Anti gun legislation

[xtatik]

No, I don't think so. I actually find your reply to be very condescending.

This was exactly the point I was trying to make in referencing your earlier post. I'm sorry if you found it to condescending. But, I don't think you'd have given your poor choice of words another thought if someone hadn't said something.

 

[Dave Bennett]

The bottom line is that people are going to do what they want to irregardless of legislation to control options or behaviors.

More laws wont change a thing.

The argument for/against guns will be going on long after we're all dead so trying to change anyone's mind on the internet is futile.

My last post in this thread, Adios. :costumed-smiley-007

 

[Mr. Leary]

Lets put this spin on the subject:

Lets say he did use a pipe bomb, lets say, there was a rash of pipe bombings going on.

What would be 'reasonable' to prevent it from happening again?

Prevent the sale of pipe?

Limit the diameter of pipe available to the public?

Outlaw the threading of pipe, so caps couldn't be screwed on?

Only allow plumbers and pipefitters, who have been trained and evaluated, to handle/touch/own/use pipes?


Sounds kind of silly, doesn't it?

Yet, pipes, caps, gunpowder, nails, etc. are all available to the general public.

All available without background checks.

Very capable of these items being turned into deadly weapons, with serious mas casualties.

Yet, the idea of 'outlawing pipes' sounds ludicrous.

Why? becuase it is.

Now, substitute the 'pipe' with 'automobile', still sounds kind of far fetched, right? Yet 'cars' kill people everyday, or do they?

Did the car that a drunk driver got into, and then hits a family, killing them all, cuase the deaths?

The car that, the owner purchased legally, took a test to obtain a driver liscense to operate, and had proper insurance on, did that car kill the family?


It's cold out, a young lady starts her car to let it warm up. It gets stolen, by a thief. The thief then gets into a high speed chase fleeing from police. During the chase, he runs over a man jogging on the sidewalk.

Did the 'car' kill the man jogging? A car that was legally purchased, liscensed and insured to be operated on the roads of America, did it kill the man jogging?

Should vehicles only be allowed to be driven by 'chaufers', people who hve passed extensive tests and phsyc evals?

Should we outlaw driving, to protect ourselves from......ourselves?



Now, instead of using a pipe bomb, or an automobile, lets use a gun.


All of a sudden, it's not 'silly' to some people.

I for one, fail to see the difference in any of the scenerios.

The failure, in all scenes, is human.


It's a sad situation, and one that will be repeated time and again, in one form or another.

There is no predicting human behavior, there is no regulating it.

I'm sure we all wish there was a 'Crystal Ball', something we could look into and see what a person will do in the future, and prevent it.

But there is no crystal ball.

Yeah... but one can live without guns. That's the big argument here. We are willing to put up with people dying on the roads every year because we need to get around and there is no better way yet. We need plumbing to live in cities.

People survived for thousands of years without any of the above, but right now, guns would seem to be the tool that has the fewest practical uses.

 

[BorregoWrangler]

Lets put this spin on the subject:

Lets say he did use a pipe bomb, lets say, there was a rash of pipe bombings going on.

What would be 'reasonable' to prevent it from happening again?

Prevent the sale of pipe?

Limit the diameter of pipe available to the public?

Outlaw the threading of pipe, so caps couldn't be screwed on?

Only allow plumbers and pipefitters, who have been trained and evaluated, to handle/touch/own/use pipes?


Sounds kind of silly, doesn't it?

Yet, pipes, caps, gunpowder, nails, etc. are all available to the general public.

All available without background checks.

Very capable of these items being turned into deadly weapons, with serious mas casualties.

Yet, the idea of 'outlawing pipes' sounds ludicrous.

Why? becuase it is.

Now, substitute the 'pipe' with 'automobile', still sounds kind of far fetched, right? Yet 'cars' kill people everyday, or do they?

Did the car that a drunk driver got into, and then hits a family, killing them all, cuase the deaths?

The car that, the owner purchased legally, took a test to obtain a driver liscense to operate, and had proper insurance on, did that car kill the family?


It's cold out, a young lady starts her car to let it warm up. It gets stolen, by a thief. The thief then gets into a high speed chase fleeing from police. During the chase, he runs over a man jogging on the sidewalk.

Did the 'car' kill the man jogging? A car that was legally purchased, liscensed and insured to be operated on the roads of America, did it kill the man jogging?

Should vehicles only be allowed to be driven by 'chaufers', people who hve passed extensive tests and phsyc evals?

Should we outlaw driving, to protect ourselves from......ourselves?



Now, instead of using a pipe bomb, or an automobile, lets use a gun.


All of a sudden, it's not 'silly' to some people.

I for one, fail to see the difference in any of the scenerios.

The failure, in all scenes, is human.


It's a sad situation, and one that will be repeated time and again, in one form or another.

There is no predicting human behavior, there is no regulating it.

I'm sure we all wish there was a 'Crystal Ball', something we could look into and see what a person will do in the future, and prevent it.

But there is no crystal ball.

Interesting assessment and comparison. I agree. The problem isn't "things" the problem, or failure is with humans. I wonder how many opportunities where missed with this individual that could have prevented what happened? Maybe nothing could have been done. I don't know.

This was exactly point to you in referencing your earlier post. I'm sorry if you found it to condescending. But, I don't think you'd have given your poor choice of words another thought if someone hadn't said something.

I'm sorry if you think I used a poor choice of words in my earlier post, but I still stand by them. They are valid and apply to what I've experienced in my life.

 

[Hill Bill E.]

Yeah... but one can live without guns. That's the big argument here. We are willing to put up with people dying on the roads every year because we need to get around and there is no better way yet. We need plumbing to live in cities.

People survived for thousands of years without any of the above, but right now, guns would seem to be the tool that has the fewest practical uses.

OK.

The bottom line is that people are going to do what they want to irregardless of legislation to control options or behaviors.

More laws wont change a thing.

The argument for/against guns will be going on long after we're all dead so trying to change anyone's mind on the internet is futile.

My last post in this thread, Adios. :costumed-smiley-007

You are correct sir.

Ditto.

 

[cnynrat]

This is an interesting statement. A vain and arrogant attempt at taking higher ground, don't you think. Your first sentence is no more than a rebuttable assumption. That assumption being, that one who presents an argument against your favor couldn't come from a "reasonable person". That is absurd.

What is absurd is to believe that a gun control law will deter someone who is prepared to commit a capital crime. Someone who is not deterred by the possibility of life in prison, or worse, is not going to be affected in any way by the possibility of a few more years behind bars for a gun law violation.

One of the basic and nearly universal characteristics of violent criminals is their inability to make critical judgments about the future consequences of present actions.

 

[xtatik]

What is absurd is to believe that a gun control law will deter someone who is prepared to commit a capital crime. Someone who is not deterred by the possibility of life in prison, or worse, is not going to be affected in any way by the possibility of a few more years behind bars for a gun law violation.

One of the basic and nearly universal characteristics of violent criminals is their inability to make critical judgments about the future consequences of present actions.

Where have you been? The OP and others, as well as myself were presenting ideas that would net people who are mentally unfit to own a gun in the first place...not the common criminal scenario you depict. We've already established and agreed that certain types of mental illness would deem a person unfit to understand the consequences of their intended crimes.
We've covered a lot of ground in this thread with issues of psych evaluation, mandatory training and certification. I think all have merit, and I'm convinced these methods could have stopped most cases where the mentally ill turned to a gun to make their point. Most of the recent cases involved guns that were legally purchased. I don't think these individuals would have made it through the process.
Sadly, this thread has morphed into just another pro-gun v. anti-gun thread. Not at all what the OP intended it to be.

 

[AYIAPhoto]

Yeah... but one can live without guns. That's the big argument here. We are willing to put up with people dying on the roads every year because we need to get around and there is no better way yet. We need plumbing to live in cities.
People survived for thousands of years without any of the above, but right now, guns would seem to be the tool that has the fewest practical uses.

Item 1:You don't need cars in cities. The most likely place for an accident to occur. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. Reduce the number of cars in NYC/Chicago/LA to emergency vehicles only and watch the # of traffic fatalities drop like a sack of bricks. Do you want to tell 20 million people that they need to justify a need to own a car? They live in cities, if they feel like traveling they can rent a car. Not to mention that testing and registration doesn't stop far more auto fatalities a year than guns.

Item 2: You are correct, Guns have only a few uses. Sport(oh wait, race cars), putting food on the table(damn, people need cars to get around...like grocery shopping), and defense(...I guess I could race off in my car to save myself...If I make it there).

The simple fact is that 80+ million gun owners didn't hurt anyone today. Can you say the same about the majority of auto owners?

I'm required to submit fingerprints for a state and federal background check and wait up to 9 months(even though state law says 30 days) for a permit to purchase a single handgun. That didn't prevent Camden, NJ from being #1 in the nation for violent crime 5 years in a row. CRIMINAL ARE CRIMINALS AND CRAZIES ARE CRAZY!!

I know cops who went through psych tests to join the force who are "guano loco". Talk about mental capacity testing is ludicrous. True sociopaths are incredible liars. You may catch the guy who shot up AZ, but how many people are you willing to strip of their rights because they answered a question wrong on an easily manipulated test?

I'll tell you right now that I would not pass the test. Neither would millions of normal every day people, simply because they may have a different view than the administer of said test.

 

[keezer37]

Yeah... but one can live without guns. That's the big argument here. We are willing to put up with people dying on the roads every year because we need to get around and there is no better way yet. We need plumbing to live in cities.

People survived for thousands of years without any of the above, but right now, guns would seem to be the tool that has the fewest practical uses.

Hear him.
While nails can definitely be used to kill human beings they are very good at building houses. I might be so bold to say that their primary function is to build a house. Likewise, a gun has many functions but here again, I might be so bold to say that their primary function is to kill human beings and therefore deserve special consideration under the law.

It is my opinion that the reason we have so many ineffectual laws is that our ineffectual law makers intend it to be so, less they offend a lobby group with the power to end their career. Will of the people be damned.

 

[Wyowanderer]

Yeah... but one can live without guns. That's the big argument here. We are willing to put up with people dying on the roads every year because we need to get around and there is no better way yet. We need plumbing to live in cities.

People survived for thousands of years without any of the above, but right now, guns would seem to be the tool that has the fewest practical uses.

Much like a fire extinguisher. But you wouldn't dream of neglecting to have one for the unlikely time you need it.
You're right- one CAN live without guns, so long as the infrastructure that brings your food to you and protects you is intact.
Just because the firearm is the least practical tool you have doesn't mean you don't need one.

 

[Wyowanderer]

What is absurd is to believe that a gun control law will deter someone who is prepared to commit a capital crime. Someone who is not deterred by the possibility of life in prison, or worse, is not going to be affected in any way by the possibility of a few more years behind bars for a gun law violation.

One of the basic and nearly universal characteristics of violent criminals is their inability to make critical judgments about the future consequences of present actions.

That's not the actual purpose of more gun laws-registration and confiscation is.
If we take the advice of the chicken littles of society and require training, make personality tests mandatory, outlaw large capacity magazines etc., there will still be people who commit crime.
When they do, the chicken littles of society will again be calling for more "common sense" gun laws, and the process repeats itself until firearms are owned only by law enforcement, the military, and criminals (because criminals don't follow the law).
The only way to prevent all gun crime is to confiscate all guns. Despite their proclamations to the contrary, some here are clearly bent on it, the exception being THEIR guns.

 

[AYIAPhoto]

I might be so bold to say that their primary function is to kill human beings and therefore deserve special consideration under the law.

And that is why owning them is a right and not a privilege. They are the most efficient way for someone of meager stature (such as my 5'3" 65yo mother/4'11" 102lb girlfriend) to defend the rest of their rights. Primarily that part of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Everyone is born with the right to live, and the right to defend their life.

It is my opinion that the reason we have so many ineffectual laws is that our ineffectual law makers intend it to be so, less they offend a lobby group with the power to end their career.

The laws are not ineffectual, dare I say that the laws are far too effective when the target of prosecution is someone who simply made a clerical error or violated some little known statute. FFL dealers are under constant threat of losing their livelihood for errors such as not dotting an i or marking a box on the 4473 form with a checkmark rather than Y/N or the opposite. Homeowners are persecuted by the IRS for incorrectly claiming income on a rental property.
What is ineffective is our punishment of real criminals who act with malice. The AZ shooter, Jared Loughner, was in the eye of the criminal justice system more than once. Proper handling of the situation then would have solved the issue. Locking up violent criminals for the actual duration of their sentence rather than 1/2 or less would go much further to deter criminal behavior. True it may not scare someone intent on committing a violent crime, as capital punishment might not either, but it does take one recidivist off of the street.

Will of the people be damned.

Time and time again it has been shown that the majority of people would prefer enforcement of the myriad of laws already on the books, not the addition of more laws which simply grant the government more power to invade their lives. That said...I am a firm believer in "the will of the people be damned". I do not live for other to make choices about. I do not live in a democracy where a tiny majority(50.0000001%) get to decide my fate or my rights. I was born in a Constitutional Republic with certain inalienable rights.
It has been said back a few pages that because our government was instituted by men, that those same men do have the power to grant or repeal rights. I urge those with that belief to go read the declaration, constitution and bill of rights. Yes it does state that government is instituted among men. It also clearly states that the purpose of that government is to protect those rights we are all born with. If government on all levels were to shut down tomorrow, neither I or anyone else lose their rights to live or defend that life.

 

[xtatik]

I know cops who went through psych tests to join the force who are "guano loco". Talk about mental capacity testing is ludicrous. True sociopaths are incredible liars. You may catch the guy who shot up AZ, but how many people are you willing to strip of their rights because they answered a question wrong on an easily manipulated test?

I'll tell you right now that I would not pass the test. Neither would millions of normal every day people, simply because they may have a different view than the administer of said test.

It's impossible to manipulate the MMPI. Now matter how good the liar, the test will know it's being lied to and will report precisely that. And, there are no right or wrong answers to its questions.
You wouldn't pass or fail the test and "neither would millions (or even billions) of normal everyday people". In fact, this test is the most commonly used to determine what "normal everyday people" are.
It would be good for you to read up on it before spreading hysteria like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personality_Inventory
http://psychology.about.com/od/psychologicaltesting/a/mmpi_3.htm

 

[AYIAPhoto]

here are no right or wrong answers to its questions.
You wouldn't pass or fail the test...It would be good for you to read up on it before spreading hysteria like this.

If there are no right or wrong answers, and no passing or failing, then how do you determine if someone who took the test is fit to exercise their right to bear arms. By default would not the administer of the test be the one to set parameters to determine if one was "normal"?

Who gets to determine normal anyway?

I have read up on the test(in layman's terms, not an in depth scientific study). From what I've read, yes it will determine if someone is schizophrenic or bi-polar or have any of a few different mental illnesses. It will not however determine someones state of mind some time down the road. We've all heard of someone who was kind and charitable, giving and loving suddenly snap and hurt someone else. Do you not think that a persons answers to the MMPI might be different if administered the day their first child is born than the day said child gets hit by a car?

Above all else we are a nation of laws, paramount is "No prior restraint". You can not strip someone of their rights because you "believe" that person might abuse them. No test, no matter how accurate at determining someones personality, can predict their actions. Simply because most abusive spouses were raised in an abusive home, should we prevent anyone who grew up in such circumstances from marrying? Should we prevent children of alcoholics from obtaining drivers licenses simply because they are more likely to become alcoholics themselves?

As to whether I would pass or fail the test, I can tell you flatly that if it were administered to determine my right to own firearms, by an already anti-gun state such as mine, I would fail. Or I should say that I would fail to meet the parameters set by those who interpret the test. I have been subjected to "personality" tests in grade and high school. The results sound very unflattering coming from someone with a bias towards wearing birkenstocks and singing kumbaiya.
I was schooled when the whole "zero tolerance" movement was getting traction in this country. Fortunately my father saw things differently and instilled in me what is right and wrong.
In 34 years I have never become angry at someone or directed force towards them simply to impose my will. I have however beaten the snot out of an ex-girlfriends drunken abusive father when he dared put his hands on her.
Will I use force and violence to an ends? Absolutely!
Did my highschool guidance councilors believe I was prone to violence? Again absolutely.
If I see some miscreant attacking an old lady on the street, will I lose a seconds sleep over breaking his head open? Not a chance.

In the end, I have had guns in my home and access to them since I was a child. Despite my "councilors" beliefs I have never gone on a rampage. I have never assaulted someone to make myself feel better. And I have certainly not endangered anyone in a manner that would deem me unfit to function in society.

Lest you think I suffer delusions of being the hero(has been mentioned earlier in the thread), I avoid dangerous situations. I'm not someone who failed at becoming a cop/fireman/emt and wishes to play out some fantasy of shoot outs in the street. I will however do what I feel is right to defend to the end myself and those that I love. If that means someone who violates mine or a loved ones right to peaceably go about our business meets an early end, again, i wont lose a seconds sleep.

 

[cnynrat]

That's not the actual purpose of more gun laws-registration and confiscation is.
If we take the advice of the chicken littles of society and require training, make personality tests mandatory, outlaw large capacity magazines etc., there will still be people who commit crime.
When they do, the chicken littles of society will again be calling for more "common sense" gun laws, and the process repeats itself until firearms are owned only by law enforcement, the military, and criminals (because criminals don't follow the law).
The only way to prevent all gun crime is to confiscate all guns. Despite their proclamations to the contrary, some here are clearly bent on it, the exception being THEIR guns.

I agree with you. The entire debate rests on a false premise, namely that with just the right set of carefully crafted gun laws we can prevent violent crime. So, when the first gun based crime occurs after putting a set of gun laws in place, the reaction will be that we just need a few more carefully crafted laws to achieve nirvana. The next set of restrictions will again fail to eradicate all gun based crime, and so a further set of restrictions will be put in place. This process will repeat itself until the only remaining step will be an outright ban. Even that step will fail to prevent gun based crime. There are already too many guns in circulation in the U.S. to believe that any attempt to confiscate them can be completely effective.

Fortunately, our right to bear arms is protected in our constitution, and contrary to what some believe, we do not live in a democracy ruled by the "will of the people."