right on over to a police state, where the government dictates all aspects of live, because we are not capable enough to do so.

Is that what you are trying to say?

I don't think that is what you are trying to say.

For each of the example above, there are lots of other people that you will never hear about that are able to conquer their evil demons, or not even have had their inner demons come out for them to act in evil ways. These are the people that are harmed in these types of laws. Unfortunately, dead people can't talk, if they could, and you asked them if they could have used a CCW permit to protect themselves before they were killed, some of them might have actually answered 'YES'.

of the 19 armed bank robberies that day from non felons, i stated that out of perhaps thousands of people who carried guns legally that day, there were actually only 19 in a large state so the odds favor that a person with a gun that day would not bother anyone

but then realize that those 19 would not have happened that day, either if there was no concealed weapons law

it's a very gray area and i do not say i have the answer to how to solve the issue with what happened in texas (i will search for a story online though i believe it happened prior to the internet so if i get a photocopy of an article i will scan it into this thread, but i do know that extreme positions like having a police state and unarmed civilians or having everybody carry arms concealed are both at the far poles and very irresponsible...most issues are not black and white, especially this one

if given a choice, i would rather have everybody have the right to have concealed arms than have a police state like nazi germany of some communist dictatorship...but we don't have to choose either extreme pole and reality won't allow for it...there would be no way to arm every american or disarm every american because both ideals would be literally impossible to completely accomplish, essentially a logistical nightmare

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by revenuee
We are by nature evil, and need government to protect us from yourselves..


Wow... a true STATIST.

Is government going to be composed of people? Or is it going to be composed of computers? Sentient computers? Government programmers?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
if given a choice, i would rather have everybody have the right to have concealed arms than have a police state like nazi germany of some communist dictatorship...but we don't have to choose either extreme pole and reality won't allow for it...there would be no way to arm every american or disarm every american because both ideals would be literally impossible to completely accomplish, essentially a logistical nightmare

As said earlier, we would not be arming every american. Only the ones that choose to accept the burden and responsiblity of being armed will do so.

The right to keep and bear arms exists. Its always been there.
It maybe denied in states like Ohio, but it still exists.
It maybe limited in others like California, but it still exists.
It maybe permitted, as in Florida and Texas, but it still exists.
It maybe unlimited in Vermont and Alaska, but it still exists.

Its part and parcel of right to life. The right to life includes the right to protect that life, which is self-defense.

In my view, and others as well, people that initiate violence against others have waived their right to life.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Wow... a true STATIST.

Is government going to be composed of people? Or is it going to be composed of computers? Sentient computers? Government programmers?

in a perfect world, people would not be evil or commit any sin, but we are not in a perfect world and guns go off just as easily if fired by a bad person as it does if fired by a good person

guns on everyone everywhere would result in a lot of crimes which would otherwise not happen and the cops would get overloaded with just the honest citizens getting out of hand and losing their tempers

most people get out of control and lose their temper but they usually do not have access to a gun that second...but having everyone have a gun, then have a riot ensue, would just end as a pile of dead bodies of citizens, cops, and soldiers

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Frohickey
As said earlier, we would not be arming every american. Only the ones that choose to accept the burden and responsiblity of being armed will do so.

The right to keep and bear arms exists. Its always been there.
It maybe denied in states like Ohio, but it still exists.
It maybe limited in others like California, but it still exists.
It maybe permitted, as in Florida and Texas, but it still exists.
It maybe unlimited in Vermont and Alaska, but it still exists.

Its part and parcel of right to life. The right to life includes the right to protect that life, which is self-defense.

In my view, and others as well, people that initiate violence against others have waived their right to life.

so should a druken brawl a the local bar have the right to have possibly hundreds of dead people?

do we need a deadly weapon to protect oneself?

what about a non lethal weapon?

or what about forgetting about the niceties or civility and having every person who wants to have the right to carry a backpack with a nuclear device on it...just to keep the peace...as in peace through strength

why not give every five year old chemical and biological WMDs so as to prevent any adult from abusing them?

i bring you these extreme arguments to counter your extreme arguments that you either put across as your view or as a view that exists

[revenuee]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Wow... a true STATIST.

Is government going to be composed of people? Or is it going to be composed of computers? Sentient computers? Government programmers?

And that is the problem, isn't it ... who is fit to rule, who is fit to make those decisions.

Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.

That is why the ideal candidate would be one that would not want this job, and the people that keep him in check are the ones that don't want to keep him in check.

Is my thinking irrational - yes
am i extreme in my beliefs - yes
is this feasible - doubtful
is it going to happen - pigs have a better change of flying

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by revenuee

am i extreme in my beliefs - yes


but how could you, with one extreme, and frohickey, with the other extreme, really expect anybody to take your views seriously? that is why david duke or some candidate from the communist party doesn't get into the senate or governor's mansion

i believe the answer to gun laws will realistically be resolved by moderates, conservatives, and liberals, and not extremists from one far pole or another

too many americans have died fighting hitler/tojo/mussolini or ho chi min/pol pot for us to have extreme views control gun laws...our soldiers did not charge normandy so that everybody could carry a concealed weapon or have nobody have the right to have guns except a police state

my message to extremists of either side...please have some respect for those soliders who have died for out freedoms

[revenuee]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
but how could you, with one extreme, and frohickey, with the other extreme, really expect anybody to take your views seriously? that is why david duke or some candidate from the communist party doesn't get into the senate or governor's mansion

i believe the answer to gun laws will realistically be resolved by moderates, conservatives, and liberals, and not extremists from one far pole or another

too many americans have died fighting hitler/tojo/mussolini or ho chi min/pol pot for us to have extreme views control gun laws...our soldiers did not charge normandy so that everybody could carry a concealed weapon or have nobody have the right to have guns except a police state

my message to extremists of either side...please have some respect for those soliders who have died for out freedoms

I am extreme because of my frustration.

I am tired of turning on the news, or opening the paper and seeing "MAN SHOT IN ARMED ROBBERY" or "12 KILLED IN SHOOT OUT"

Not more then two days ago did a turn on the CNN and see a man hiding behind a tree, and another man shooting at him, chasing him around the tree.... Keeps guns out of the hands of citizens, and keep the citizens safe

you lecture me on not having respect for the soldiers that died? You lecture me on why they fought? they didn't fight so that innocent kids die in school shoot outs, They fought so that we don't have to. so that we don't have to carry weapons to protect ourselves.

Have you been in a war? Have experience Gun fire? if you have, i question how you possibly can stand there and tell me that guns in the hands of citizens are good, guns in the hands of no one are good.

You say liberals, conservatives, moderators will do the job, i say No... they are to concerned with public opinion.
They are subject to the views of the mob
The Mob is dangerous thing.
The sentiments and ideas of all the persons in the gathering take one and the same direction, and their conscious personality vanishes. - Le Bon

We are doomed because no system will work

to many civil liberties - there is abuse
no civil liberties - curruption

liberal/convervative state. ideal, but the question where do you draw the line

[jefhatfield]

i am frustrated, too

i am just saying, through common sense and not battlefield experience, that the soldiers who died for our freedoms died so we could have a safe state where majority rules in a democracy...not a country run by an exremist on the left or right

he he...at least that's what i learned in grade school:p

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
my message to extremists of either side...please have some respect for those soliders who have died for out freedoms [/B]

I'm not an extremist.

Here are some of the soldiers, okay, ones that risked life and limb for their beliefs.

Quotations (http://www.actnow.bz/gun_quotations.htm)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.. (where) ..the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."- Thomas Jefferson

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." - George Washington

What is the percentage of the 200million firearms in the United States currently in civilian hands, WAS NOT USED in the commission of a crime in November 11, 2003?

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I'm not an extremist.

Here are some of the soldiers, okay, ones that risked life and limb for their beliefs.

Quotations (http://www.actnow.bz/gun_quotations.htm)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.. (where) ..the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."- Thomas Jefferson

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." - George Washington

What is the percentage of the 200million firearms in the United States currently in civilian hands, WAS NOT USED in the commission of a crime in November 11, 2003?

fine quotes to be sure, but don't tell me that equates to those founding fathers having wanted us walk around with concealed weapons

what do you think george washington would have thought about columbine?

what would thomas jefferson think about a semi automatic plastic pistol with cop killer bullets?

...just an interesting thought

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by revenuee
liberal/convervative state. ideal, but the question where do you draw the line

People always tend to choose more freedom than less. It seems that the way people end up choosing less freedom is when they are fooled into thinking that giving up freedom will give them safety. This is what is happening with the PATRIOT Act. Good thing that it has a expiration date.

"False is the idea of utility...that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction of liberty. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...such laws serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson's "commonplace Book" 1774-1776 quoting from "On Crimes and Punishment"

[jefhatfield]

or what would our founding fathers think about one's five year old with a concealed weapon? even with "proper" training?

[revenuee]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i am frustrated, too

i am just saying, through common sense and not battlefield experience, that the soldiers who died for our freedoms died so we could have a safe state where majority rules in a democracy...not a country run by an exremist on the left or right

he he...at least that's what i learned in grade school:p

absolutely ... i agree with you

by nature i am liberal

but i felt this debate would raise better arguments if it was argued from both extremes. Frohickey on side, myself on the other...

and you in the middle moderating this.

But we are stuck in the problem of whether a democracy works. Who's to say that a majority it right.

plus not everyone votes, not everyone cares too ... so is it really the majority that is picking,? or of the people picking it is a majority, but in reality they are in the minority.

buttom line

i am against guns in the hands of citizens
They belong in the hands of trained career soldiers ,and in the hands of Police officers, who job is to protect.


I see little to no need in local militias i think that is the role of police, Those who swear to uphold the law, need to be trained in it's enforcement.

to be perfectly honest i see no need for guns and hunting... we have plenty of meat in stores that we don't need to go out and shoot things to eat.

but i am a reasonable person, i think Guns in untrained hands are the problem. make it harder to get a gun, forget registration, require those that have guns to go through more stringent screening processes.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
fine quotes to be sure, but don't tell me that equates to those founding fathers having wanted us walk around with concealed weapons

what do you think george washington would have thought about columbine?

what would thomas jefferson think about a semi automatic plastic pistol with cop killer bullets?

...just an interesting thought

Columbine. Here we have a few people with evil in their minds, breaking multiple laws. And some people want to blame the guns used? Columbine Victim Richard Castaldo's Father Gives Congressional Testimony (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=832). 17 federal gun laws were broken there... not to mention the state laws against murder and assault! I think the people here that are blaming the availability of guns instead of the killers are suffering from denial. Denial that two teenaged boys can do such a dastardly deed. Denial that evil people lives among them. Denial that if only the guns where gone, the evil people would be gone as well. Oh, forget the fact that police in Columbine were warned (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/30/columbine.investigation.ap/) about these lowlifes a year prior to Columbine. Forget about that.

Plastic pistol with cop killer bullets? What is that? Even the polymer pistols from Glock have enough metal in it to set of the most insensitive of metal detectors. Cop killer bullets? What is that? Any bullet can kill. Even blanks can kill. The plastic wadding or cotton wadding off a shotgun can kill. Give anything enough speed and it can punch through most things. Remember the straw through a log after a tornado? Cop killer bullets? What is that? What penetrates vests are things of sufficient velocity and small cross-sectional area that it can penetrate through the fibers. An ordinary sewing needle can penetrate through a vest. An icepick can penetrate through a vest. A knife can penetrate through a vest.

Cmon. At least investigate the claims with an eye on the physics involved.


Okay, why is it that when I post, I post facts, while the ones that argue FOR gun control post their feelings and emotions, and what-if hypotheticals? Who was it here that wanted to debate using facts?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by revenuee i am against guns in the hands of citizens
They belong in the hands of trained career soldiers ,and in the hands of Police officers, who job is to protect.

but i am a reasonable person, i think Guns in untrained hands are the problem. make it harder to get a gun, forget registration, require those that have guns to go through more stringent screening processes.

You have just described a police state, where only the state has the guns.

If guns in the hands of the untrained are the problem, why are anti gun groups such as Brady Center and AGS against gun education such as the Eddie Eagle program in schools? They claim that it is about indoctrination, making guns familiar, when in reality, it is about what to do when kids find guns... don't touch it, tell a responsible adult.

Drivers education helped in reducing car accident rates. Need to educate them. Remove the mystique surrounding guns.

Ask an oldtimer that was around in the 50s... when students were able to bring guns into school for target practice or hunting before or after school. They didn't have school massacres then. Its not the guns that are the problem. Its the mystique about them when the media and press treats guns as some sort of mystical object.

[revenuee]

Evil people won't be gone

but the tools to commit even won't be as readily available, thus reducing the work of evil people...

Guns are the means to an end... reduce the means, reduce the end

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
or what would our founding fathers think about one's five year old with a concealed weapon? even with "proper" training?

Thomas Jefferson letter to his nephew Peter Carr (http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/jefferson_e_01.html#E25)
Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.

Well, no 5 year old with a concealed weapon documentation during the era of the Founding Fathers. Peter Carr was 15 when Thomas Jefferson wrote him the above letter. We don't know if Peter Carr had a pistol or a rifle, but at 15, with current federal laws, he would not even be able to own either one.

Maybe thats what we have now... too many violent ball games. :o

[revenuee]

Originally posted by Frohickey
You have just described a police state, where only the state has the guns.

what is so wrong with the guns in only the hands of the state...

If guns in the hands of the untrained are the problem, why are anti gun groups such as Brady Center and AGS against gun education such as the Eddie Eagle program in schools? They claim that it is about indoctrination, making guns familiar, when in reality, it is about what to do when kids find guns... don't touch it, tell a responsible adult.

What are you trying to get a here, that we shouldn't educate people about guns?

Drivers education helped in reducing car accident rates. Need to educate them. Remove the mystique surrounding guns.

Have an accident, go to driving school again, seems reasonable to me

Ask an oldtimer that was around in the 50s... when students were able to bring guns into school for target practice or hunting before or after school. They didn't have school massacres then. Its not the guns that are the problem. Its the mystique about them when the media and press treats guns as some sort of mystical object.

Don't tell me you think it's the media thats to blame

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by revenuee
Evil people won't be gone

but the tools to commit even won't be as readily available, thus reducing the work of evil people...

Guns are the means to an end... reduce the means, reduce the end

So, what about the Good people like the petite 90-lb woman walking from her dorm room to her car? What if she were to be accosted by the unarmed 175lb Bad guy intent on rape and murder?

What about the Good people like the 60 year old Korean War vet (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=2121) in a wheelchair? What if he was observed by a pair of Bad gangbangers cashing his retirement check?

The tools to protect even won't be as readily available, thus reducing the work of evil people... they don't have to work as hard.

[tyme]

Well, I might settle for open carry of weapons, but that seems to be illegal too, at least in TX and in many other states. A few states do allow it, but even some of those frown on it in cities.

Did the Columbine killers have concealed carry permits? Did their lack of permits stop them? Did they have cop-killer bullets?

"Cop-killer bullets" is a silly term. Virtually no cops wear body armor capable of defeating anything except more mainstream handgun calibers. Furthermore, the term "cop-killer" biases the debate. There are criminals who use soft body armor, too, so just because something can penetrate soft body armor doesn't mean the user chose it in order to kill cops.

Alaska recently made it legal to carry concealed without a license. I'm still waiting for the news reports of blood running in the streets of Anchorage.

What is this about 5-year-olds carrying concealed? What on earth can the Law do to prevent that? Any 5-year-old carrying a concealed firearm was given access to it by a negligent adult or stole it. Concealed carry laws can, have, and will do nothing about this. All incidents I'm aware of involving young children have nothing to do with concealed carry - they've been on private property, the kid "finds" the gun, and proceeds to shoot himself, a friend, or a parent.

jefhatfield, who's this person you're talking about who robbed 19 banks in Texas after getting a concealed carry license? Richard Gutherie and some other people robbed 19 banks, but I don't think they were in Texas. Gutherie and everyone else involved were career criminals. And I'm not sure what that has to do with concealed carry licenses, even if the robberies were in TX.

revenuee, what if the police can't get to you in time (this describes probably 95% or more of all cases where there's a violent attacker)? "Mr. Burglar, please don't hurt me, I've called 911." :rolleyes: Average police response to a burglary is not fast enough to prevent a violent criminal from gutting you and leaving a 2-page note for the police. You can bet on 911. I'll hedge that bet with a means to defend myself. Even so, if I hear someone breaking down the door, I'm probably going to crawl out a window. No sense in sticking around if I'm not cornered.

And how long, do you think, would it take to reduce the 100+ million guns in the U.S. to the point where criminals would have a hard time finding them? Britain is an island. It has, effectively, a total ban on handguns. Yet gun crime is on the rise. Who'd have thunk it? Same phenomenon in Australia. If criminals can't buy guns on the black market, price goes up to the point where it pays for people to smuggle guns in... from central america, most likely. We can't keep over 1 million "undocumented" immigrants a year from getting into the U.S., and you want to keep guns from getting smuggled in? Good luck.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by revenuee
what is so wrong with the guns in only the hands of the state...



What are you trying to get a here, that we shouldn't educate people about guns?



Have an accident, go to driving school again, seems reasonable to me



Don't tell me you think it's the media thats to blame

Man, you are sorely lacking in your history lessons. Research it. Everytime a certain portion of the population have been disarmed, they have been subject to execution and reeducation by the government.

The Brady Center is the one that is against gun education... not me, please reread the post.

One of the lessons taught a returning shooter is that there is no such thing as a gun accident. There is no such thing as an accidental discharge. The only thing there is are negligent discharge. Or intentional discharge.

Media can stop hyping up the shootings. I think mass shootings are given their own logo, and audio snippet when they are reported in the news. Plus, how many times do they have to say the names of the bad guys, and how big of a picture do they have to put on the TV screen? But hey, I can try and censor the media... I'm not Congress. ;)

[Frohickey]

Hmm...

Britain and Australia are islands, but they still manage to get guns even with their gun bans.

Do you know how low-tech it really is to make guns? Guns can be made with normal metal-working machinery such as milling machines and lathes. The more simple ones don't even need as much.

So should we confiscate milling machines from in the garage?
How about lathes?
How about drill presses?
How about benchtop vises?
How about files, punches, hammers?

Heck, people can make computers in their garages.

[revenuee]

The media is a convenient scapegoat for those who can't take responsibility for their own actions.


But you know what; Frohickey, tyme ... your right

lets give everybody a gun, and as many bullets as they can carry, it'll be a hell of an experiment.

short... but conclusive

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by Frohickey
1; One law-abiding person carrying a concealed weapon for his/her defense among those 35 people could have stopped the murder/injury of 35 people.

2; So, you would have a law that tells people they cannot own guns. Which type of people are likely to follow that law? The law-abiding, or the criminals?

3; Disarming people because of the misdeeds of a few evil scumsuckers is like having your mom take away your teddy bear because you yelled at your brother when he tried to take it from you.

Just numberd your sections

1; they were shot in a park by Martin Briant hiding in an old church from memory (Hang on Let me just pull my 50 Cal out of my back pack so I can drop him from 2000metres so he can't shoot me first.) In Australia where shootings aren't common place the last thing we want is public shootouts. If I were walking around and I knew everybody aroung me was concelling a 6 shooter, Iwouldn't fell very safe, would you?

2; In Australia you CANNOT BUY semi or auto rifles, or pump action shot guns. No IF's, No BUT's. The govenment had a buyback scheem, and if you didn't hand yours in you copped a fine and it was taken away. (In Aus you must have a gun licience to buy a fire arm or cross bow, and your fire arm or cross bow must be registerd)

3; It hasn't solved the problem but the public was behind the idea, and that's what lead to its success. True it hasn't fixed the problem but it has gone along way.

I walk down the street @ night and I fell safe because I know that people aren't carrying around fire arms, can you say the same?

Ask yourself do I really need that belt fed M-60 MPMG?

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Britain and Australia are islands, but they still manage to get guns even with their gun bans.

Try gun restrictions,
People don't fell the need to carry weapons in Australia because we are not so suspicious of everybody we see on the street.

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
or what would our founding fathers think about one's five year old with a concealed weapon? even with "proper" training?

Our founding fathers were a buch of convicts on some leaky boats from England, no grand vision or plan, just a place to dump the worst of the worst. We had no civil warr, and no war againts the poms, we voted in 1901 (don't ask me the date) to become a nation within the commonwelth, we even voted in March 2000 (in Aus by law you must vote if you are over the age of 18, so take this as the view of the entire nation) to stay part of the commonwelth.

Australia didn't want to go to war, Australia couldn't afford to go to war, Australia doesn't still want to be at war, we still can't afford to be at war, but most of all we don't care any more.

Australia was once know as the lucky country, I know it still is. Because like most of my fellow country men I don't know who was the first leader of our country was, or know the words to the second verse of the nations anthum and don't care.

I'm fed up with all the patriot talk I'm off to have a barbque:D

[Desertrat]

jefhatfield, your "when texas let certain counties let non criminal citizens carry concealed weapons, 19 armed bank robberies occured on the first day of that law, all from people who had no prior criminal records." is a really serious non-sequitur.

What is the connection between the STATE CHL law (Counties have nothing to do with it, beyond the sheriff signing off on the applicant.) and bank robberies?

From the date of the law taking effect, there was a several-month lag until the system was fully operational and any license was issued...

An interesting facet in all this discussion is the change in view about guns, during the last 50 years. When I was a kid, I and most of my friends had or had access to guns. Mostly .22 rifles, of course. We had our own frustrations in school and life itsownself, just as do kids today. SFAIK, none of my buddies ever thought seriously of killing anybody. I know I didn't. My question, then, is what sort of decay in society does the behavioral change represent? I say "decay" because it sure can't be seen as an improvement that so much more willingness is shown to "off" people for little or no reason...But people blame the gun.

Prior to 1968, the postman would deliver any gun to your front door. We had fewer homicides back then, per 100,000. Guns are now much harder to legally acquire, yet people natter about "easy access to guns" as if it were true.

Revenuee, a hunter (like a gardener) is a do-it-yourselfer. Buying food at a grocery or a restaurant just means you've hired somebody else to get their hands dirty for you. Some folks take pride in providing their own food, just as in repairing their own car or building their own house. Or programming their own computer, for that matter. There's no difference.

'Rat

[revenuee]

Originally posted by Desertrat


Revenuee, a hunter (like a gardener) is a do-it-yourselfer. Buying food at a grocery or a restaurant just means you've hired somebody else to get their hands dirty for you. Some folks take pride in providing their own food, just as in repairing their own car or building their own house. Or programming their own computer, for that matter. There's no difference.

'Rat

sure but far less have died from these activities... when was the last time you read "Gardner Strangled by Hose" or "Code from Hell attacks Unexpecting progrommer" :rolleyes:

but i can appreciate your point...

But i will ask this?

What is about a gun that makes you feel more comfortable, more safe?

There have been arguments made that it is to protect yourself from your government. Well you chose your government based on a Democratic vote ... if you fear your leader to so much, why was he chosen?

There have been arguments for personal protection. How about taking a proactive approach, Education, research into screening processes, Profiling, ect... Things that will identify harmful individuals before they can strike. If you don't feel safe on your streets, then maybe thats where the problem is. I fail to see how arming yourself is the best solution.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Wha? Arnold? Punch card ballot casters?
What does the recall election using punch card ballots have to do with Arnold? Nothing. Punch card balloting was just as valid as previous elections. It was just a way for state elections officials to get more of our tax dollars in order to 'fix' a problem that did not exist.

Punch the card, take the card out, look at the back for hanging chads, and pluck them out carefully... how tough is that?

Ok, I'll spell it out for you. Slowly.

You are arguing that there would be harm in the future to a police officer who gets shot by-a-good-kid-gone-bad (aren't they all) and that prior restraint (a big concept I know) is called for here to prevent a possible future outcome.

When the ACLU sued to stop California's recall election they sued based on a possible harm to the voters, also in the future. The courts final decision was that there was definetly a basis for a compliant after the harm occurs but to act before to prevent a Possible Outcome was not legitimate.

Relevant language:
In the end, the judges agreed that the ACLU has a legitimate concern about the use of the punch card system, suggesting that an opening exists for post-election litigation. But the court ruled: "At this time it is merely a speculative possibility, however, that any such denial will influence the result of the election."

Your argument was based on the same flawed logic of the ACLU. Actually thats pretty amusing. Frohickey and the ACLU, on the same page. Still the wrong page though.

And for as many statistics that you can cite where a handgun helped, or would have helped, I can find you a statistic showing a gun homicide. So stop posting those as if they were evidence supporting your position. As with most areas of life, all it takes are a few a-holes messing things up for the rest of us. Sure I'd like to see no need for gun control laws of any kind. I'd also like to see no need for traffic laws too, but do you think thats very likely? Or desirable? Should you be able to shoot your weapons into the air at weddings ala Iraq or Afghanistan? Is that your constitutional right as an American? How about target practice on the street? Skeet shooting in my 1200sf back yard? If there are no laws, do you really think EVERY person is responsible enough to have that right?

Your thought is based on a best possible situation where everyone obeys all laws and also common sense when there is no law to guide them. My thought is based on a pragmatic look at how dumb some people can be. Your thinking works fine on a small-town scale where everyone knows each other, all the kids are above average, and the parents are all responsible above average adults themselves, but in the real world that's just not the case.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Columbine. Here we have a few people with evil in their minds, breaking multiple laws. And some people want to blame the guns used? Columbine Victim Richard Castaldo's Father Gives Congressional Testimony (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=832). 17 federal gun laws were broken there... not to mention the state laws against murder and assault! I think the people here that are blaming the availability of guns instead of the killers are suffering from denial. Denial that two teenaged boys can do such a dastardly deed. Denial that evil people lives among them. Denial that if only the guns where gone, the evil people would be gone as well. Oh, forget the fact that police in Columbine were warned (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/30/columbine.investigation.ap/) about these lowlifes a year prior to Columbine. Forget about that.

Plastic pistol with cop killer bullets? What is that? Even the polymer pistols from Glock have enough metal in it to set of the most insensitive of metal detectors. Cop killer bullets? What is that? Any bullet can kill. Even blanks can kill. The plastic wadding or cotton wadding off a shotgun can kill. Give anything enough speed and it can punch through most things. Remember the straw through a log after a tornado? Cop killer bullets? What is that? What penetrates vests are things of sufficient velocity and small cross-sectional area that it can penetrate through the fibers. An ordinary sewing needle can penetrate through a vest. An icepick can penetrate through a vest. A knife can penetrate through a vest.

Cmon. At least investigate the claims with an eye on the physics involved.


Okay, why is it that when I post, I post facts, while the ones that argue FOR gun control post their feelings and emotions, and what-if hypotheticals? Who was it here that wanted to debate using facts?

as you know, i take the middle ground and i am all for the right to bear arms

i worked for the cia so i can tell you what a plastic gun is, and there are guns that will not set off a detector...scary but true...you mention glocks but i am not talking about easily avalable guns from major makers...i am now a volunteer with a partially state funded organization and within that i belong to chow, or community health outreach worker where we help drug addicts, and sometimes the dealers who are addicted too, from sharing needles and spreading a whole list of diseases...in a sense i am fighting the real drug war as described by the republican governor of new mexico or by former secretary of state george schultz (under reagan way back when) through education and compassion, not through expensive police force and manpower..i have seen some very interesting weapons in my time there, too and a "zip gun" is also a very interesting and potentially big headache

as for physics, i do understand the basics...i am an engineer working on my PhD but it does not take that to make your own home made gun

as for emotion, i being from the middle, agree that the gun law people use emotion more but the pro gun people use black and white thinking and toss out objectivity also

it makes for a colorful and interesting debate:D

[tyme]

Revenuee, nearly half the adult population has access to a gun. Those who don't can buy one at various street corners, probably within 24 hours. People without criminal records can buy many guns at gun stores during business hours, often with no wait (depending on the State, type of gun, and whether someone with the same name happens to be an axe murderer).

It's a little too late to be concerned about people carrying guns. 33 states will issue carry permits to anyone with no serious criminal history. Additionally, Alaska and Vermont let anyone carry a concealed handgun without a license.

I think it's obvious that the vast majority of gun crime is committed by really evil people who have felony convictions and have obtained guns illegally. I can't cite anything from memory, but I'm sure there are FBI or DoJ crime surveys confirming this if you don't accept it as fact. So what do you intend to achieve by banning guns? The vast majority of these murders (in the U.S.) are going to occur no matter what gun control you put in place. They're committed by hardened criminals, gangs, and drug dealers. There's the occasional accident, the more than occasional suicide, the occasional school shooting. So what? You want to ban a particularly effective weapon I can use to defend myself because I might kill myself with it?

California didn't ban assault weapons outright, but required owners to register them. The CA Atty Gen., Bill Lockyer, said "No one knows exactly how many of these types of guns are in private hands, but we estimate the number is far higher than what has been registered." California, a haven for liberals, can't get most people to register guns, and you think banning guns is going to be effective? There would still be enough guns to supply the Dylan Klebolds and John Muhammads for decades, if not for the next century.

If someone has a solution, I'd be really interested in it. It seems to me that empirical evidence shows that concealed carry doesn't convincingly increase any sort of crime. It seems to me that it's impossible to ban guns in the U.S. and to get people to turn them in. It seems to me our southern border is a sieve, so even if guns were banned and turned in, the black market would have enough supply to survive.

It's true that when you give people the ability to own a handgun, some people get drunk and shoot others. Some people leave guns out and their kids end up shooting someone. Some people even use the gun to commit suicide. Except for suicide (and the Japanese have no trouble committing suicide even without firearms), those instances are a small minority of injuries and murders committed with guns. And I don't think they outweigh the benefit of guns based on the risk of being burgled, robbed, or assaulted.
What is about a gun that makes you feel more comfortable, more safe?
As for alternatives to guns, what would you suggest? A knife? You're very much more likely to get seriously hurt defending yourself with a knife. A sword? It's rather difficult to carry one. A taser? Sure, if you hit the aggressor the first time, it might be sufficient. But if you don't, it takes a while to reload, and that's time you probably don't have. An attacker in reasonable shape can rush you from under 21 feet before you can draw a gun and fire accurately. Civilian tasers have 15-foot wires if I'm not mistaken, while police models are 21 or 25-foot. Figure that one out. Tasers are great if you're the police and you have backup. If you don't, they're not a very good insurance policy.

jefhatfield, I think everyone, even those of us who haven't seen one except in In the Line of Fire, can imagine what a plastic gun is. But what does a gun law do about "plastic" guns if someone manages to make or acquire one walks through a metal detector without setting it off? What kind of person builds or buys a "plastic" gun and cares whether or not it's legal? The only reason to have one is to evade detection, which means you're already planning on taking a firearm into an area they're not allowed. If they're as easy to make as you claim, the law doesn't matter because they're easy enough to make if someone really wants one.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by tyme




jefhatfield, I think everyone, even those of us who haven't seen one except in In the Line of Fire, can imagine what a plastic gun is. But what does a gun law do about "plastic" guns if someone manages to make or acquire one walks through a metal detector without setting it off? What kind of person builds or buys a "plastic" gun and cares whether or not it's legal? The only reason to have one is to evade detection, which means you're already planning on taking a firearm into an area they're not allowed. If they're as easy to make as you claim, the law doesn't matter because they're easy enough to make if someone really wants one.

the law does matter still for guns and for everything else

what kind of society would we live in if we didn't have laws?

it's easy for me to walk into a bank with a fake gun, made to look concincingly real, and get money from a bank

but because it's easy does not make everyone, including your grandmother, do it when they need money

there are consequences to going into a bank with a fake gun and trying to hold them up...and one can't say, "hey, but the gun was not real"

see what the judge would say to that one:p

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by revenuee
The media is a convenient scapegoat for those who can't take responsibility for their own actions.


But you know what; Frohickey, tyme ... your right

lets give everybody a gun, and as many bullets as they can carry, it'll be a hell of an experiment.

short... but conclusive

Don't need to try the experiment.
It has already been tried.... in America even. From the late 1700s, all the way to the early 1900s. 120 year experiment.

The gun control that we have now started just after the Civil War, disarming blacks so the KKK could lynch blacks without getting shot at. And some of the other gun control laws we have is in response to the emergence of organized crime brought about by Prohibition. Its now a response to the War on Drugs.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic Ok, I'll spell it out for you. Slowly.


You actually totally missed my point, so I will explain it to you... slowly.

California passed a Safe Gun law.
Its supposed to mandate loaded chamber indicators and magazine disconnectors on every semiauto pistol.
Its supposed to go into effect in 2007.
Lets say a police officer with a gun without these features was working on December 31, 2006. Around midnight, he receives a call for a SHOTS FIRED at the corner of First and Main.
He and his partner go code 3 to First and Main and get out of the car, and start looking around.
Cop and his partner bump into 2 guys with guns. Cop #1 shoots BG#1 with his gun without the new features on December 31, 2006 on 11:59PM and 59 seconds . Cop #2 shoots BG#2 with her gun without the new features on January 1, 2007 on 12:00AM and 1 second.

On January 3, 2003, Detective #1 figures out that BG#1&2 are the ones that were responsible for a slew of robberies around First and Main.

On January 21, 2003, Lawyer of the family of BG#2 sues Cop#2 and the police department for using an unsafe gun.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
You actually totally missed my point, so I will explain it to you... slowly.

Lets say...

No I got it. You are arguing prior harm. The "Let's say" phrase is your clue. I understand your arguement, but you don't seem to get that it is not legal to argue about a harm that hasn't occured yet. It's how our court system works. The courts struck down the ACLU's appeal of the previous 3 judge panel's ruling that the punch card ballots would disenfranchise voters in the future. Basically the court told them to come back when they had been harmed. I don't care if you want to make your argument that way, but I'm pointing out that you won't get far with it. And that I find it amusing that you would pull a page from the ACLU playbook, particularly one that had been so recently condemned by conservatives.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic If there are no laws, do you really think EVERY person is responsible enough to have that right?

Your thought is based on a best possible situation where everyone obeys all laws and also common sense when there is no law to guide them.

I think therein lies the difference between us.

I see the good in people, but try to prepare for the worse. Preparation includes tools and skills to discourage and stop the worse from happening.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I think therein lies the difference between us.

I see the good in people, but try to prepare for the worse. Preparation includes tools and skills to discourage and stop the worse from happening.

So you think there is good in everyone? You're not of the Bill O'Reilly school of thought that says evil walks among us, and that some people are just wicked from birth?

Myself, I don't think good or evil walk among us, but there are stupid and irresponsible people out there. If everyone truly cared as much about their neighbor as themselves we would have no need for government no?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
No I got it. You are arguing prior harm. The "Let's say" phrase is your clue. I understand your arguement, but you don't seem to get that it is not legal to argue about a harm that hasn't occured yet. It's how our court system works. The courts struck down the ACLU's appeal of the previous 3 judge panel's ruling that the punch card ballots would disenfranchise voters in the future. Basically the court told them to come back when they had been harmed. I don't care if you want to make your argument that way, but I'm pointing out that you won't get far with it. And that I find it amusing that you would pull a page from the ACLU playbook, particularly one that had been so recently condemned by conservatives.

What prior harm? Your case is a group arguing that an election should be postponed until a certain type of voting machine is available for all voters, even though an arrangement was made to keep older voting machines in use until such a time.

My case is about a law mandating a certain type of pistol be required, but exempting police from the requirement.

prior to certain date: punch card okay
after a certain date: punch card not okay

prior to certain date: pistol without mag disconnect okay for civilians
after a certain date: pistol without mag disconnect not okay for civilians

BUT, the police are exempted from this law, notwithstanding this portion of the law, you will still have lawsuits saying that police used pistols without mag disconnects which the state of California has declared unsafe in 2007

[mactastic]

Yes the cases certainly are different aren't they... but the underlying logic IS the same whether you like it or not.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic Myself, I don't think good or evil walk among us, but there are stupid and irresponsible people out there. If everyone truly cared as much about their neighbor as themselves we would have no need for government no?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Governments are instituted among men in order to secure unalienable rights... not to provide your neighbor with perpetual social programs and entitlements. When was the last time you have seen government provide a service to a group that ultimately did not come from your taxes?

As you said, there are stupid and irresponsible people out there. Why should i help my stupid and irresponsible neighbor? Couldn't that be seen by the stupid and irresponsible as a reward for their stupid and irresponsible behavior?

But, no one is stopping you from helping them. Just don't force me (via government) to do so.

[mactastic]

I thought we were talking about guns not taxes. You agree that there are stupid and irresponsible people out there, then say you would fight for the right for every one of them to carry a concealed weapon. Sounds like a reciepe for tragedy after tragedy to me.

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by revenuee
1What is about a gun that makes you feel more comfortable, more safe?

2There have been arguments made that it is to protect yourself from your government. Well you chose your government based on a Democratic vote ... if you fear your leader to so much, why was he chosen?

3There have been arguments for personal protection. How about taking a proactive approach, Education, research into screening processes, Profiling, ect... Things that will identify harmful individuals before they can strike. If you don't feel safe on your streets, then maybe thats where the problem is. I fail to see how arming yourself is the best solution.

1, Everybody is an idoit including me, so why whould I trust anyone else with a gun, I wouldn't fell safe carring one incase it went off.

2, True were not in Russia or China during the cold war, but I bet that gun crimes were hardly a problem under those regimes. (I'm not suggesting a return to Stalinist Russia)

3, couldn't have said it better myself

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by Frohickey
What prior harm? Your case is a group arguing that an election should be postponed until a certain type of voting machine is available for all voters, even though an arrangement was made to keep older voting machines in use until such a time.

My case is about a law mandating a certain type of pistol be required, but exempting police from the requirement.

prior to certain date: punch card okay
after a certain date: punch card not okay


In Aus everybody over 18 votes, no voting machines just hand written ballots, 1 day poll(not a census due to population under 18,) polls close @ 6:00pm, all votes are hand counted by the end of the next day.

Never had any problems, (The seat of parliment that I live in was won by less than 200 votes, and there was no arguing since the person with the most votes won)

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by tyme
can imagine what a plastic gun is

The styer is a plastic gun, and it's used by the Australian Army as well as many other nations armed forces the world over. It's a more effective fire arm than the M-16, because it's lighter, shorter overall length with the same barrel lenght etc...

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Don't need to try the experiment.
It has already been tried.... in America even. From the late 1700s, all the way to the early 1900s. 120 year experiment.

The gun control that we have now started just after the Civil War, disarming blacks so the KKK could lynch blacks without getting shot at. And some of the other gun control laws we have is in response to the emergence of organized crime brought about by Prohibition. Its now a response to the War on Drugs.

so do you think we live in different times...and are people more likely now to pull the trigger, get involved in drug trafficking and protecting turf, and start youth gangs?

if we let people just carry anything they wanted, there would be chaos and we wouldn't need any criminals out there to keep the cops busy...people being basically fallible beings would be shooting each other right and left maybe one out of ten thousand times, but with 270 million people out there, including your "trained" five year olds, that still would result in an unacceptable body count

an incident like columbine would be such small beans and so would a dc type sniper and they would not even make the news

i don't know what kind of america you want, but i kind of like the way it is right now and i think our govenment, though not perfect, has done a pretty good job in being faithful to the founding fathers and of all the nations in this world, the united states is on the short list of the best...perhaps the best ever in human history

it's great that we have the right to bear arms, but it's also great that everybody in the us is not walking about with concealed weapons

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Why should i help my stupid and irresponsible neighbor?

Isn't that one of those pesky things your God asks you to do?

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by mactastic
Isn't that one of those pesky things your God asks you to do?

though i enjoy the debate, and being attacked from both sides because i am a moderate, i still have left god out of this argument

but that being said, i don't ever recall him saying he believed in a god of any sort

if anyone believes in god, would they seriously consider arming five year olds with concealed weapons?

i could see a god fearing person believe in having no guns, or letting people, adult people, have the right to bear them...but letting a five year old, who is trained, carry a concealed weapon? someone that age does not even have a sense of good and evil, life and death...at least nowhere near the level of an adult

[revenuee]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
though i enjoy the debate, and being attacked from both sides because i am a moderate, i still have left god out of this argument

but that being said, i don't ever recall him saying he believed in a god of any sort

if anyone believes in god, would they seriously consider arming five year olds with concealed weapons?

i could see a god fearing person believe in having no guns, or letting people, adult people, have the right to bear them...but letting a five year old, who is trained, carry a concealed weapon? someone that age does not even have a sense of good and evil, life and death...at least nowhere near the level of an adult

Why does it have to be a god fearing person... i don't believe in any divinity, yet i still don't want guns in the hands of citizens, of any age

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by revenuee
Why does it have to be a god fearing person... i don't believe in any divinity, yet i still don't want guns in the hands of citizens, of any age

you don't have to believe in god, but i am just saying i don't think frohickey brought up the topic in this thread and if he does believe in god, i would love to hear his justification for why five year olds should be armed with concealed weapons

many claim to believe in god or some sort of good vs evil concept but hold onto strange and unethical beliefs which would be virtually, universally condemned...ie) the armed, trained five year olds

this is extreme territory i bring up with children and guns and it just dumbfounds me to think that someone like frohickey says he is not an extremist...yeah, compared to the son of sam or the dc sniper, he may be considered moderate

[mactastic]

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3257937.stm)

A six-year-old boy suspected of killing his grandfather is undergoing psychological testing in the US.

The boy is believed to have shot his grandfather, James Zbinden, 59, in the US state of Missouri on Friday.

He has a "history of severe mental and behavioural problems", Cole County Sheriff John Hemeyer told BBC News Online on Monday.

The boy had been released from a mental-health institution only four days before the incident.
He and his grandfather are believed to have been the only people in the house when Zbinden was shot dead with a .22-caliber rifle.

[LethalWolfe]

Usually I avoid the threads like these but I'm feeling spunky tonight. Forgive I have not read the entire thread, but I did read the past 2.5 pages and I've got an idea of what's going on. If my points have already been brought up I apologize.

Guns do not cause violence or crime. This train of thought is focusing on the symptom and not the cause.

Switzerland: Lots of guns per capita but very, very low crime.

England, Whales, and Australia: Very strict firearms laws, but some of the highest rates of break-in's and crimes against persons (muggings for example) among industrialized nations (higher than the US). And, as a bonus, gun crime is steadily on the rise. It's a cliche, but it's the truth. Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.

Rwanda: In the month of April, 1994 approx. 800,000 civilians were slaugthered by attackers wielding more farm tools than firearms.

Focusing on social issues and education is the key, IMO. Saying "guns are bad, you can't have them" would be about as effective as saying "drugs are bad, you can't have them." The only way to solve the problem is to focus on the "why" not the "how."


Lethal

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Isn't that one of those pesky things your God asks you to do?

My God? I think you assume to much.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield you don't have to believe in god, but i am just saying i don't think frohickey brought up the topic in this thread and if he does believe in god, i would love to hear his justification for why five year olds should be armed with concealed weapons


This is what I posted...
Is the 5 year old kid with sufficiently developed skills to handle a firearm, and know the consequences of using it? That should be the criteria.

developed the skills and know the consequences... granted, a normal 5 year old kid is unlikely to master the skills and the sense of responsibility... but those are the conditions. Just like having an adult pass the age of 18 or 21 does not magically endow them with the maturity and responsibility society expects of them. Now, you can go on and harp about the 5 year old comment all you want, but my post was carefully worded. I would care less what age the individual is... the main criteria are skill and responsibility.

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Root cause of crime. Sorry, I do not need to understand what drives the criminal to do their heinous acts. All I want is for it to stop. When you have a rat infestation, you don't go consult a rat psychologist to try understand the root cause. You get out the rat traps and rat poison.
Your argument would make sense, if people were rats. Some people may be despicable, but they are still not rats. I find it disturbing that you would kill humans as non-chanlantly as you would kill rats, no matter their crime.

A refusal to look at a situation from another's point of view is simply intellectual laziness. It also guarantees that you will never solve the problem underlying the symptom. Thus you perpetuate what you claim to be fighting against.

A word on Columbine. Harris and Klebold were disturbed, but I don't think they were evil. They were definitely desperate. No, they did not have to go into the school and blow away their classmates. But Columbine is actually the perfect example of why you should find out why a criminal makes the choices he does. You should do this in order to stop the crime before it happens. Killing them like rats would not have made the situation any better.

On Columbine and the availability of guns, if they had walked around pointing their fingers and saying "bang", the results would've been less dramatic.

"I see the good in people, but try to prepare for the worst."

I think if you feel the need to carry a gun around with you to defend yourself from those selfsame people, then you need to rethink that statement.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
My God? I think you assume to much.

Well it's not mine. I thought you claimed to be a Christian, or are you renouncing your faith for debating points?

Another nice dodge on your part though. Kudos.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by mactastic
Well it's not mine. I thought you claimed to be a Christian, or are you renouncing your faith for debating points?

Another nice dodge on your part though. Kudos.

he is dodging the issues which may have to make him look at anything which would make him perhaps have to agree with a point found in the middle or the other side

extremists from both sides have intellectual laziness, as one poster mentioned, and they universally deny that they are extremists most of the time

they word other's opinions and quotes found from their point of view made by the intellectuals of their side without ever once thinking through the implications...i am for gun laws, but in the context of our country today, i am glad that we still have the right to bear arms and that there are groups like the nra who protect it (and i am proud to have proper firearms training because i believe it's my resposibility to have that basic skill since i never know when i will need to use it and if i take up hunting or target practice, i will be glad i had the training...just going out and buying a gun without training would be careless and possibly dangerous)...but don't confuse the nra with the son of sam or the gun owners of america association which are found in the fringes of society ( my social work with gangs and drug dealers like to float around in that cesspool because of its extremeness and most gangs think that the president is using the patirot act to go after them specifically (excuse me, but have you ever heard of september 11th?)

his arguments are no different, using the criteria point of view of age relativism, than that of the man boy love assiociation who think because the ancient greeks used to educate their boys through having sex with men, as a part of a full education, that we should do that today

his arguments that we have tried the no gun laws experiment hundreds of years ago is justification that it will work is again like that of the man boy love association thinking that the ancient greeks live in the same context of america today

extremists like that group on the left are no different than a right wing extremist group like the nazis who thought they were doing the world a service by killing the jews, and in their process of going after the jews, they also killed many germans who disagreed with hitler, europeans, and not to mention the soliders who fought againt the regime...it put the whole world into a costly war

extremism on either pole historically ends up killing a lot of people and has no regard for human life or property and it is usually pointless to try and reason with such a person while they are in the grip of its beliefs...it takes professional help to deprogram an extremist of any kind and usually the extremist is not just a victimizer, but also a victim of some form of ritual abuse

how do you think most child molesters became that way? they are not born that way

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by manitoubalck
In Judge Dread there was a palm print recognition system on the guns. Just thought I'd throw that in.

Also Bowling for Colombine is a great movie about how Americans love to kill each other? Why they do? don't ask me, I live in australia where we don't have a cowboy running the country.

As you can see I finally read back to page one. ;)

Manitoubalk, BfC is as much a work of fiction as Judge Dread is. The fact that Moore can sell BfC as a documentary w/a straight face is completely amazing. Citing either movie in a discussion dealing w/reality is rather pointless.


Lethal

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
As you can see I finally read back to page one. ;)

Manitoubalk, BfC is as much a work of fiction as Judge Dread is. The fact that Moore can sell BfC as a documentary w/a straight face is completely amazing. Citing either movie in a discussion dealing w/reality is rather pointless.


Lethal

again micheal moore, much like rush limbaugh, tends to extremist viewpoints and reality is not something that gets in the way of their rants

i saw the first michael moore movie and he used a small sample set to try and get his point across using nike as a target right at the height of the worst press for that company from the media...he is a master comdedian and blends it well with emotionalism

rush limbaugh, on the other far pole, conveniently forgets history and facts and covers up his ignorance with a fined tuned sense of humor which really only shows he is a master entertainer instead of someone to be taken seriously

for politics, it's best to see what bush says, or daschle says, and others in power, and judge their words against their actions...always realizing that to get a fraction done what one said duing the election process may be considered success today in washington on your state's governor's mansion:p

[IJ Reilly]

I haven't read through this entire thread, but I think I get the drift, which is the usual drift for debates on this issue.

Regarding extremism, one thing I've notice pretty consistently in the rhetoric over gun control is the tendency for gun rights advocates to accuse gun control advocates of trying to "confiscate all of our guns" whenever any sort of regulation is proposed. Yet, I've never heard any gun control proponent make a case for the unilateral disarming of Americans.

The other position commonly articulated by the firearms camp is the absolutist reading of the Second Amendment. Yet, the NRA has never to my knowledge challenged a gun control regulation on the basis of the Second Amendment. This suggests to me that they know that particular dog won't hunt, but use it to rile up their membership just the same, because it works so well.

So yes, we fail to have an intelligent national debate on the particular form of violence related to firearms because the positions tend to be extreme. But if you ask me, the far more extreme positions are taken by the NRA and those in its membership who automatically accept whatever the organization tells them. IMO, we could have a much more useful discussion on this issue if the NRA would drop its ludicrous, absolutist Second Amendment argument and its position that every gun regulation sends us down a greased slope towards total weapons confiscation.

My feeling is, the American people are quite moderate and sensible on this issue, but their voice isn't making much impact on the the outcomes. I know why, and I think if we were to be honest with ourselves, we all do.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
Your argument would make sense, if people were rats. Some people may be despicable, but they are still not rats. I find it disturbing that you would kill humans as non-chanlantly as you would kill rats, no matter their crime.

A refusal to look at a situation from another's point of view is simply intellectual laziness. It also guarantees that you will never solve the problem underlying the symptom. Thus you perpetuate what you claim to be fighting against.

A word on Columbine. Harris and Klebold were disturbed, but I don't think they were evil. They were definitely desperate. No, they did not have to go into the school and blow away their classmates. But Columbine is actually the perfect example of why you should find out why a criminal makes the choices he does. You should do this in order to stop the crime before it happens. Killing them like rats would not have made the situation any better.

On Columbine and the availability of guns, if they had walked around pointing their fingers and saying "bang", the results would've been less dramatic.

"I see the good in people, but try to prepare for the worst."

I think if you feel the need to carry a gun around with you to defend yourself from those selfsame people, then you need to rethink that statement.

Oh... now I'm guilty of intellectual laziness because I refuse to look at the situation from another's point of view. How about the robber/rapist? I guess they are intellectually lazy too because they refuse to look at the situation from my point of view that I want both my property and my dignity.

You must be highly enlightened that you are not intellectually lazy. I guess the robber/rapist and I should acquiese to your enlightenment and submit ourselves to you. Is that what you are trying to convince me of?

Someone has already said about laws trying to mold behavior, we already have laws against murder and assault and robbery and a whole slew of other violent crimes. So now, we have to understand the Columbine killers (I'm not going to add to their notoriety by mentioning their despicable names) in order to figure out why they did it? Isn't it already enough that there are laws against the behavior, not to mention that the murder of innocents goes against every single belief of there?

You bet I would stop despicable people doing despicable deeds. If that means killing them, so be it. Until science invents the Star Trek hand phaser set on stun, the surest way to stop an attack is to kill the despicable attacker. It might be a wolf pack going on an attack, or it could be a group of thugs looking for easy money. You cannot reason your way out of an attack when animals are attacking.

Reason had already failed. Laws are part of reason, and only followed by reasonable men (and women). :D

The statement is accurate. I do not pretend to think that people are not capable of doing bad things. Part two of the statement is the insurance against bad people. I cannot subscribe to the belief that there are no bad people.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Well it's not mine. I thought you claimed to be a Christian, or are you renouncing your faith for debating points?

Another nice dodge on your part though. Kudos.

What dodge? It seems that you are not reading carefully... as evidenced by your comparison to the ACLU/recall election.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
he is dodging the issues which may have to make him look at anything which would make him perhaps have to agree with a point found in the middle or the other side

...snip...

how do you think most child molesters became that way? they are not born that way

Wow.

That is the longest winded ad hominem that I have ever read.

Nevertheless, you are reaching for your point on this one.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
So yes, we fail to have an intelligent national debate on the particular form of violence related to firearms because the positions tend to be extreme. But if you ask me, the far more extreme positions are taken by the NRA and those in its membership who automatically accept whatever the organization tells them. IMO, we could have a much more useful discussion on this issue if the NRA would drop its ludicrous, absolutist Second Amendment argument and its position that every gun regulation sends us down a greased slope towards total weapons confiscation.


You are correct in that the NRA has not argued against gun control/ban proposals on the basis of the individual 2nd Amendment rights reading. As you say, that dog don't hunt. This could be evidenced in the current Washington DC lawsuit by the NRA. (However, there is another Washington DC lawsuit by a couple of CATO institute folks that argues on 2nd Amendment basis.)

Scholars and historians have researched the 2nd Amendment and it does specify an individual right much the same as the same individual right spelled out in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments.

I pose to you this question.

If someone/anyone were to get a definitive SCOTUS case arguing that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right that government cannot infringe, how long do you think it would take before contributions to the NRA to stop coming in?

If someone/anyone were to get a definitive SCOTUS case arguing that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that government and states are free to begin confiscations, how long do you think it would take before contributions to the NRA to stop coming in?

(Contributions to the NRA-ILA.. which is the lobbying arm of the NRA. NRA proper will still receive contributions for gun safety, marksmanship programs, and competitions.)

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Oh... now I'm guilty of intellectual laziness because I refuse to look at the situation from another's point of view.
If you are more willing to kill a man than wonder why he does what he does, then yes, I'm accusing you of intellectual laziness.
I guess the robber/rapist and I should acquiese to your enlightenment and submit ourselves to you. Is that what you are trying to convince me of?
No, I am trying to convince you that guns are not the best way to solve a problem, that guns don't even address the underlying problem at hand.
So now, we have to understand the Columbine killers (I'm not going to add to their notoriety by mentioning their despicable names) in order to figure out why they did it?
Understanding Harris and Klebold will help us to prevent the same tragedy from occurring in the future. Shooting them on sight will not. They were obviously not afraid to die. Why would the next pair be? Talking them before they went off might have helped, though.

I *will* use their names, because they were human beings, and de-humanizing them by not naming them is akin to ignoring the problem. It's copping out. "Well, they were obviously monsters, there was nothing we could have done. It's good they're dead." ************. If they had been treated like human beings before they died they might have not taken 13 others with them.

You cannot reason your way out of an attack when animals are attacking.
This is true. However, humans are not animals. Humans who have been treated like animals, and who believe they are no better than animals may act like animals, though. And insofar as your statement goes, it works. But root cause goes deeper than the gun can solve. The gun is the solution that comes too late in the process. A better solution would be to prevent the circumstances that cause the crime to arise.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
You are correct in that the NRA has not argued against gun control/ban proposals on the basis of the individual 2nd Amendment rights reading. As you say, that dog don't hunt. This could be evidenced in the current Washington DC lawsuit by the NRA. (However, there is another Washington DC lawsuit by a couple of CATO institute folks that argues on 2nd Amendment basis.)

Scholars and historians have researched the 2nd Amendment and it does specify an individual right much the same as the same individual right spelled out in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments.

I pose to you this question.

If someone/anyone were to get a definitive SCOTUS case arguing that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right that government cannot infringe, how long do you think it would take before contributions to the NRA to stop coming in?

If someone/anyone were to get a definitive SCOTUS case arguing that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that government and states are free to begin confiscations, how long do you think it would take before contributions to the NRA to stop coming in?

(Contributions to the NRA-ILA.. which is the lobbying arm of the NRA. NRA proper will still receive contributions for gun safety, marksmanship programs, and competitions.)

My point being, the NRA uses the Second Amendment argument against all gun control measures insofar as their membership is concerned, but the membership doesn't seem to notice that the NRA doesn't legally challenge gun control measures on that basis. It's a duplicitous tactic at the very least, and even worse, it obfuscates the entire debate by forcing it into the phony context of the Second Amendment.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Wow.

That is the longest winded ad hominem that I have ever read.

Nevertheless, you are reaching for your point on this one.

and like usual, you don't read any opinions contrary to yours

if anything, being pro nra and pro right to bear arms, i am the only poster here who has any agreement with you, but you take everything as an attack and go on here like the dc sniper...do you wonder why everybody attacks your positions which is not a position but a blind faith in the belief of a gun instead of reason, human life, or honest debate

this is a short post, and try and dodge this one

my suggestion, use your personal belief instead of links or outdated quotes

what the heck do you believe?? on:

1) gun control
2) right to bear arms
3) god

or anything else people ask you about

everybody here is more than willing to see both sides of the issue and directly answer any questions

WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?

stop being the cop out king!!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
and like usual, you don't read any opinions contrary to yours

if anything, being pro nra and pro right to bear arms, i am the only poster here who has any agreement with you, but you take everything as an attack and go on here like the dc sniper...do you wonder why everybody attacks your positions which is not a position but a blind faith in the belief of a gun instead of reason, human life, or honest debate

this is a short post, and try and dodge this one

my suggestion, use your personal belief instead of links or outdated quotes

what the heck do you believe?? on:

1) gun control
2) right to bear arms
3) god

or anything else people ask you about

everybody here is more than willing to see both sides of the issue and directly answer any questions

WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?

stop being the cop out king!!

I read the posts. Whats more, I also try to read the intent of the poster.

What blind faith in the belief of the gun? All of my posts have well-reasoned arguments that no one else have torn down except with their emotional belief that taking the tools away from the people would make such incidences go away.

Belief can be correct if it makes you seek the facts. If a belief makes you blind to the facts around you, then it is wrong.

1) Gun Control. I believe that gun control is a bad idea. I believe that the only people that will obey gun control laws are the ones that are neither inclined to do others harm, or misuse them. Gun control, in essence, harms the law abiding, and makes it easier for the criminals to do their deed. This belief is borne out in reading history as well. Saturday Night Specials, the term, came from special deals on guns for repelling KKK lynchings that occur on Saturday nights.

2) Right to keep and bear arms. The right is part and parcel to the right to self defense, which is part and parcel to the right to life. Second Amendment on the Bill of Rights seeks to protect this right from government infringement.

3) God. God is dog spelled backwards. :p
I'm believe that its best to treat your neighbors as you would like to be treated. Golden rule. I do not seek to impose my beliefs in others, and I do not appreciate it when others seek to impose their beliefs on me.

This last one applies to a lot of things.

CCW.
SUVs.
Abortions.
Taxes.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey

2) Right to keep and bear arms. The right is part and parcel to the right to self defense, which is part and parcel to the right to life. Second Amendment on the Bill of Rights seeks to protect this right from government infringement.

I have already dispensed with this argument. It is bogus, and even the NRA knows it.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
and like usual, you don't read any opinions contrary to yours

stop being the cop out king!!

If I don't read any opinions contrary to mine, then I must not have posted anything more than an agreement to everyone's post.

If I don't read any opinions contrary to mine, then I must not have asked you for the url to the claim of 19 bank robberies in Texas immediately following the CCW issuance law.

[mactastic]

Blah blah blah.. further discussion here is pointless. See ya.

[Frohickey]

See ya.

Actually, the last two responses were the same ones that I have gotten when debating the same thing with MMMers that claim to have an open mind with regards to the topic of guns.