Anti gun legislation

[xtatik]

So, you are conceding that restricting law abiding citizens has no effect on criminals? Well, I suppose that we are done here then...

BTW, if it had been adequately addressed, I wouldn't be bringing it up.

If the Duke of Wellington had declared victory over Napoleon before the start of Waterloo, it would not have meant that he already won. He still had to go out and fight the fight. Just because you have declared a point as given does not make it so.

I'm conceding nothing. What I'm suggesting is that the up until that moment, law abiding citizen Jared Loughner, might not have made it through a process that would have revealed his incapacity to responsibly own a gun. Jared is the most recent case, but you could insert any "up-until-that moment" name you'd like here, there are scads of them. No doubt, some will say he could have rammed the crowd with a car (or, whatever, I really, really don't care). Fine, whatever, at least guns aren't taking blame in those cases.
Look, this isn't a pro-gun v. anti-gun debate. There is no fight to win here. I don't think this discussion was started "to win" or lose a "fight" on the issue. But, I am getting tired of continually addressing the same rhetorical questions. And, the answers are never going to completely satisfy those who are hardline on the gun issue. As the OP stated, what we're attempting to do here is avoid the non-sensical ban of guns and mags. The stonewall position many assume as gun owners in association to incidents like the Tuscon event, are precisely why those encroachments continue to occur.
What the OP and a few others here were suggesting is some commonsense methods that may (or, may not) lend some some credence to the gun laws and gun owners in this country. It might put a whole lot of moderately "anti-gun", or "on-the-fence" types at greater ease by knowing that gun owners had been cleared, trained and their guns had been registered. It might help to widen the gap and help disassociate responsible gun owners from criminals in the minds of the general public.
I understand it would do nothing in convincing the hardline anti-gun "NO-it-all" crowd (intended pun in the spelling), and I'm just as certain the hardline pro-gun "slippery slopers" and 2A pseudo-laureates would start in with their nonsense.
As with any emotionally-charged discussion, it seems like these loudmouthed hardliners at both polar opposites are drowning out the more reasoned discussion that's taking place in the middle by yelling out their same tired slogans and mantras. In these same types of discussions, it's apparent neither polar extreme has any common sense, or anything substantive to add to the very real discussion that's taking place. It seems all they're interested in is dominating and destroying the discourse with nothing more than raucous noise.

 

[xtatik]

Whatever it takes for her to continue to spread the word about something she believes in and is passionate about. I agree with everything she says, she is a great spokeswomen for gun rights. If the NRA wants to bankroll her, great.

You are very welcome. It is great to debate with such an open-minded person such as you.

Likewise, and touche', I guess.:coffeedrink:

As a therapist that works with the disabled community I am a little offended by your remarks.

Well, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. But, I won't apologize for my choice of words. There have been many instances where I might have questioned or made issue of someones word selection. But, I look more to the persons demeanor and use of their words. If their choice is without malice, I won't attempt to discredit them on something that flimsy.:snorkel:
https://health.google.com/health/ref/Mental+retardation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation

 

[thebrassnuckles]

There seems to be alot of confusion as to what the topic of this thread is. It is not whether or not guns should be banned, but ways to prevent certain types of people from "falling through the cracks" so to speak. People like Jared Loughner. This thread(I believe) was started to discuss different, realistic options, that do not violate any rights.

 

[MP@HOME]

Does anybody remember about Fort Hood? The shooter was a psychiatrist.
Above suspicion ,Counselor, Somebody that could evaluate others.
How well did that work out? How about Police Officers that shoot themselves
or their partners, there are a few videos about that.
So yea lets violate every ones rights just to make some people happy and
less scared of guns,those people should be afraid of criminals not Law
Abiding Citizens.

 

[thebrassnuckles]

Does anybody remember about Fort Hood? The shooter was a psychiatrist.
Above suspicion ,Counselor, Somebody that could evaluate others.
How well did that work out? How about Police Officers that shoot themselves
or their partners, there are a few videos about that.
So yea lets violate every ones rights just to make some people happy and
less scared of guns,those people should be afraid of criminals not Law
Abiding Citizens.

You really didn't read the thread did you?
Read my post directly above yours. What you just sad has been said dozens of times in this thread.
We are not lookig to violate rights, but to prevent folks that would under normal conditions not be allowed to own a weapon due to some already established disqualifying trait. All the AZ shooter had to do was lie on his DROS paperwork, it's obviously not difficult for a criminal or crazed individual to lie so they can get a gun. What needs to be done to prevent someone from just being able to lie to get a gun? Without violating any rights.

 

[Klierslc]

I understand the point of the thread, and would agree with what you guys are trying to do if the subject were not a constitutionally guaranteed right....

The problem is not the reasonableness... of a thought process, the problem is the second and third order effects. Slippery slope blah blah, but history has shown examples of this multiple times and we all know what they say about those who do not learn from history. We can also look at other nations to see how things have worked out for them....Canada's long gun registry for instance. That has been a cluster. Also, the programs you all are putting out there will cost money. Who will pay for them? Tax payers?

 

[MP@HOME]

You really didn't read the thread did you?
Read my post directly above yours. What you just sad has been said dozens of times in this thread.
We are not lookig to violate rights, but to prevent folks that would under normal conditions not be allowed to own a weapon due to some already established disqualifying trait. All the AZ shooter had to do was lie on his DROS paperwork, it's obviously not difficult for a criminal or crazed individual to lie so they can get a gun. What needs to be done to prevent someone from just being able to lie to get a gun? Without violating any rights.

That is why they are criminals ,they break the laws, we prosecute criminals
after they break the law ,we don't go around testing people to see if they
are going to commit a crime in the future.This guy lied,how about making it
illegal to lie?This would have stopped Him for sure, Right?

 

[xtatik]

That is why they are criminals ,they break the laws, we prosecute criminals
after they break the law

That's right, and we're prosecuting Jared now. So, this "after the fact" scenario you suggest suits you just fine. Is this what you're saying?

 

[xtatik]

making it illegal to shoot and kill people didn't work too well either so I guess the answer is pretty obvious...

Facing the death penalty wasn't much of a deterrent in the Tucson tragedy either, so much for that idea.

Are laws meant to punish or modify behaviour?

This is a good point. Jared and many others like him really don't have the ability to sense the gravity of what they're about to do. Many of them will leave notes saying "goodbye" and "so long" just before they commit their crimes, but they're so disturbed that they cannot reason the consequences as a mentally balanced person does. They live with a distorted view of how the world works. Death itself is no deterrent to them. They haven't reasonably contemplated death...they can't.

 

[ColoradoBill]

I think it boils down to the fact that we live in a free society and that comes with risks. We have laws to help minimize these risks but all laws can and will be broken. We take a risk driving. Drunk drivers kill people everyday. People rob others all the time with and without firearms.
My suggestion to help minimize gun tragedies would be to have a license to purchase a firearm, new or used and at gun shows or from private individuals. To get this license we would have to complete a training course and pass a safety test. Also the current federal background test would be included. The license would have to be renewed every year or two. Much like a drivers license. Some people will still slip through the cracks and some people that passed the entire test may just snap.
This law would be tough to enforce, especially private sells. Some kinks would need to be worked out but I believe it’s a good start.

 

[xtatik]

I think it boils down to the fact that we live in a free society and that comes with risks.

This is an unavoidable fact and a very good point to make here. I guess this discussion is all about minimizing risk without stepping on fundamental ownership rights.

Also the current federal background test would be included. The license would have to be renewed every year or two. Much like a drivers license. Some people will still slip through the cracks and some people that passed the entire test may just snap..

WOW! Another great point. This one definitely slipped through the cracks to this point.

 

[Mr. Leary]

Well I just lost an extended post on the Swiss military position in WWII. The above is a very simplistic view of history.

Here is a good link regrading Swiss military planning in the early part of WWII. Suffice to say they had a total force of 500,000 men of which approx 250,000 were mobilized at any one time, next to no significant armour and approx 250 aircraft which should be compared to the 3.3 million German soldiers, 600,000 axis soldierswith 3.350 tanks and 4389 aircraft the Germans massed for operation Barbarossa. Given that a 3:1 superiority in men and equipment is considered sufficient to conduct a succesful attack do the math. The terrain you cite was to be used for a final redoubt but would not sustain the population or military operations for a great length of time.

Admirable as their planning and training were the Swiss were under no illusions about the final outcome of a military action. They relied on the ideal that the Swiss financial system was of benefit to other countries and that they had no oil or other strategic resources to make them a useful strategic goal relative to the cost of invasion. Hitler never the less planned operation Tannebaum.

Ultimately the Germans chose to invade the Soviet Union and when the planned coup de main failed to occur by the winter of 1941/42 they found themselves bogged down in a war they couldn't realistically win. That is what really saved the Swiss and several other countries.

AS to the original topic of the OP I choose to remain neutral - I just hate to see history taken out of context.

... and the likelyhood of a long protracted battle with massive casualties against the Swiss' phased retreat strategy was deemed to be not worth the potential benefits. Thank you for clarifying, there is more to it then that, but my statement is also true.

My Mom actually sent me this article:
http://celestiallands.org/wayside/?p=473

Seemed appropriate to share here. I've been out wheeling all weekend, but I'll catch up on this thread and re-enter the fray tomorrow, I reckon!

 

[ScoutII]

So the gun control activists are already jumping on the shooting in Arizona.

A time when the nation should be mourning, they are gearing up for a fight. They will be launching another attack on high capacity magazines.

I reckon those of us who enjoy tactical shooting had better get ready to write more letters to our elected officials. If there is one thing that works its the threat of losing re-election votes over a gun issue.


Don't know about y'all, but I'm about fed up with gun abolitionists trying to spread fear and blame. I never knew a gun that got up in the morning and decided to shoot someone. I have yet to see a bit of gun control legislation that utilizes common sense.

Of course, my own viewpoints would earn me ire from the other side of the spectrum... I believe guns should have titles like boats and cars. I guess I'd make a bad politician because I would piss everyone off. Oh well...

Any thoughts on common sense gun control laws, maybe something that can actually be achieved as opposed to Utopian rhetoric?

I agree, people are jumping on the band wagon to make gun ownership more expensive. Not a solution IMHO.

I have the perfact solution. It's so simple. Just move to China, they have very good gun control. :victory: Anti gun folks will be in heaven.

 

[haven]

I know that some elected officials have talked about how new laws may be needed. Has any legislator (federal or state) announced plans to submit new legislation that would change existing gun control laws?

 

[MP@HOME]

That's right, and we're prosecuting Jared now. So, this "after the fact" scenario you suggest suits you just fine. Is this what you're saying?

If You do not commit any crimes why should You be prosecuted? Should We put everybody between the ages of 15 to 50 in jail? that is probably the age
when people might commit a crime .