The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 4181 - 4200 of total 5441 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Jul 8, 2014 - 10:21pm PT
My gun is not a big, heavy, dangerous tool! My gun is quite small, quite light, and not at all dangerous in itself. Look up the safety features on the H&K P30. It is about the safest gun on the market, while being very quickly deployable.

That's funny considering how many times in the news you hear the person saying, "I didn't think it was loaded".

I know, I know, it will never happen to you or any resposible gun owner, till it happens.
Kind of like, I'm a seasoned climber, I'll never make a mistake.


Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Jul 8, 2014 - 10:31pm PT
For what it's worth, I think that both the "gun nuts" and the "anti-gun-nuts" are equally wrong on this issue.

The problem in the US is not that too many people have guns, nor is it that there is an Obama-led conspiracy to take away everybody's guns.

Contrary to the beliefs of a lot of anti-gun crazies, Canadians (and Germans and Swedes and Brits, and...) are gun owners. Maybe they don't have 88mm anti-aircraft batteries mounted on their rooftops like Ron Anderson does, but they are hunters, target-shooters, and collectors just like he is.

So, given that Canadians are free to own guns just like you citizens of the US, why don't they murder each other at the rate you do?

This isn't rocket science folks. It's real simple -- Americans murder each other because they live in a culture of violence.

You pinko liberal wankers can pass all the laws you want, and nothing will change. And you redneck conservative crazies can own all the guns you want and nothing will change.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 8, 2014 - 10:37pm PT
Americans murder each other because they live in a culture of violence.

So, near as I can tell what we need to do is play more hockey?
Makes sense to me. I just hope it isn't the curling that is responsible.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 8, 2014 - 10:39pm PT
I know, I know, it will never happen to you or any resposible gun owner, till it happens.

It's not inevitable. In fact the number of guns and gun owners, compared to the number of gun-related accidents makes the odds look pretty good that it won't happen, ever, to the vast, vast majority of responsible gun owners.

Kind of like, I'm a seasoned climber, I'll never make a mistake.

Mistakes happen, of course. But the vast, vast majority of mistakes don't result in catastrophe. In my 40+ years of climbing, I've made plenty of mistakes. Fortunately the system has redundancies built in that help a lot. Same with a good gun and good training.

You look at the majority of accidental (particularly negligent) discharges, and they consist largely of goofballs playing fast-draw games, and that with less-safe weapons or weapons with safety features overridden to allow for "faster" draws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYvAxLX6OzE

Goofball-boy here has NO business with his finger inside the trigger guard until he's lined up and ready to fire. Basic gun-safety, and ironically something that would not even slow him down.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 8, 2014 - 10:43pm PT
Maybe they don't have 88mm anti-aircraft batteries mounted on their rooftops like Ron Anderson does

Nicely done, sir! I spewed a drink out my nose, and that's not easy to cause.

Canadians ARE a nice breed, no doubt. I love visiting Canada.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 8, 2014 - 10:47pm PT
ROFL....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IouUsPsUg4Y
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Jul 8, 2014 - 10:55pm PT
 Basic gun-safety, and ironically something that would not even slow him down

Don't confine the majority of accidental discharges to goofballs.
Ask Cheney.
I'd haphazardly assign the larger proportion to those that think it happens to others.
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Jul 8, 2014 - 10:59pm PT
Canadians ARE a nice breed, no doubt. I love visiting Canada.

Almost seven decades of living with both Americans and Canadians has left me with the belief that Canadians are not any nicer than Americans. Seems to me that there is an equal percentage of as#@&%es on both sides of the 49th Parallel. And plenty of gun owners on both sides.

But, for whatever reason, American culture is far more violent, and disagreements are far more likely to end in flying lead.

Why? I don't know.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 8, 2014 - 11:03pm PT
Don't confine the majority of accidental discharges to goofballs.
Ask Cheney.

Did you REALLY just throw such a soft pitch???

Awww... I just can't bring myself to hit it. In mercy I'll leave it where it falls.
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Jul 8, 2014 - 11:09pm PT
You look at the majority of accidental (particularly negligent) discharges, and they consist largely of goofballs playing fast-draw games, and that with less-safe weapons or weapons with safety features overridden to allow for "faster" draws.

Just reciprocating for the softball you pitched me.

edit

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IouUsPsUg4Y

Another funny one.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jul 8, 2014 - 11:09pm PT
So madbolter do you believe there should be no background checks at all? Anyone, including criminals, should be able to walk into Walmart and buy a handgun, with the only deterrent being punishment if they are later caught?

Are there any restrictions on arms that you believe are ok? Fully automatics? Bombs?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 8, 2014 - 11:27pm PT
So madbolter do you believe there should be no background checks at all? Anyone should be able to walk into Walmart and buy a handgun, with the only deterrent being punishment if they are later caught?

I personally have no problem with local background checks with no records of the results kept. That's how it works in Colorado. Mine took fifteen minutes, which is standard. Colorado law prohibits the record of the check to be kept at the state level, and the record cannot be passed along to the feds.

I am against universal, federally-anchored background checks precisely because I am increasingly cynical about our federal government and its ever-increasing surveillance. A local background check ties into all law-enforcement records, which serves the desired purpose; there is exactly zero compelling reason for any record to be kept or passed up to the feds.

Are there any restrictions on arms that you believe are ok? Fully automatics? Bombs?

Absolutely. The right of self-defense implies the right to the means of self-defense. So, let's parse that carefully.

I have the right to defend myself qua individual. This implies the right to the means appropriate to INDIVIDUAL defense. This implies an appropriate response to the sorts of threats I am likely to face qua individual.

Does, say, a nuke threaten me qua individual? No. Weapons of mass destruction by definition threaten MASSES, not just me qua individual. That is why we, qua "the people," band together and form governments a key purpose of which is NATIONAL defense. In this day and age, governments, not individuals need nukes for national defense. So, there is no possibility that me, qua individual, can appropriately employ a nuke to defend MYSELF.

You see the point. If a given society is such that a very real threat to my person, qua individual, includes automatic weapons, then, yes, my right of self defense implies the right to own and carry automatic weapons. In some countries, this would be a very pressing need.

In this country, imo, the average citizen doesn't need full-auto. But I think this is at the "fuzzy line" where the "need" is not as clearly defined. I think a case can be made both ways, and it can vary even community by community.

That leads immediately to a more overarching point, which is that the feds have no business in this debate. Such things should be decided at the state and even local community level. Gun control is a states' rights issue rather than something the feds have any pressing interest in.

So, the Aurora shooting takes place. Why should the feds care? This is not a matter of national interest nor national security, and anti-gun folks that try to elevate it as such envision a completely different role for the feds than this country was designed to have in place. And to call such shootings a "national tragedy" elevate the magnitude precisely FOR political purposes.

It is simply NOT a "national tragedy" that people are killed by guns. Put in proper context, if anything, it is a "national tragedy" that so many people die and are killed by smoking. But nobody is demanding that the feds pass a law....
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jul 8, 2014 - 11:42pm PT
Ghost writes:

"This isn't rocket science folks. It's real simple -- Americans murder each other because they live in a culture of violence."




A lot of countries have a higher murder rate than we enjoy here in the U.S.

In fact, most countries suffer a higher per-capita murder rate. Even Greenland has a higher per-capita murder rate than the U.S.

But not one of those countries has a higher rate of gun ownership. None are even close.

Less murders, yet more guns. THAT'S American Exceptionalism right there.
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Jul 9, 2014 - 08:35am PT
The biggest fallacy is if there is only a "background check" stopping a known criminal from obtaining a device he plans to use to kill/assault people with, then the system has already failed miserably. The water is already under the bridge. The horse has left the barn... etc....

If there are known violent criminals, previously incarcerated, on our streets who intend to cause great harm (and there sure are), THAT is the problem and the obvious one to deal with.

Laws are only obeyed by honest people who want to obey them in order to get along in society, like traffic laws.

Someone who intends to harm/kill absolutely WILL harm/kill regardless of what laws are in effect.

Someone who really wants to fry their brain on pot/meth/LSD absolutely WILL regardless of what laws are in effect.

Legalize drugs, end the absurd waste of money and blood. Legalize all firearms available to the local/state police to all citizens.

The government is not our friend.
couchmaster

climber
Jul 9, 2014 - 10:09am PT
Ghost quote:
"Almost seven decades of living with both Americans and Canadians has left me with the belief that Canadians are not any nicer than Americans. Seems to me that there is an equal percentage of as#@&%es on both sides of the 49th Parallel. And plenty of gun owners on both sides. But, for whatever reason, American culture is far more violent, and disagreements are far more likely to end in flying lead.

Why? I don't know."



Easy. In the 1700's folks that wanted to rock the world and toss over the accepted order via violence did it and created the US. Folks that were peaceful (for the most part) and compliant stayed or moved to Canada. The dominant paradigm of those folks and their ancestors is here in spirit to this day.

We see a bit of that here in the Pacific Northwet. Folks that came out seeking a new life from the east split in Utah. Those that wanted to raise family's followed the trail out to Oregon, those that wanted a fast buck moved to California. Ostensibly why California has so many fast buck and scam artists. Still a visible thing over a hundred years later although folks have been watering the effect down as time goes on by moving back and forth.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jul 9, 2014 - 10:43am PT
This is not a matter of national interest nor national security, and anti-gun folks that try to elevate it as such envision a completely different role for the feds than this country was designed to have in place.

What the country was designed to have in place and what it has evolved to have in place are two different things (and the debate about the reach of the fed govt. goes back to the very founding of our country), so you can't say it's black and white. There are many things people believe are states rights issues that the federal govt. has needed to step in and enforce such as civil rights. You can jump in your car and drive over state lines in this country so what takes place in one state can affect the other states. That's what makes it a national interest.

Again I'm a gun owner and not anti-gun. I'm for reasonable regulations to keep them out of the hands of the wrong people.

I personally have no problem with local background checks with no records of the results kept. That's how it works in Colorado. Mine took fifteen minutes, which is standard. Colorado law prohibits the record of the check to be kept at the state level, and the record cannot be passed along to the feds.

I am against universal, federally-anchored background checks precisely because I am increasingly cynical about our federal government and its ever-increasing surveillance. A local background check ties into all law-enforcement records, which serves the desired purpose; there is exactly zero compelling reason for any record to be kept or passed up to the feds.

Why are you ok with this background check if you feel it isn't doing any good (as per your other posts)?

I'm pretty much in agreement here. If the federal govt. acts as a clearing house and provides each state with regularly updated information about individuals in all states.

So the question is would you support a national law requiring all states to require background checks for all gun purchases run through a state database that doesn't pass records to the feds? Otherwise the criminals and straw purchasers can just go to the states not requiring background checks, go to a gun show and stock up and sell them in a state that requires checks, sell them and make a tidy profit.

I believe smart gun laws are effective.. This shows Gun Death Rates in California and the Nation. Over the last twenty years, California’s gun death rate has decreased dramatically.



From: http://smartgunlaws.org/the-california-model-twenty-years-of-putting-safety-first/

Sure there's lots of factors contributing to these rates, but the difference in laws between CA and the rest of the country and the difference in the drop of the death rate is likely correlated.

P.S. BTW I'm not in favor of all of CA's guns laws. Some reach to far. I took a quick look at CO's laws and from what I saw they looked correct IMO.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jul 9, 2014 - 01:31pm PT
California's line would look much like the other were it not for some cops gang clubbing a black motorist unaware that they were being video taped.
While it didn't cause a riot then, the finagling of the justice system so that they were not held responsible DID!

It wasn't the anti-gun laws taking effect so much as it was some other laws NOT having an effect.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jul 9, 2014 - 01:43pm PT
It wasn't the anti-gun laws taking effect so much as it was some other laws NOT having an effect.

I was not aware of that

can you post the sources, links, where you read this?

thanks in advance
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jul 9, 2014 - 01:49pm PT
Just look at the line's peak and think of when the riot was.


(sheesh)
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 9, 2014 - 01:50pm PT
Legalize drugs, end the absurd waste of money and blood. Legalize all firearms available to the local/state police to all citizens.

The government is not our friend.

Amen and amen!

Regarding the decrease in California, the differential is not at all dramatic compared to the rest of the country. In fact, I would guess from looking at the chart that the difference is even within the range of statistical error (not having seen the actual study the chart was based upon).

And deriving cause from correlation is sketchy business indeed!

Bottom line is that root causes of most gun homicides are not at all addressed by the slate of present and proposed gun laws. These are complex psychological and social issues that a rubber-stamp law cannot touch.

I'm not opposed to limited background checks (of the sort I described) because they are basically innocuous. Given my belief that these laws have no practical value, I vehemently oppose laws that make ANY inroads on law abiding citizens' gun ownership, sales, possession, or use. Innocuous laws accomplish little or nothing, but they also cause little or no harm. Fine. But laws like magazine-size limits are laughably ludicrous, as even our present lib/dem governor, Hickupgoofer, is finally admitting.
Messages 4181 - 4200 of total 5441 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews