Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 8, 2013, 08:35 AM   #1
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly launch battle against gun lobby

I contributed.

http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org



Quote:
(CNN) -- Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly have launched what they hope will mark a new era in the battle over gun rights in America.

On the second anniversary of a mass shooting in Arizona that wounded Giffords and killed six others, the couple launched a political action committee, Americans for Responsible Solutions, along with a website calling for contributions to help "encourage elected officials to stand up for solutions to prevent gun violence and protect responsible gun ownership."

In an op-ed in USA Today, the two make their goal clear: to counter the influence of the gun lobby.
"Special interests purporting to represent gun owners but really advancing the interests of an ideological fringe have used big money and influence to cow Congress into submission," they write.

"Rather than working to find the balance between our rights and the regulation of a dangerous product, these groups have cast simple protections for our communities as existential threats to individual liberties. Rather than conducting a dialogue, they threaten those who divert from their orthodoxy with political extinction."

Emphasizing that they support the Second Amendment and own two guns themselves, Giffords and Kelly call for "laws to require responsible gun ownership and reduce gun violence."
Link
__________________
Try painting some happy trees with that big ass brush you paint with.
rdowns is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 08:44 AM   #2
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
I contributed.
I applauded.

Quote:
"encourage elected officials to stand up for solutions to prevent gun violence and protect responsible gun ownership."
Sounds like a reasonable direction to me.

The one thing I would add is that "responsible gun ownership" should not mean "unlimited gun ownership".

We need to set firm and significant limits on what firearms people can own.
citizenzen is online now   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 09:03 AM   #3
Beeplance
macrumors 65816
 
Beeplance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Singapore
Hope America gets together and have some reasonable gun controls on step at a time to prevent any more deaths in the future.
Beeplance is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 09:43 AM   #4
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
...We need to set firm and significant limits on what firearms people can own.
Any personal opinions on what firearms people shouldn't be able to own? Please be specific if you do.
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 09:50 AM   #5
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
Any personal opinions on what firearms people shouldn't be able to own? Please be specific if you do.
I think any firearm that shoots more than 45 feet or so should be banned. Any firearm that doesn't record who shot it with some level of biometric accuracy should be banned. Any firearm that doesn't imprint the projectile with an identifying mark of some sort should be banned. Any firearm that isn't one of the ones I own should be banned.
mcrain is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 09:51 AM   #6
MacNut
macrumors P6
 
MacNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
Any personal opinions on what firearms people shouldn't be able to own? Please be specific if you do.
I would say any gun that can kill 30 people in 5 seconds.
__________________
The thoughts in my head are rated TV-MA. Viewer discretion is advised.
Now batting, Number 2 Derek Jeter, Number 2
MacNut is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 09:54 AM   #7
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
I would say any gun that can kill 30 people in 5 seconds.
Do you know of any firearms which are capable of this feat? ... And that are legal for private citizens to own now?
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 10:02 AM   #8
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
I would say any gun that can kill 30 people in 5 seconds.
Here's the problem...that depends entirely on the user. This is why the people aspect is more important than the mechanical one IMO. How can we prevent people from getting their hands on tools that in their hands will be used to harm other law-abiding individuals?

As of today, the firearms that could theoretically do this are banned from civilian ownership, but my point is that like any other tool, the potential capability of the tool depends upon the user's competency. Therefore, it makes this a more difficult issue.
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 10:05 AM   #9
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
Any personal opinions on what firearms people shouldn't be able to own? Please be specific if you do.
Let's start with no magazines [loading capacity] for handguns or rifles above 6 bullets.

I'll give you six because of the historical precedence of the revolver.
citizenzen is online now   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 10:09 AM   #10
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Let's start with no magazines [loading capacity] for handguns or rifles above 6 bullets.

I'll give you six because of the historical precedence of the revolver.
You are talking about limiting magazine capacity. So does that mean you have no issues with any specific firearm?
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 10:37 AM   #11
miloblithe
macrumors 68020
 
miloblithe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
You are talking about limiting magazine capacity. So does that mean you have no issues with any specific firearm?
NHM 91
VEPR
MAK90
HK-94
Bushmaster XM15
TEC-DC9
Calico M-110
miloblithe is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 10:47 AM   #12
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
You are talking about limiting magazine capacity. So does that mean you have no issues with any specific firearm?
I'm concerned with the capability and performance of the gun and not the type of gun in particular.

If I misled you by the imprecise wording of my previous post, than I apologize.

Regulate the capability of the gun.

That would be my goal.
citizenzen is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 10:50 AM   #13
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
I would say any gun suitable for a well regulated militia circa 1776 should be allowed, and anything more powerful or smaller, more easily concealable, should be banned. In other words, black powder long rifles and a few single shot pistols and nothing else.
mcrain is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 10:51 AM   #14
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by miloblithe View Post
NHM 91
VEPR
MAK90
HK-94
Bushmaster XM15
TEC-DC9
Calico M-110
Full auto versions of any of these are already illegal for private ownership except when owned by those already heavily vetted by state and Federal authorities and closely monitored by BATF.

Could you tell me what it is (functionally) about semi-auto versions of any of these (I don't think the VEPR is available in semi-auto configuration) with which you have an issue? If it is just high capacity magazines, then your issue, like citizenzen, is with the magazine capacity, rather than the firearm itself.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
I'm concerned with the capability and performance of the gun and not the type of gun in particular.

If I misled you by the imprecise wording of my previous post, than I apologize.

Regulate the capability of the gun.

That would be my goal.
What specific capability are you referring to? Specific?
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 11:09 AM   #15
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
What specific capability are you referring to? Specific?
Any gun that is not black powder, single shot, or has a range in excess of 100 meters should be banned. Any gun that may be concealed should be banned.

(edit) I hope you know that I'm a gun owner who wants to continue to be such, but if the choice is between the lives of children and my right to shoot paper targets, I'm going to insist on some regulation, even if it is too much. I would prefer no guns at all to losing my son.
mcrain is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 11:15 AM   #16
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
Any gun that is not black powder, single shot, or has a range in excess of 100 meters should be banned. Any gun that may be concealed should be banned.

(edit) I hope you know that I'm a gun owner who wants to continue to be such, but if the choice is between the lives of children and my right to shoot paper targets, I'm going to insist on some regulation, even if it is too much. I would prefer no guns at all to losing my son.
I share your desire to preserve life. And I've shot at least a hundred thousand rounds worth of paper, trees, old cars, and various inanimate objects. But I disagree that this is the way it will happen.
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 11:18 AM   #17
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
But I disagree that this is the way it will happen.
Well, until the NRA and those who advocate for 2nd amendment rights decide to become meaningful participants in the debate, and provide workable solutions that they would support, it sounds like the best way.
mcrain is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 11:29 AM   #18
elistan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver/Boulder, CO
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
Any personal opinions on what firearms people shouldn't be able to own? Please be specific if you do.
Here are some thoughts.

1) For hunting: Allow bolt action, no-magazine rifles and breech load shotguns. Stored at home, transported in a locked case, or active hunting use only. (Ie, you can't carry your hunting rifle to the movies.)
2) For personal defense: Allow non-lethal weapons only. Chemical spray, taser, etc.
3) For 2nd Amendment protection against tyrany: Allow military rifles for members of official state-level regulated militias. Millitia must include combat drills, firearm and hand-to-hand training, yadda yadda, similar to the Switzerland model where people are allowed to take their military rifle home with them and such.
4) For law enforcement: Allow police to carry whatever weapon they are issued, regardless of location as long as they are withing their jurisdiction.
5) For recreation: Allow AR-15 style semi-automatic sporting rifles at licensed ranges. Perhaps even allow most kinds of fireams, period, including full machine guns? No transportation outside of those ranges. All rounds to be accounted for by the range.

Just brainstorming. Rubbish? Brilliant? A start that's somewhere in between? I'm not saying the above will solve all our issues, as seen by either side.
elistan is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 11:31 AM   #19
Iscariot
macrumors 68030
 
Iscariot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronteazy
I don't know enough about firearms to suggest that I know what should and shouldn't be regulated or restricted. Perhaps limiting magazine size, perhaps limiting access to ammunition outside of ranges, perhaps limits based on muzzle velocity. I can't make an honest proposal here, other than to suggest that the answer isn't the status quo.

However, given that it's now 2013 and we have access to an amazing amount of data and information, I'm sure that a properly funded study could look at a huge number of factors and draw some reasonable conclusions. I also think that limiting and countering the influence of the NRA would be a fantastic way of helping to make that kind of information stick.
__________________
Don't feed the you-know-what.
Iscariot is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 11:36 AM   #20
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by elistan View Post
Here are some thoughts.

1) For hunting: Allow bolt action, no-magazine rifles and breech load shotguns. Stored at home, transported in a locked case, or active hunting use only. (Ie, you can't carry your hunting rifle to the movies.)
2) For personal defense: Allow non-lethal weapons only. Chemical spray, taser, etc.
3) For 2nd Amendment protection against tyrany: Allow military rifles for members of official state-level regulated militias. Millitia must include combat drills, firearm and hand-to-hand training, yadda yadda, similar to the Switzerland model where people are allowed to take their military rifle home with them and such.
4) For law enforcement: Allow police to carry whatever weapon they are issued, regardless of location as long as they are withing their jurisdiction.
5) For recreation: Allow AR-15 style semi-automatic sporting rifles at licensed ranges. Perhaps even allow most kinds of fireams, period, including full machine guns? No transportation outside of those ranges. All rounds to be accounted for by the range.

Just brainstorming. Rubbish? Brilliant? A start that's somewhere in between? I'm not saying the above will solve all our issues, as seen by either side.
Well, I certainly wouldn't argue with your opinion, as we all are entitled to that which we believe. In addition, I am very much in favor of serious dialogue concerning the regulation and control over who should be granted access to firearms.

However, I personally disagree with most of your points above. As a serious and responsible firearm owner for 40+ years, I don't believe we need any further regulation on the tools. It is the tool wielders I have concern with.
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 11:39 AM   #21
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
Well, until the NRA and those who advocate for 2nd amendment rights decide to become meaningful participants in the debate, and provide workable solutions that they would support, it sounds like the best way.
I don't think it is. And it surely is not practical because of existing guns on the market. Doing so would make a massive black market. I agree with you that I would like to see the NRA take meaningful action to both address the issue at hand and help preserve ownership rights.

But I do not think restricting the objects is going to work in this situation, partly because of the above. Changing people or mandating that people abide by laws though, is IMO the way to go.

How many dead people would not be dead if, 1) firearms were properly stored, and 2) anyone handling a firearm have proficiency in firearm safety? Quite a lot I dare say.

Someone suggested that if one uses a firearm to commit a crime, a stupidly high sentence be mandatory. I like that idea. Let's work to deter crime, and especially crime with a firearm. Let's say 35 to life for any usage of a firearm in a crime not involving serious injury or death. No parole, no release, nothing. 35 years is 35 years. Then let's say life in prison or the death penalty for anyone who injures or kills someone with a firearm in a crime. That's a start.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
Well, I certainly wouldn't argue with your opinion, as we all are entitled to that which we believe. In addition, I am very much in favor of serious dialogue concerning the regulation and control over who should be granted access to firearms.

However, I personally disagree with most of your points above. As a serious and responsible firearm owner for 40+ years, I don't believe we need any further regulation on the tools. It is the tool wielders I have concern with.
Agreed. We control people. Not objects. We can also hold people responsable for controlling their objects, and accountable when they fail to control their own objects. And of course, that means in terms of law, we give people damned good reason to control their objects and deter them from failing to do so.
NickZac is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 11:42 AM   #22
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
I don't think it is. And it surely is not practical because of existing guns on the market. Doing so would make a massive black market. I agree with you that I would like to see the NRA take meaningful action to both address the issue at hand and help preserve ownership rights.

But I do not think restricting the objects is going to work in this situation, partly because of the above. Changing people or mandating that people abide by laws though, is IMO the way to go.

How many dead people would not be dead if, 1) firearms were properly stored, and 2) anyone handling a firearm have proficiency in firearm safety? Quite a lot I dare say.

Someone suggested that if one uses a firearm to commit a crime, a stupidly high sentence be mandatory. I like that idea. Let's work to deter crime, and especially crime with a firearm. Let's say 35 to life for any usage of a firearm in a crime not involving serious injury or death. No parole, no release, nothing. 35 years is 35 years. Then let's say life in prison or the death penalty for anyone who injures or kills someone with a firearm in a crime. That's a start.

----------



Agreed. We control people. Not objects. We can also hold people responsable for controlling their objects, and accountable when they fail to control their own objects. And of course, that means in terms of law, we give people damned good reason to control their objects and deter them from failing to do so.
I agree with pretty much everything you have been saying in the assorted firearm threads. Those of us who are serious and responsible in dealing with firearms ownership are very much aware that it is the people, not the guns, which are at the root of the problems.

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

I posted my reply before the rest of yours. Bottom line obviously, is agreement.
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 11:42 AM   #23
skunk
macrumors Demi-God
 
skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Republic of Ukistan
Phasers set to "Stun".
skunk is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 11:59 AM   #24
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
I agree with pretty much everything you have been saying in the assorted firearm threads. Those of us who are serious and responsible in dealing with firearms ownership are very much aware that it is the people, not the guns, which are at the root of the problems.

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

I posted my reply before the rest of yours. Bottom line obviously, is agreement.
We've been on agreement on 99+% of this. It's uplifting to see gun owners like yourself who are committed to allowing law-abiding citizens to own the guns they want, but simultaneously demanding accountability in both law and the actions of gun owners. The decades of ownership that you and many other owners have had without any incident show it is not the objects that are the root of the problem.

The bottom line IMO is that gun control is a ridiculous concept if you think about it...we are controlling objects (kind of like how managed care actually manages you). This worked great for alcohol and is doing a damned good job with drugs. All of the drug deaths that the war on drugs has prevented...wait... The black market of each speaks first hand to this. Law and order has been established by controlling people and more specifically controlling the actions of people, usually through deterrence and sometimes through rewarding.

Banning an AR15 (or any particular firearm) has no effect on a criminal's thought pattern whatsoever. Banning an AR15 has no effect on how an owner may choose to store their gun. Banning an AR15 has no effect on how a gun owner may sell a firearm on the secondary market. Banning an AR15 has no effect on the safety training individuals seek or safe handling practices. Banning an AR15 has no effect on teaching an owner what is and is not justifiable self defense, or how to work to avoid using a firearm in such a situation. So if we expect a criminal to not commit a crime, a gun owner to store their firearm responsibly, or safe handling practices to increase through our control an object or multiple objects, it's faulty reasoning IMO.

Let's control the actions of people that have equated to firearm deaths that are preventable.
NickZac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 12:17 PM   #25
likemyorbs
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
Send a message via AIM to likemyorbs
Unfortunately my small, liberal democrat controlled town of Marlboro, NJ has become the first town in the US to have an armed officer in every school. Had to go to my old high school the other day to pick up my immunization history, was kind of weird.
likemyorbs is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anti-gun/violence activist caught with gun in a school lostngone Politics, Religion, Social Issues 16 Feb 12, 2014 12:32 AM
Mark Kelly not getting his AR-15 duneriderltr450 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 54 Mar 28, 2013 03:58 PM
Mark Kelly: Hypocrite or Felon? r.j.s Politics, Religion, Social Issues 65 Mar 12, 2013 03:51 PM
The Connecticut Gun Lobby MacNut Politics, Religion, Social Issues 3 Dec 23, 2012 11:04 PM
Loughner wants to plead guilty to Giffords shooting Thomas Veil Politics, Religion, Social Issues 20 Aug 8, 2012 09:06 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:08 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC