The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1421 - 1440 of total 5826 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ksolem

Trad climber
Monrovia, California
Jan 11, 2013 - 06:36pm PT
There are anti-gun types?

There is a broad spectrum of opinion regarding guns, and so yes, at one end of the spectrum there are "anti gun folks." There are some on this forum, but I'll let them speak for themselves. At the other end are those who are against all regulation. I don't recall anyone here taking that position.

Personally I am a pro regulation gun owner who believes in the bill of rights. Of course the devil is in the details, and regulation I might think is sensible might offend Ron, or not be enough for Healyje. Take magazine capacity for example. I live in a nice house in a somewhat secluded spot on the slopes of the San Gabriels on the edge of L.A. The neighborhood is okay, but gangland is within walking distance. There have been two armed home invasions within 5 miles of here in the last couple of years. In one case the father of several children was summarily shot in his garage. In the other Dad had a semi auto handgun with a 15 round mag handy. He emptied his gun driving away the attackers who are now in jail.

Now on the one hand I think it is unlikely that my home will be attacked in this fashion. But if it is, I will want to be able to defend my wife and myself as effectively as possible. So in this event if I come out with a gun with a 16 round capacity and shoot an attacker, should I be in legal trouble? I am talking about a situation of clear self defense. I understand that it is not legitimate to shoot someone who is prowling around or even trying to break in until they pose a real threat.

I completely understand the argument that hi cap mags make for a more efficient gun, and in the hands of a psychopath this weapon is horrendous. But I would argue that any of these killers would do their evil work with less efficient weapons or simply acquire the illegal gun. For example the Dunblane Massacre in Scotland in which 16 children and their teacher were killed was committed with four legally registered pistols. The killer fired 109 rounds. He had two revolvers and two Browning 9mm pistols which as I recall hold 12 rounds, so he did a lot of reloading.

Sorry for the wandering post, but regarding the Bill of Rights, and the concept that the 2nd amendment is there so the people can defend themselves against a tyrannical government, it is quite clear that in today's world citizens fighting with small arms against our military is not a viable option (I think though that this is more about food and water than the weapons.) But, a government which supports the responsible ownership and use of arms is a government which respects and has trust in the people.

So there are a lot of regulations for owning and using guns that I would support, and I am happy to chat rationally about them here. It's about balance. I want my right to defend myself and my wife, and so I want also to be able to practice with my guns to keep my skill level high. At the same time we obviously want to do our best to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics. So where was the weak link in the Connecticut atrocity (aside from the kid being flat out insane?) The custodian of the weapons, the mother who he killed, was irresponsible (and therefore responsible.) IMO this is a much more important subject than how many rounds a magazine can hold.





Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jan 11, 2013 - 06:58pm PT
Here's some predictable and cheerless news, to add to that from jstan. The NRA refuses to concede any need for improved regulation of guns. Well, they've boxed themselves into a corner, and it seems likely that there'll be a return to (at least) the 1994 - 2004 regulations on assault weapons, large ammunition containers, and limits on sales. Nation-wide. As long as the regulations are reasonable, they seem likely to pass, and withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Vice President Joe Biden butted heads with the powerful National Rifle Association on Thursday in his drive to reduce U.S. gun violence, drawing complaints from the lobby group that the White House is trying to limit constitutionally protected gun rights.

Biden sat down for about an hour and a half of talks with an NRA representative and officials from other gun owners' groups after telling reporters he is likely to recommend background checks for all gun buyers and a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips.

"It is unfortunate that this administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen," the NRA said in a statement after the meeting.

Biden is heading a task force on reducing gun violence formed after a gunman shot dead 20 children and six adults last month at a Connecticut elementary school. Biden said he will make recommendations to President Barack Obama by next Tuesday.

The strong reaction by the NRA, a lobbying organization known for its influence with many lawmakers of both parties, illustrated the difficulty of changing gun laws in a country long accustomed to being able to purchase firearms under relatively loose regulations.

The Biden task force is trying to reach a consensus on a set of recommendations quickly while there is still a mood for action in Congress after the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut.

Adding urgency to the gun debate, a student armed with a shotgun opened fire at a California high school on Thursday, critically wounding a fellow student before two adult staff members talked the boy into giving up his weapon.

Moving quickly for Washington, Biden plans to turn over recommendations to Obama after only a few weeks of work. Biden said there is only a "tight window" for action.

"There is nothing that has pricked the consciousness of the American people (and) there is nothing that has gone to the heart of the matter more than the image people have of little 6-year-old kids riddled - not shot, but riddled, riddled - with bullet holes in their classroom," Biden said.

Attorney General Eric Holder also held talks on Thursday with major retailers including Wal-Mart Stores Inc, the largest U.S. gun seller, as well as Bass Pro Shops and Dick's Sporting Goods.

The Biden task force is grappling with elements that go beyond gun control measures, also looking into aspects of American popular culture.

The group held talks on Thursday with representatives of the movie industry and will also hear on Friday from the video game business. Both industries routinely feature gun violence.

BACKGROUND CHECKS

Meeting earlier with hunting and outdoor sports groups, Biden said two of his task force's recommendations are likely to be universal background checks for gun purchasers and a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips like the ones used in the Connecticut massacre. The background check requirement would extend to all gun purchasers. This would close the "gun show loophole" in which vendors at open-air gun sales events can sell without a background check on the purchaser. It would also extend to private sales such as those conducted over the Internet. The task force might also propose a ban on assault weapons like the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle used by the gunman in Newtown.

"There's an emerging set of recommendations not coming from me, but coming from the groups we've met with," Biden said.

Biden's office had no substantive reaction to the NRA statement, issued less than an hour after the talks ended.

"We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment," the NRA said.

"While claiming that no policy proposals would be 'prejudged,' this task force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans," the NRA added.

The NRA, which proposed after the Newtown shootings that armed security officers be stationed at U.S. schools, vowed to take "our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of Congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not."

Obama will review the Biden group's ideas, decide which ones he wants to keep and then announce "a package of actions and proposals," the White House said. Obama will seek legislative action by Congress but may also try to get some of his objectives done through presidential executive orders.

U.S. lawmakers have not approved a major new gun law since 1994. A U.S. assault weapons ban lapsed in 2004.

More than a hundred scientists from virtually every major U.S. university told Biden's task force in a letter that research restrictions pushed by the NRA have stopped the United States from finding solutions to gun violence.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has cut gun safety research by 96 percent since the mid-1990s, according to one estimate. Congress, pushed by the gun lobby, in 1996 put restrictions on CDC funding of gun research. Restrictions on other agencies were added in later years.

Biden said he would like federal agencies to have the ability to get information on what kind of weapons are used most to kill people and what kind of weapons are the most trafficked.

"I'm no great hunter - it's mostly skeet shooting for me - I don't quite understand why everybody would be afraid of whether or not we determine what is happening," he said.

Some journalists were allowed in for part of Biden's meeting with hunting groups such as Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever. No such news coverage was arranged for the NRA meeting.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/11/us-usa-guns-idUSBRE9090YM20130111

Let's hope that Obama and company have the gumption to press on this one.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Jan 11, 2013 - 06:59pm PT
Ksolem, some people feel the need to have guns to protect themselves, fair enough. Who am I to say no to that?

But why not at least try to ensure that those people who own guns do so responsibly? Safety inspections are required for cars... why not gun storage? 30+ hours of driver's ed is required to get a driver's license, why not AT LEAST as much for a gun license? People are required to register their vehicles and pay insurance in order to legally own and operate a vehicle, why not a gun? There are restrictions on what kind of fuel you can use in your car on highways (no nitrous), why not similarly limit high capacity magazines to shooting ranges?


Regardless, the answer to these mass shootings is not more guns. The NRA has got to be full of complete idiots to even suggest that.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Jan 11, 2013 - 07:12pm PT

Require a criminal background check for every gun sold in America.

Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that enable mass killing.

Make gun trafficking a federal crime, with stiff penalties for those who arm criminals.

So what's the objection?

http://www.demandaplan.org/sandyhook
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Jan 11, 2013 - 07:44pm PT
Yes, GET MAD!

Why are gun nuts generally religious people... who like to get MAD and YELL and freak the fuk out and call for violent uprisings?

Jesus Christ folks... get a fuking grip. All you self-proclaimed Christians should be speaking out against these fuking morons who promote violence and intolerance and wouldn't know Jesus if he gave them a hand job. Instead, all I hear from religious folks is praise for idiots like Alex Jones.
Ksolem

Trad climber
Monrovia, California
Jan 11, 2013 - 08:11pm PT
Require a criminal background check for every gun sold in America.

Already law here in Ca., I got no problem with that.

Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that enable mass killing

I don't think that will affect the actions of a deranged psychopath. I realize there has to be a line somewhere regarding personal firepower, but legislating my personal mag capacity down to ten rounds will not make any difference except to me.

Make gun trafficking a federal crime, with stiff penalties for those who arm criminals.

I'm good with that, let's start with our own DOJ... and isn't trafficking in weapons already a Federal crime?
Ksolem

Trad climber
Monrovia, California
Jan 11, 2013 - 08:38pm PT
Retroactively? That's what they're talking about.

You're talking about enforcing existing law. It is illegal for a convicted felon or parolee to own or handle, or even be around a firearm.

Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jan 11, 2013 - 08:45pm PT
Connecticut has come up with the BARNEY FIFE bill,,,ONLY single shot weapons of any type,, all others BANNED.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jan 11, 2013 - 08:47pm PT
according to the DOJ,, approx 3.5 to 4 million guns were used in self defense without any one being shot each year...Those are incidents where the perps were convinced by show of a weapon to leave.
michaeld

Sport climber
Sacramento
Jan 11, 2013 - 08:56pm PT
Also, anyone with a "connection to terrorism" would have their gun rights stripped - meaning most of the gun nuts on this thread who vouched for their gun ownership as a means of attacking the gov't would be stripped, and their weapons confiscated.


Also wrong. We've "vouched" our gun ownership as a means of repelling a tyrannical government, as per the Second Amendment in the Constitution of the United States of America.
michaeld

Sport climber
Sacramento
Jan 11, 2013 - 09:02pm PT
If that is the sort of language that will get me accused of domestic terrorism, than it's already a tyrannical government.


It's a sad day, that morons like you, aren't restricted on internet access.
michaeld

Sport climber
Sacramento
Jan 11, 2013 - 09:10pm PT
You're a paranoid lunatic.
crankster

Trad climber
South Lake Tahoe, CA
Jan 11, 2013 - 09:11pm PT
Typical gunnut. A lunatic masquerading as a patriot. Most have the IQ of a flea.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/state-suspends-handgun-carry-permit-of-tactical-response?ref=fpa
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jan 11, 2013 - 09:11pm PT
sorry hedgewad YOUR RONG... Those ARE DEPT OF JUSTICE FIGURES go see for yourself,, those are guns used in a self defense manner...
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Jan 11, 2013 - 09:15pm PT
If that is the sort of language that will get me accused of domestic terrorism, than it's already a tyrannical government.

What makes the threats of civil war by Alex Jones or any of the other nuts any different than those of Awlaki?

And it is thEn, not thAn.

It's a sad day, that morons like you, aren't restricted on internet access.

Right... because fuk the 1st amendment, we'll just skip to the second. I really hope for your sake that was intentional irony.
crankster

Trad climber
South Lake Tahoe, CA
Jan 11, 2013 - 09:16pm PT
Ron is drunk posting again. Gonna be a long night.
michaeld

Sport climber
Sacramento
Jan 11, 2013 - 09:22pm PT
And it is thEn, not thAn.

Every time you post, I roll my eyes and say "Christ"

Not because you're giving me an orgasm, you silly goose, but because you find little things like "then" and "than" to try and deflate my level of intelligence.

Incoming "What intelligence?"

If that is the sort of language that will get me accused of domestic terrorism, than it's already a tyrannical government.
What makes the threats of civil war by Alex Jones or any of the other nuts any different than those of Awlaki?

Awlaki joined a known terrorist organization.
Awlaki indirectly attacked American Citizens.


Alex Jones YELLS A LOT AND SAYS A LOT OF STUFF BUT IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ANYTHING. Freedom of Speech, First Amendment, which brings us to;


It's a sad day, that morons like you, aren't restricted on internet access.

Right... because fuk the 1st amendment, we'll just skip to the second. I really hope for your sake that was intentional irony.

;) There are no restriction on him, because of the First Amendment, where there are already hundreds of restrictions on the Second Amendment across the Country.

michaeld

Sport climber
Sacramento
Jan 11, 2013 - 09:26pm PT
You wouldn't be here as a free man, if it weren't for a bunch of "children in men's body with gun fetishisms'."


Know what the Minute Men are?

In World War II, my Great Grandfather got called to grab his rifle and go to the Capitol Street Bridge in Sacramento and be on watch for Japanese boats/submarines coming up the river.

Japanese halted the attacks after Pearl Harbor, even when they knew that there was no Navy between them and the rest of the US Soils. They knew that behind every door was a rifle.


crankster

Trad climber
South Lake Tahoe, CA
Jan 11, 2013 - 09:29pm PT
Jg, are you trying to change the mind of a gunNUT? You know that's not possible, right? You know about the operation they've all had? Seen the zipper on the back of their neck?
michaeld

Sport climber
Sacramento
Jan 11, 2013 - 09:33pm PT
No zipper. Just pale skin and big ears.

Credit: michaeld
Messages 1421 - 1440 of total 5826 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews