|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 22, 2015 14:26:28 GMT -5
Damn. If France only had reasonable gun control this would not have happened, right?
Gun-related death rate per 100,000 persons (link):
US - 10.64
France - 3.01
If only the US had France's gun laws think how many more Americans would be alive!
|
|
|
Post by jollyroger on Aug 22, 2015 16:11:04 GMT -5
Damn. If France only had reasonable gun control this would not have happened, right?
Gun-related death rate per 100,000 persons (link):
US - 10.64
France - 3.01
If only the US had France's gun laws think how many more Americans would be alive!
And those numbers are even more jaw-dropping when you consider the hardcore gang culture in France is way more violent and brutal than the culture in Chicago, East St. Louis, and South Central Los Angeles. Bonjour!
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 22, 2015 18:16:58 GMT -5
And those numbers are even more jaw-dropping when you consider the hardcore gang culture in France is way more violent and brutal than the culture in Chicago, East St. Louis, and South Central Los Angeles. Bonjour!
I wonder how long the average Crips or Bloods member would last in Marseilles, lol.
|
|
|
Post by jollyroger on Aug 22, 2015 21:48:30 GMT -5
And those numbers are even more jaw-dropping when you consider the hardcore gang culture in France is way more violent and brutal than the culture in Chicago, East St. Louis, and South Central Los Angeles. Bonjour!
I wonder how long the average Crips or Bloods member would last in Marseilles, lol.
I'm sure they would love it there and blend in really well. Comparing France to the U.S. in subjects like these is like comparing apples to hand grenedes socially, demographically, culturally. Maybe we should compare Chicago to Houston, similarly sized cities with vastly different gun laws.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 22, 2015 23:29:52 GMT -5
I'm sure they would love it there and blend in really well. Comparing France to the U.S. in subjects like these is like comparing apples to hand grenedes socially, demographically, culturally. Maybe we should compare Chicago to Houston, similarly sized cities with vastly different gun laws.
Gosh, I wonder where you found those data, because you didn't bother to source those tables. I'm pretty sure they're not from the CDC or the FBI because I checked. The FBI counted 500 homicides in Chicago in 2012 (not all by guns), less than 1/3 of the 1,806 your table shows. Better check your sources; I'm pretty sure that 1,806 is the number of people shot, including murder, manslaughter, suicide, and (the biggest category) injury.
And 2012 was an unusually bad year in Chicago. In 2010 the entire state of Illinois had 364 gun murders (2.8 per 100,000), compared with 805 in Texas (3.2 per 100,000). The data are sourced to the Census Bureau. link
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 23, 2015 13:45:38 GMT -5
There are some valuable lessons to be learned from this incident. Most importantly, all three of those Americans are trained to deal with emergencies: two in the military, one as a paramedic. And they managed to take down a man armed with a handgun, an assault rifle, and a box cutter without using any weapons but their bodies. No one else on the train was injured, apparently.
Contrast this with the NRA's solution to such situations: untrained but well-armed passersby pulling out weapons and firing in a crowded passenger train. It shows the Founders' wisdom in prefacing the Second Amendment with "A well-regulated Militia" and the foolishness of Antonin Scalia's legislating from the bench in Heller, ignoring the clear meaning of those words.
|
|
|
Post by Jon on Aug 23, 2015 20:33:33 GMT -5
What incredible, partisan, stupid Bullshit about the NRA being responsible!!! Nobody who even marginally understood firearms could be so stupid. Just look at the data, if you are totally incapable of understanding reason and logic--apparently you are--Jesus H Christ. Are you so totally immune to reality you just can't understand that people intent on criminality regardless of law will not be limited by law. Duh? ?? Sorry OB---I respect your views on some things but on this you are simply very, very stupid. You really need to try to establish some contact with the real America. Start by doing some open-minded reading on the American revolution and the context/logic in which the 2nd amendment was embedded in our national culture. You might be amazed. You might also try---since you so often pontificate on firearms--- to gain at least some basic understanding of their history and function. Hard for a leftist to understand, I'm sure, but your deficiencies there are so striking as to make your pontifications absurd.
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Aug 23, 2015 21:57:52 GMT -5
I wonder how long the average Crips or Bloods member would last in Marseilles, lol.
I'm sure they would love it there and blend in really well. Comparing France to the U.S. in subjects like these is like comparing apples to hand grenedes socially, demographically, culturally. Maybe we should compare Chicago to Houston, similarly sized cities with vastly different gun laws. This idiotic attempt at humor(?) is very fast and loose with the facts. First off, Chicago's gun laws are very lax once you get out into the suburbs. If you live in the city and want a gun you drive an hour and get one. Secondly, the numbers are just plain wrong. Chicago had 500 murders in 2012. Where in the hell do they get 1806? So basically this is moronic attempt at correlating strict gun controls with increased murders. It is stupid and wrong and you are stupid for not fact checking and forwarding it along as if it were fact.
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Aug 23, 2015 21:59:04 GMT -5
I don't believe increased gun controls will necessarily decrease crime, but neither will arming every single citizen with a firearm.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 23, 2015 22:33:14 GMT -5
Just look at the data, if you are totally incapable of understanding reason and logic--apparently you are--Jesus H Christ. Are you so totally immune to reality you just can't understand that people intent on criminality regardless of law will not be limited by law.
It's amazing, jon, but every time I present actual data showing that flooding the market with guns results in more gun deaths (duh!), you come along with an emotional response that ignores all data completely. Yes, people intent on criminality will commit crimes. But in most countries, they're not armed, so they don't kill as many people as American criminals do. Let me add that people intent on committing suicide will try; but if they don't have access to guns, their success rate drops precipitously. And people who are accident-prone are going to have accidents; but without guns those accidents are far less likely to result in dead bodies.
Let's fact it, jon: the data and logic are on one side, you are on the other. Long-term, my side will win, which is why you go into panic mode on this subject. I understand, really I do. But I am serene in the knowledge that in the end smart beats stupid, and arming as many people as possible is just plain stupid.
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Aug 23, 2015 22:47:01 GMT -5
Just look at the data, if you are totally incapable of understanding reason and logic--apparently you are--Jesus H Christ. Are you so totally immune to reality you just can't understand that people intent on criminality regardless of law will not be limited by law.
It's amazing, jon, but every time I present actual data showing that flooding the market with guns results in more gun deaths (duh!), you come along with an emotional response that ignores all data completely. Yes, people intent on criminality will commit crimes. But in most countries, they're not armed, so they don't kill as many people as American criminals do. Let me add that people intent on committing suicide will try; but if they don't have access to guns, their success rate drops precipitously. And people who are accident-prone are going to have accidents; but without guns those accidents are far less likely to result in dead bodies.
Let's fact it, jon: the data and logic are on one side, you are on the other. Long-term, my side will win, which is why you go into panic mode on this subject. I understand, really I do. But I am serene in the knowledge that in the end smart beats stupid, and arming as many people as possible is just plain stupid.
I have to agree on this. Just out of curiosity what will winning look like?
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 23, 2015 23:06:09 GMT -5
I have to agree on this. Just out of curiosity what will winning look like?
I've posted this before, but your question is a timely reminder to post it again:
1 - Require that gun owners be licensed for the specific types of weapons they own (as we do with car, semi-trailer, bus, and motorcycle licenses). As a side benefit, armed criminals who don't have licenses can be locked up on gun possession charges, at least getting them off the streets until evidence of more serious crimes can be developed. We used to do that at one time.
2 - Make licensing contingent on passing a skills and safety test, again as with cars. This would encourage more people to get training in how to use and store their weapons while minimizing dangers to those around them. Accidental deaths from guns are more numerous than intentional murders, and usually result from poor handling, generally because people don't know how to use them safely. 3 - Require gun owners to carry insurance that specifically covers deaths and injuries from use of their guns. Many already are covered through homeowners insurance, I understand, but let's make sure there aren't uninsured or poorly-insured owners. A major benefit of requiring insurance is that the insurers have a strong incentive to encourage safe handling of weapons by their insured patrons. Just look at car insurance ads to see this at work.
4 - Extend background check requirements to all gun sales (i.e., close the "gun show" and “private sale” loopholes, which we know are conduits for guns to criminals and crazies), and make sure that they are enforceable on all sales. When NYC cops traced a high percentage of guns used in crimes there to purchases made at four gun shops here in VA, they sent undercover cops to investigate. The cops had no trouble making straw purchases or otherwise evading existing law. In response, the VA A-G at the time didn't investigate those shops; instead, he threatened to arrest any NYC cops who carried out further investigations. That’s just wrong.
5 - Require manufacturers to adopt modern safety features that make it harder for thieves to use stolen guns or children to fire their parents' weapons. Cars have become incredibly safer because of laws requiring manufacturers to install safety features, with the result that the highway death toll has plummeted over the past few decades, and recently has (or soon will) drop below that for guns. It's an amazing success story, and there's no reason not to apply the lessons from it to guns, which (unlike cars) actually are lethal by design. Modern technology has made safer handling quite practical, so there's really no good reason not to adopt it. However, the NRA has organized boycotts of two stores that tried to offer such safe guns, alas.
6 - Get military weapons that can fire huge numbers of bullets in seconds out of the flow of civilian commerce. We're practically the only developed country that allows most people to buy such weapons. Let's follow Australia's lead on this as a matter of common sense. We don't allow bazookas, tanks, or ICBM's to be bought and sold on the open market, and somehow I don't think we're less free as a result. If some people just have to have the thrill of firing such a weapon, then let's allow specially-licensed shooting range operators to own a small number that can be fired at regulated ranges. Of course, they'd be taking a risk, like those parents who had their 8 year-old girl try one, resulting in a dead instructor and one girl traumatized for life, but at least the rest of us wouldn't be forced to share that risk.
7 - Strengthen record-keeping requirements on manufacturers and dealers so that police can trace guns and ammunition used in crimes back to their origin, to the extent possible. There is no reason to hinder such investigations, except to protect criminals and the unscrupulous from discovery. We do this with cars, prescription drugs, and a host of other products that may cause death and injury as a byproduct of their use; why should we exempt products that are designed to be lethal, even if they're not usually used to kill people? It makes no sense.
8 - End the effective ban on federally-funded research into the role of guns in deaths and injuries. This is a public health issue. Imagine banning federal research into the role of sewerage system problems in disseminating disease, or design problems with ladders that contribute to injuries. Even the tobacco companies didn't manage to kill federal research into the health impacts of smoking. There is no justification for this intentional blindness on guns, except the commercial interests of manufacturers and dealers.
9 - Offer a government buyback of firearms. In Australia this resulted in a huge reduction in suicide rates, and suicide is a major danger faced by those with guns in the home.
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Aug 24, 2015 7:24:52 GMT -5
I have to agree on this. Just out of curiosity what will winning look like?
I've posted this before, but your question is a timely reminder to post it again:
1 - Require that gun owners be licensed for the specific types of weapons they own (as we do with car, semi-trailer, bus, and motorcycle licenses). As a side benefit, armed criminals who don't have licenses can be locked up on gun possession charges, at least getting them off the streets until evidence of more serious crimes can be developed. We used to do that at one time.
2 - Make licensing contingent on passing a skills and safety test, again as with cars. This would encourage more people to get training in how to use and store their weapons while minimizing dangers to those around them. Accidental deaths from guns are more numerous than intentional murders, and usually result from poor handling, generally because people don't know how to use them safely. 3 - Require gun owners to carry insurance that specifically covers deaths and injuries from use of their guns. Many already are covered through homeowners insurance, I understand, but let's make sure there aren't uninsured or poorly-insured owners. A major benefit of requiring insurance is that the insurers have a strong incentive to encourage safe handling of weapons by their insured patrons. Just look at car insurance ads to see this at work.
4 - Extend background check requirements to all gun sales (i.e., close the "gun show" and “private sale” loopholes, which we know are conduits for guns to criminals and crazies), and make sure that they are enforceable on all sales. When NYC cops traced a high percentage of guns used in crimes there to purchases made at four gun shops here in VA, they sent undercover cops to investigate. The cops had no trouble making straw purchases or otherwise evading existing law. In response, the VA A-G at the time didn't investigate those shops; instead, he threatened to arrest any NYC cops who carried out further investigations. That’s just wrong.
5 - Require manufacturers to adopt modern safety features that make it harder for thieves to use stolen guns or children to fire their parents' weapons. Cars have become incredibly safer because of laws requiring manufacturers to install safety features, with the result that the highway death toll has plummeted over the past few decades, and recently has (or soon will) drop below that for guns. It's an amazing success story, and there's no reason not to apply the lessons from it to guns, which (unlike cars) actually are lethal by design. Modern technology has made safer handling quite practical, so there's really no good reason not to adopt it. However, the NRA has organized boycotts of two stores that tried to offer such safe guns, alas.
6 - Get military weapons that can fire huge numbers of bullets in seconds out of the flow of civilian commerce. We're practically the only developed country that allows most people to buy such weapons. Let's follow Australia's lead on this as a matter of common sense. We don't allow bazookas, tanks, or ICBM's to be bought and sold on the open market, and somehow I don't think we're less free as a result. If some people just have to have the thrill of firing such a weapon, then let's allow specially-licensed shooting range operators to own a small number that can be fired at regulated ranges. Of course, they'd be taking a risk, like those parents who had their 8 year-old girl try one, resulting in a dead instructor and one girl traumatized for life, but at least the rest of us wouldn't be forced to share that risk.
7 - Strengthen record-keeping requirements on manufacturers and dealers so that police can trace guns and ammunition used in crimes back to their origin, to the extent possible. There is no reason to hinder such investigations, except to protect criminals and the unscrupulous from discovery. We do this with cars, prescription drugs, and a host of other products that may cause death and injury as a byproduct of their use; why should we exempt products that are designed to be lethal, even if they're not usually used to kill people? It makes no sense.
8 - End the effective ban on federally-funded research into the role of guns in deaths and injuries. This is a public health issue. Imagine banning federal research into the role of sewerage system problems in disseminating disease, or design problems with ladders that contribute to injuries. Even the tobacco companies didn't manage to kill federal research into the health impacts of smoking. There is no justification for this intentional blindness on guns, except the commercial interests of manufacturers and dealers.
9 - Offer a government buyback of firearms. In Australia this resulted in a huge reduction in suicide rates, and suicide is a major danger faced by those with guns in the home.
That all makes a lot of sense to me and I think it would be a great thing. The only other thing I might add is stiff penalties for being in possession of a gun illegally - I think that should be an automatic prison sentence. And any undocumented person caught with a gun is automatically deported. This may seem drastic but I think once people realize there are severe consequences they will think twice.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 24, 2015 8:32:38 GMT -5
Sorry OB---I respect your views on some things but on this you are simply very, very stupid. You really need to try to establish some contact with the real America. Start by doing some open-minded reading on the American revolution and the context/logic in which the 2nd amendment was embedded in our national culture. You might be amazed.
I realize that I did not respond directly to this point. And I know that somewhere (well, in more than one place) you've referred to the idea that the Second Amendment promotes owning firearms as a way of protecting against an oppresive government. I assume this is the allusion you are making here. But, frankly, this is not a persuasive argument, except perhaps to the anti-government militias "training" in the Appalachians, Ozarks, and Northern Rockies. After nearly 240 years as a functioning representative democracy, the US doesn't need to arm people to fight the government; this isn't North Korea, after all. And the costs in human lives lost and destroyed just to placate those who can't tell the difference is much too high for a civilized society to accept.
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Aug 25, 2015 7:17:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Aug 25, 2015 8:39:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Aug 26, 2015 9:55:03 GMT -5
Disgruntled station employee shoots cameraman and news woman live on the air.
Can't do anything about it I suppose. Just let people keep dying is the best solution.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 28, 2015 22:35:02 GMT -5
Disgruntled station employee shoots cameraman and news woman live on the air. Can't do anything about it I suppose. Just let people keep dying is the best solution.
Yep. Here we go again. Politicians will week crocodile tears. but again will sell out to the NRA and/or cower in fear of people like jon, who just might vote against them for doing the right thing. The NRA will hold its fire for a couple of days, then come out guns blazing to tell us that if we can't take 30,000+ gun deaths--and many times that injuries--per year we just don't understand what it means to be "free" Americans. The media will give killers everywhere an incentive to achieve their 15 minutes of fame, and then bewail our obsession with guns and killers. And at the end of the day we'll still be slogging along counting the bodies.
Fortunately, we eventually will reach the tipping point. As we've seen with so many issues, when the public finally tires of the dead bodies piling up we'll see change, just as we did with same-sex marriage and the Confederate battle flag. The status quo is not sustainable, so it won't be sustained.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Sept 4, 2015 23:47:37 GMT -5
Sometimes, it just gets beyond ludicrous:
"Handheld flamethrowers, of all things, have emerged as a hot topic in Warren [MI]. The debate is being fueled by a proposed citywide ban requested by Mayor Jim Fouts, and the developer’s assertion that the public’s right to own a device capable of shooting liquid fire up to 25 feet — for fun, to control weeds or to melt snow and ice — should be protected." link
Seriously, a "right" to own flamethrowers? So says the guy who's developed what appears to be the first commercially-available model: “My company puts money into many Warren businesses and those across the country We are against a complete prohibition on possession/storage as it would force operations to move elsewhere.” Preferably, to nowhere. But it seems that there's no law against owning one in most states, probably because Congress, state legislatures, and local councils never imagined someone would develop flamethrowers as a consumer product. The Geneva Convention bans their use in populated areas, but then that only applies to signatory states, not whack-o weapon fetishists.
Which raises the question, why did this guy invent it? “I’ve always been fascinated with the stunning visuals produced by a huge plume of fire coming out the end of a flamethrower. Who wouldn’t want one?” It's practical...and fun for the pyromaniac in all of us:
What practical uses do flamethrowers have? ◦clearing snow/ice ◦eliminating weeds between pavement cracks ◦controlled burns/ground-clearing of foliage/agricultural ◦insect control ◦pyrotechnic event displays ◦bonfire starting ◦a fun device to enjoy with friends
Yes, a fun device that throws 1000-degree gasoline flames up to 25 feet (future models will shoot even further, enhancing the fun)! Think of all the fun you and your friends can have frying your neighbors, burning down their houses, or just roasting marshmallows! OK, there are some possible downsides: “I think a drug dealer in possession of a flamethrower could impose all kinds of terror on people who don’t pay up to him. What about terrorists? What about the guy at Sandy Hook? What if he showed up at a school with a flamethrower?" But if you ban them, you don't get to dress up like Darth Vader and do fun stuff:
|
|
munertl
State Legislator
Posts: 261
|
Post by munertl on Sept 6, 2015 8:04:28 GMT -5
It is obvious that our country has a severe gun (owner) problem. Too many of them should not own guns in the first place, many more do not store and handle them safely, and the end result is way too many gun deaths compared to other civilized nations.
i would be in favor of tighter gun laws but unfortunately there is not the political will to do much, if anything on that front. At best, we may get a slight expansion of background checks but even if we do, democrats would pay a heavy political price for doing anything.
honestly the best hope would be 1 of 2 things: 1) treat the issue similar to cigarettes, a serious health issue which has been dealt with by educating and taxing to make the product unaffordable. I'm sure a tax system could be less severe depending on how sophisticated the weapon is, so that simpler hunting rifles and shotguns aren't hit quite as hard. 2) treat the issue like automobiles in which you are required to carry insurance and actuaries can determine by the weapons you insure and own, what your risk is for accidental or intentional killings - and if you have extra certifications and training it could help discount your rate.
of course either of those would cause the right wings' heads to explode, but they would also be totally legal and constitutional. If we are really going to go after the problem, we need to go big instead of just trying baby steps that just fuel the gun lobby further.
About the the only other thing that could potentially help is to create a rival organization to the NRA that does what they should be doing, and effectively just replaces them without being beholden to gun and ammunition manufacturers.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Sept 6, 2015 10:10:57 GMT -5
About the the only other thing that could potentially help is to create a rival organization to the NRA that does what they should be doing, and effectively just replaces them without being beholden to gun and ammunition manufacturers.
Sadly, until the manufacturers and dealers financed a takeover of the NRA in 1979, it really was devoted to gun safety. Now it's just a puppet for profiteers of death and mayhem.
|
|
munertl
State Legislator
Posts: 261
|
Post by munertl on Sept 6, 2015 10:42:02 GMT -5
Sorry OB---I respect your views on some things but on this you are simply very, very stupid. You really need to try to establish some contact with the real America. Start by doing some open-minded reading on the American revolution and the context/logic in which the 2nd amendment was embedded in our national culture. You might be amazed.
I realize that I did not respond directly to this point. And I know that somewhere (well, in more than one place) you've referred to the idea that the Second Amendment promotes owning firearms as a way of protecting against an oppresive government. I assume this is the allusion you are making here. But, frankly, this is not a persuasive argument, except perhaps to the anti-government militias "training" in the Appalachians, Ozarks, and Northern Rockies. After nearly 240 years as a functioning representative democracy, the US doesn't need to arm people to fight the government; this isn't North Korea, after all. And the costs in human lives lost and destroyed just to placate those who can't tell the difference is much too high for a civilized society to accept.
I think the far right has an extremely twisted view of the 2nd amendment, and because it is so poorly written I think it should be repealed or replaced with something that has clearer definition. In in today's world the premise that a group of people with rifles could take down our federal government is completely insane. Whenever I challenge someone on this, I like to try and get an idea of how something like this would go down. After all, we have the secret service, the pentagon, all the branches of the military who are sworn to follow the orders of the commander in chief. If if hypothetically a group was to taken down the federal government, I would imagine they would need to be armed with weapons far beyond guns, most likely rockets, tanks, nuclear weapons and other explosives. So if one believes in that purpose for the 2nd amendment, it would seem those folks would be in favor of average citizens gaining rights to those items. Of of course since we have an established government with elections every 2 years for congress and 4 years for a president, one would think that a better first step would be to win an election instead of brining your rifles to try and kill members of the federal government with whom you disagree. most often when you encounter people like that, it's very evident they haven't thought very deeply on the subject.
|
|
munertl
State Legislator
Posts: 261
|
Post by munertl on Sept 6, 2015 10:45:39 GMT -5
I have to agree on this. Just out of curiosity what will winning look like?
I've posted this before, but your question is a timely reminder to post it again:
1 - Require that gun owners be licensed for the specific types of weapons they own (as we do with car, semi-trailer, bus, and motorcycle licenses). As a side benefit, armed criminals who don't have licenses can be locked up on gun possession charges, at least getting them off the streets until evidence of more serious crimes can be developed. We used to do that at one time.
2 - Make licensing contingent on passing a skills and safety test, again as with cars. This would encourage more people to get training in how to use and store their weapons while minimizing dangers to those around them. Accidental deaths from guns are more numerous than intentional murders, and usually result from poor handling, generally because people don't know how to use them safely. 3 - Require gun owners to carry insurance that specifically covers deaths and injuries from use of their guns. Many already are covered through homeowners insurance, I understand, but let's make sure there aren't uninsured or poorly-insured owners. A major benefit of requiring insurance is that the insurers have a strong incentive to encourage safe handling of weapons by their insured patrons. Just look at car insurance ads to see this at work.
4 - Extend background check requirements to all gun sales (i.e., close the "gun show" and “private sale” loopholes, which we know are conduits for guns to criminals and crazies), and make sure that they are enforceable on all sales. When NYC cops traced a high percentage of guns used in crimes there to purchases made at four gun shops here in VA, they sent undercover cops to investigate. The cops had no trouble making straw purchases or otherwise evading existing law. In response, the VA A-G at the time didn't investigate those shops; instead, he threatened to arrest any NYC cops who carried out further investigations. That’s just wrong.
5 - Require manufacturers to adopt modern safety features that make it harder for thieves to use stolen guns or children to fire their parents' weapons. Cars have become incredibly safer because of laws requiring manufacturers to install safety features, with the result that the highway death toll has plummeted over the past few decades, and recently has (or soon will) drop below that for guns. It's an amazing success story, and there's no reason not to apply the lessons from it to guns, which (unlike cars) actually are lethal by design. Modern technology has made safer handling quite practical, so there's really no good reason not to adopt it. However, the NRA has organized boycotts of two stores that tried to offer such safe guns, alas.
6 - Get military weapons that can fire huge numbers of bullets in seconds out of the flow of civilian commerce. We're practically the only developed country that allows most people to buy such weapons. Let's follow Australia's lead on this as a matter of common sense. We don't allow bazookas, tanks, or ICBM's to be bought and sold on the open market, and somehow I don't think we're less free as a result. If some people just have to have the thrill of firing such a weapon, then let's allow specially-licensed shooting range operators to own a small number that can be fired at regulated ranges. Of course, they'd be taking a risk, like those parents who had their 8 year-old girl try one, resulting in a dead instructor and one girl traumatized for life, but at least the rest of us wouldn't be forced to share that risk.
7 - Strengthen record-keeping requirements on manufacturers and dealers so that police can trace guns and ammunition used in crimes back to their origin, to the extent possible. There is no reason to hinder such investigations, except to protect criminals and the unscrupulous from discovery. We do this with cars, prescription drugs, and a host of other products that may cause death and injury as a byproduct of their use; why should we exempt products that are designed to be lethal, even if they're not usually used to kill people? It makes no sense.
8 - End the effective ban on federally-funded research into the role of guns in deaths and injuries. This is a public health issue. Imagine banning federal research into the role of sewerage system problems in disseminating disease, or design problems with ladders that contribute to injuries. Even the tobacco companies didn't manage to kill federal research into the health impacts of smoking. There is no justification for this intentional blindness on guns, except the commercial interests of manufacturers and dealers.
9 - Offer a government buyback of firearms. In Australia this resulted in a huge reduction in suicide rates, and suicide is a major danger faced by those with guns in the home.
I missed this the first time I went through this thread and it is fantastic. i only hope that a coalition with reasonable gun owners could be created because I think most of them would be on board with this plan. the unfortunate thing is that there really is no debate on these things, the NRA has effectively shut off all discussion, and the Republican Party does whatever the NRA says.
|
|
munertl
State Legislator
Posts: 261
|
Post by munertl on Sept 6, 2015 11:18:30 GMT -5
What incredible, partisan, stupid Bullshit about the NRA being responsible!!! Nobody who even marginally understood firearms could be so stupid. Just look at the data, if you are totally incapable of understanding reason and logic--apparently you are--Jesus H Christ. Are you so totally immune to reality you just can't understand that people intent on criminality regardless of law will not be limited by law. Duh? ?? Sorry OB---I respect your views on some things but on this you are simply very, very stupid. You really need to try to establish some contact with the real America. Start by doing some open-minded reading on the American revolution and the context/logic in which the 2nd amendment was embedded in our national culture. You might be amazed. You might also try---since you so often pontificate on firearms--- to gain at least some basic understanding of their history and function. Hard for a leftist to understand, I'm sure, but your deficiencies there are so striking as to make your pontifications absurd. This is another stupid line you always hear from the right. Criminals don care about the law. Then why bother to have any laws at all then if criminals will just break them. Who needs police? Criminals will just be criminals. Maybe you think our best approach should just be free guns for everyone. That would be really stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Leftylarry on Sept 9, 2015 11:48:19 GMT -5
Here's my final post on the subject.
Guns don't kill, people do.
They run you over with their car, crash into crowds with a truck, stab you with knives and machete's, set fire to your home, poison you, , make bombs, both suicide and non-suicide to kill you and even fly airplanes into buildings, killing thousands and they did that with box cutters.
The founding Fathers knew that someday, during ANY time period, the government, maybe even led by a majority would or could care less about the rule of law, the constitution or what the electorate wanted ( Clearly we have seen that under Obama who unilaterally did whatever he wanted often against the view of the majority) and become oppressive.
SO, they left us the RIGHT to bear arms and band together as a Militia to fight against such oppression. That oppression could come from either Right or the Left, sadly, now it's more likely and is being perpetrated by the progressive Left, who basically are communists with a shoe shine.
You saw what happened when the EPA, somehow now ARMED, tried to illegally throw a 3 generation rancher off his land in Nevada, a band of citizens with GUNS came to his aid and all of a sudden the Government sought a different, peaceful solution.
I and many MILLIONS like me will NEVER give up our guns, we will fight you to the death to keep them.
You leftists here could care less about the occasional murder, you stop the police every way you can when minority murderers are involved, you could care less , we both know your real goal is to consolidate your power and not have to worry about an armed revolution to stop you. It ain't happening.
Long live the NRA!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Sept 9, 2015 14:30:43 GMT -5
The founding Fathers knew that someday, during ANY time period, the government, maybe even led by a majority would or could care less about the rule of law, the constitution or what the electorate wanted ( Clearly we have seen that under Obama who unilaterally did whatever he wanted often against the view of the majority) and become oppressive.
Utter BS! The very first rebellion against the government was put down by George Washington--you know, one of the Founders. Let's add American History to the long list of topics on which you have strong opinions based on no knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Leftylarry on Sept 9, 2015 17:45:15 GMT -5
Yes, the Government, one of the founding fathers put down a rebellion, point was, some thought a rebellion was necessary and they had the right to stage one, of course you missed that point, problem was, they had no real moral high ground and when they heard Washington was coming, they folded up tents and went home.If there were more if them and they truly believed the Government was overstepping its bounds, there would have been a real fight. It's not about who's right, it's about having the same rights , the colonists had, which allowed them to stage a rebellion against the King of England. If you were in charge, they wouldn't have had guns and this great country would be very different. Frankly, you have no understanding of the issue, just a blind hatred of guns and America.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Sept 9, 2015 19:55:07 GMT -5
Yes, the Government, one of the founding fathers put down a rebellion, point was, some thought a rebellion was necessary and they had the right to stage one, of course you missed that point, problem was, they had no real moral high ground and when they heard Washington was coming, they folded up tents and went home.If there were more if them and they truly believed the Government was overstepping its bounds, there would have been a real fight. It's not about who's right, it's about having the same rights , the colonists had, which allowed them to stage a rebellion against the King of England. If you were in charge, they wouldn't have had guns and this great country would be very different. Frankly, you have no understanding of the issue, just a blind hatred of guns and America.
Honestly, LL, are you off your meds or something? The posts of the past few hours have become ever weirder. For example, you say that the Founders thought people had the right to revolt against the government, but the very first time they did one of those self-same Founders (and really, is there a more Foundational Founder than George Washington?) put it down by military force not because he was opposed in principle to rebellion, but because the rebels lacked a "moral high ground"? And this is shown by the fact that they withdrew in the face of force? And you claim I have no understanding of America?
BTW, don't ever accuse me again of having "a blind hatred of...America." Seriously. That will get you banned.
|
|
munertl
State Legislator
Posts: 261
|
Post by munertl on Sept 13, 2015 11:28:47 GMT -5
Yes, the Government, one of the founding fathers put down a rebellion, point was, some thought a rebellion was necessary and they had the right to stage one, of course you missed that point, problem was, they had no real moral high ground and when they heard Washington was coming, they folded up tents and went home.If there were more if them and they truly believed the Government was overstepping its bounds, there would have been a real fight. It's not about who's right, it's about having the same rights , the colonists had, which allowed them to stage a rebellion against the King of England. If you were in charge, they wouldn't have had guns and this great country would be very different. Frankly, you have no understanding of the issue, just a blind hatred of guns and America. Who elected the king of England?
|
|
munertl
State Legislator
Posts: 261
|
Post by munertl on Sept 13, 2015 12:04:04 GMT -5
Sept 9, 2015 11:48:19 GMT -5 Leftylarry said: Here's my final post on the subject. Guns don't kill, people do. They run you over with their car, crash into crowds with a truck, stab you with knives and machete's, set fire to your home, poison you, , make bombs, both suicide and non-suicide to kill you and even fly airplanes into buildings, killing thousands and they did that with box cutters. The founding Fathers knew that someday, during ANY time period, the government, maybe even led by a majority would or could care less about the rule of law, the constitution or what the electorate wanted ( Clearly we have seen that under Obama who unilaterally did whatever he wanted often against the view of the majority) and become oppressive. SO, they left us the RIGHT to bear arms and band together as a Militia to fight against such oppression. That oppression could come from either Right or the Left, sadly, now it's more likely and is being perpetrated by the progressive Left, who basically are communists with a shoe shine. You saw what happened when the EPA, somehow now ARMED, tried to illegally throw a 3 generation rancher off his land in Nevada, a band of citizens with GUNS came to his aid and all of a sudden the Government sought a different, peaceful solution. I and many MILLIONS like me will NEVER give up our guns, we will fight you to the death to keep them. You leftists here could care less about the occasional murder, you stop the police every way you can when minority murderers are involved, you could care less , we both know your real goal is to consolidate your power and not have to worry about an armed revolution to stop you. It ain't happening. Long live the NRA!!!!!! --------------------------------- Cliven Bundy was not kicked off his land, it was federal land and he did not pay for grazing rights on it - and lost multiple court cases on this. He was in direct violation to court orders saying he needed to either pay or get his animals off of it. instead they chose to have an armed standoff with the ATF. If you point weapons at officers, as far as I'm concerned they are fully justified in shooting you. They didn't want another Waco situation so they decided to back off. among those armed idiots defending buddy were 2 tea party nut bags that saw fit to walk into a cafe and blow away 2 police officers and then cover them up with a tea party flag. those are the people you are aligning yourself with. as far the NRA, if they sought to be a useful organization they would not want guns in the hands of people who don't know how to properly use them, or have them in the hands of the mentally insane. Yet they somehow manage to torpedo any efforts to regulate who has access to such weapons. At one time they were a safety and training organization but now they are just catering to the lunatic fringe. as for the hijackers using only box cutters, I think the 767 planes had an awful lot to do with the damage they caused. In general guns give the ability for a criminal to create massive loss of life in a short period of time - nowhere near the same scale as what a person armed with a knife or any other non explosive can do. There's a reason guns are the weapon of choice for someone intent on a killing spree. Much of that is because they're so damn easy to acquire. Acquiring a bomb, large aircraft, and other weaponry to kill on a massive scale is just a bit more difficult.
|
|