Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 92

Thread: Should US have gun control?

  1. #46
    Custom Title heyang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,219
    I watched This Week with George S and they also had a debate on gun control. The rep for the NRA was their press secretary (I believe - I came in towards the end,) While no one denied the right to bear arms, the questioned the ownership of military grade automatic weapons, how come 2nd'ary markets are not required to perform background checks when selling guns, why the public needs magazines that can hold more than a few bullets. The NRA rep said that states that allow concealed weapons have less gun violence and that Chicago/Illinois has a high gun death rate while having strong controls. The rep from Illinois said that their gun death rate is traced back to guns bought on the secondary market without criminal background checks - not law abiding citizens. Everyone questioned why the NRA was not willing to compromise on terms that would make it harder for criminals to attain weapons. One member of the panel said that 74% of the NRA membership favors bans on automatic weapons - the NRA however has sponsorship of gun manufacturer's that don't want to see their public market dry up...... need to fact check......

  2. #47
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,495
    Yeah, Bluebonnet. I had a similar reaction. If a teacher is not temperamentally suited to hard combat training, does he or she lose qualifications to teach children? Is the prime skill going to be marksmanship? As Patrick Henry said, forbid it, Almighty God.

    And now I've heard that a gunman has shot firefighters as they were fighting a fire. Should firefighters too carry guns? Mightn't the guns go off in extreme heat? Or do they too need an armed guard?

    Ironically, the NRA leadership currently seems to think that its job is to protect gun owners from us.
    Last edited by Olympia; 12-24-2012 at 08:08 AM.

  3. #48
    Custom Title CoyoteChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    1,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympia View Post
    Yeah, Bluebonnet. I had a similar reaction. If a teacher is not temperamentally suited to hard combat training, does he or she lose qualifications to teach children? Is the prime skill going to be marksmanship? As Patrick Henry said, forbid it, Almighty God.

    And now I've heard that a gunman has shot firefighters as they were fighting a fire. Should firefighters too carry guns? Mightn't the guns go off in extreme heat? Or do they too need an armed guard?

    Ironically, the NRA leadership currently seems to think that its job is to protect gun owners from us.
    That guy who killed the firefighters, who incidently killed his grandma with a hammer, tried to buy guns at a store. He failed due to perjuring himself on the NICS check form. The government refused to prosecute him for that.
    Ask yourselves these questions. Do you trust your government? If this were Jan 1943, mirai and her parents would be in a concentration camp. Unarmed Jews would be lead away to slaughter. I side with the Jews. Never again. So called look alike assault weapons killed 312 people last year...cell phones killed 3062...alchphol killed way more....or could it be that objects dont kill...maybe societies that dont take care of there mentally ill or hold people responsible for their actions kill. Ask the families of those firefighters if they wished the govt would prosecute those felons who purger themselves on the NICS checks. The second ammt isnt about duck hunting...its a check on the govt.
    Ask those guys at Lexington and Concord who stopped the British from confiscating American weapons...they know it can happen here.
    Just ask all those American citizens of Japanese descent who were disarmed and taken off to conncentation camps in 1942.

  4. #49
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,495
    I don't like the word trust in this context, Chris. The government isn't a group sitting out there waiting for us to blink so it can come and get us. We are the government. It works as long as we keep an eye on it. If you think the government is the enemy, take a look at countries where there is no functioning government. What kind of a life could you have there, even if you had an arsenal--or a private militia? Ask someone from Lebanon.

    Thinking about Mirai and her family, and Kristi's family (who actually were interned--Mrs. Yamaguchi was born in a camp): the Issei and Nisei didn't have their guns taken away. They had their rights taken away by law. There were years of restrictive immigration laws, and then during the War, California and other states (interestingly, not Hawaii) rounded up Japanese-Americans under the authority of a new law, Executive Order 9066. If the Japanese-Americans had stood up with arms, the army would have come in and mowed them down. Also, I am sorry to say, most of the country did not leap to their defense. In fact, most of the country seems to supported rounding them up, because people in those days were scared and suspicious after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and they were also a lot more ignorant about diversity than we are today. (This shows that we have progressed, which is good news.) That's why I think that this hot-button issue isn't a useful argument in this case.

    As for Jews during that time, the difference between America and Europe wasn't the fact that Jews in America were armed and Jews in Europe were not. I am Jewish, and my family was the classic immigrant family, growing up in urban tenements. My grandfather was even a tailor. Their guns were not taken away. They didn't have guns. They didn't even have pets. They had food for the next day. They had books, in English, Hebrew, maybe Russian, and Yiddish, and (because learning was the way to success) in French, German, and Latin. It wasn't guns that protected them. It was laws. By contrast, the laws in Europe in 1941 were the Nuremberg laws. European Jews with guns fought, in places like Warsaw and Vilna, but when things come to the point of hiding in ruined buildings and firing on the greatest army in Europe, the odds will not favor the freedom fighters. Most of them died with their guns in their hands. I honor them in memory--I may have been related to some of them--but I would far rather they had had the law on their side, not an extra rifle, or even a rocket launcher.

    Government in a democratic country isn't evil. It's inefficient. It's especially inefficient in a country with 300 million people who all disagree with one another. There are people who want to get richer than other people, who manipulate the laws in their favor if they're not closely watched. There are of course criminals. If you feel safer with a supply of guns in your home, be my guest. But I don't think any amount of armaments will protect you against "the government." As you know, they also have an air force.

    The Second Amendment isn't going to be removed from the Constitution. Guns are part of American history and consciousness. But are we not to be allowed to ask questions about regulating gun ownership? Of course, we need to think about how we treat the mentally ill, and how violence is used for fun in movies and video games. But we do need to talk about the easy availability of guns.
    Last edited by Olympia; 01-21-2013 at 01:42 PM.

  5. #50
    Custom Title heyang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,219
    I do have mixed feelings about this entire debate.

    The 2nd amendment is part of the constitution and I believe it was more about defense of person and property. Giving 'an inch' on any right can sometimes lead to the eventual elimination of the right. A lot of people question certatin security measures as a violation of privacy (although technically privacy is not a 'right' - actually ironic due to how readily people divulge their private pictures/info on line and then wonder about how it happened to them - don't put it out there if you don't want it to be forwarded. - sorry for the digression.)

    However, these guns were used in crimes - vicious planned attacks. Granted the people are mentally ill and their are privacy concerns as related to medical issues. The NRA and their advocates argue that it's our society and the mentally ill - however, other countries play violent games, watch violent movies and have mentally ill people, yet don't have the same # of mass murders as we do in the US.

    What is it about the US?

    Also, the NRA is ignoring that social issues take a long time to change.... and it takes constant inching along. In the mean time, something needs to be done.

    What is wrong with requiring law abiding citizens to register their guns - they already do. By requiring them in private sales, the gun owner is taking responsibility for ensuring that the weapon is being transferred to a responsible citizen...... If I were a gun owner, I wouldn't want to find out that I sold a gun to someone who used it to kill someone because i didn't do a background check and/or make sure the person was properly trained and licensed.

    What is wrong with limiting magazines to 10 or fewer bullets? If you need more than that, you're up to some mayhem IMHO.....

    Neither of the above prevent anyone from owning a gun....


    Governor Christie's approach.
    http://southbrunswick.patch.com/arti...uspatc00000001
    Last edited by heyang; 01-22-2013 at 09:01 PM.

  6. #51
    Custom Title heyang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,219
    Also, a link to a local op-ed about arming teachers

    http://southbrunswick.patch.com/arti...nswer-0dda4c84

    and here's another about the gaps in background checks.

    http://southbrunswick.patch.com/arti...hecks-f64e7617

  7. #52
    Custom Title heyang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,219
    Just a link to demonstrate that states are also looking at mental health http://news.yahoo.com/shootings-stat...193756981.html

  8. #53
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,495
    I noticed that report today too, Heyang. It spotlights a rather cruel paradox. Everyone wants to get the mentally ill off the streets. But no one wants to pay for it or have "them" in "our" neighborhood.

    A lot of people imagine that they don't want their tax dollars going to anyone who won't be productive in return. People who are deeply enough into mental illness to need institutionalization or intensive treatment will generally not be productive, at least for long stretches of time. On the surface, spending money on them doesn't look cost effective. But of course the money isn't being spent as a handout to the mentally ill. It is being spent to keep them from becoming a danger to themselves and to everyone else. It's also being spent to help with new research that might be able to control symptoms more effectively. When funds for these purposes are cut, the mentally ill are left to fend for themselves. There's an old adage that says "You get what you pay for." The corollary might be stated like this: "You don't get what you don't pay for." In many areas of life, an investment in the future saves money in the long run.

  9. #54
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by heyang View Post
    However, these guns were used in crimes - vicious planned attacks.
    That is true, but in 2010 only 67.5% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm and during the last couple of years the number of homicides in USA went down. What's more, in the US states where there are conceal-carry law, the number of homicides and crime went down.
    Further, the recent (rampage) crimes were committed in places where people were prohibited to carry guns.
    For me, the rule of the law is fine, but every citizen has to have a right a carry a gun. He then have an ability to defend his home, his family and him/herself when attacked by burglars or by someone, and not wait for a long time for police to come

    As for mentally ill -- only a small minority of them are dangerous, and proportionally (percentage-wise) majority of homicides/murders are committed by "normal" people using guns, hammers, and knives not by mentally ill people using guns.
    Last edited by katia; 02-16-2013 at 01:28 PM.

  10. #55
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympia View Post

    Ironically, the NRA leadership currently seems to think that its job is to protect gun owners from us.
    After publication of addresses of gun-owners some of them were killed. And couple were nearly burglarized by people who wanted to get their guns. So why should they not be protected from "peacefull" journalists and burglars?

  11. #56
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    16,823
    The problem is talking about homocides. In states with concealed carry laws, they quite often have "Fire at Will" (or "Stand Your Ground") laws, where the self defense guideline is the survivor saying, "It was self defense-" which, of course, they all say.

    In Florida we keep have things that are not called homicides that are; but only the survivors get to claim it was self defense. There was just another case in today's paper where 2 security guards killed a man in a car who was playing loud music. They said he attempted to get one of their guns. Maybe, maybe not, but it will definitely not be a homicide statistic in FL.

    Look rather at number of people whose cause of death is gunshot wounds.

  12. #57
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    288
    You are assuming that majority of the deaths from gunshot wounds are from "legal guns." If that claim was true then you may be right, but is it true? I would assume that some of the deaths were from "legal guns" and some of the guns used were illegal. I suspect that majority of deaths are from illegal guns. It would be interesting to see the data.
    Also look at Switzerland, all Swiss citizens have guns in their homes. And Switzerland is very peaceful country. Do you think that Americans (US citizens) are more violent? If so, why?
    I am also nearly certian that majority of crimes - homicides, burglaries (guns are also used when committing burglaries) , and so on -- are committed using illegal guns.
    Last edited by katia; 02-16-2013 at 01:51 PM.

  13. #58
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,660
    Quote Originally Posted by heyang View Post
    The 2nd amendment is part of the constitution and I believe it was more about defense of person and property.
    There is continuing debate about this, but to me the wording of the second amendment makes it clear that it was about the rights of states and local jurisdictions to be able to raise a citizen's militia to keep order.

    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.
    This right did grow out of British law aimed at preventing the King from disarming the citizens. The main reason why the English monarchy never achieved the sort of dictatorial powers over its citizens that other European nations suffered under was that the King had no standing army of his own. If the king wanted to fight a war he had to appeal to all the noblemen to send him a bunch of soldiers from their own feudal holdings, equipped at each nobleman's expense.

    This is the argument that the National Rifle Association makes. We need guns to protect ourselves against the government.

    But times change. The government has tanks. The government has satellite controlled drone missiles. The government has atom bombs. The government has a standing army of 2,000,000 trained soldiers.

    The folks at Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, didn't. So, as Olympia says, we had better get cracking on using the full power of the ballot box and other democratic institutions and not put our reliance on six-shooters.

  14. #59
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by dorispulaski View Post

    In Florida we keep have things that are not called homicides that are; but only the survivors get to claim it was self defense. There was just another case in today's paper where 2 security guards killed a man in a car who was playing loud music. They said he attempted to get one of their guns. Maybe, maybe not, but it will definitely not be a homicide statistic in FL.

    .
    True, but it will be a crime, even if it will not be a homicide. And furthermore you are using similar tactics here like that guy telling people that "according to him" Plushchenko did not have an operation - may be he had may be he had not. Don't you? Why not believe that there are people who attack the guards? And if you are doubting guards, why believe police or the government? How are they better (or worse) then the guards? Is it only because they are bureaucrats?

  15. #60
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post





    But times change. The government has tanks. The government has satellite controlled drone missiles. The government has atom bombs. The government has a standing army of 2,000,000 trained soldiers.

    The folks at Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, didn't. So, as Olympia says, we had better get cracking on using the full power of the ballot box and other democratic institutions and not put our reliance on six-shooters.
    But that is a fallacy. You are thinking Either/OR but why not have BOTH? You can put reliance on democratic institutions BUT also have guns, in case democratic institutions became not-democratic. Like in Weimar Republic, like in Russia during the Revolution. As for the government who has satelites/tanks/drone missiles -- the satelites/drone missiles/government is connected to internet. No internet no drone missiles, no banks, no government. But that is rather far-away thing. Here and now the guns should be used by citizens when police is far away, or when police can not come on time to prevent a crime. It is as simple as that.
    Last edited by katia; 02-16-2013 at 02:09 PM.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •