The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 5541 - 5560 of total 5826 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jul 17, 2014 - 08:27pm PT
good

then are we all in agreement that since laws are not followed by criminals...

that laws don't stop any crimes

so there is no need for any laws

in fact we might as well repeal all laws

all those background checks that Ron does are a complete waste of his time and do no good
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Jul 17, 2014 - 08:30pm PT
Yes Norton, everything flies with no responsibilities.

Pencil it all together and pass it around for a good signing party.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 18, 2014 - 01:07am PT
The context is in the quote, go back and read them, they're all of 2 or 3 pages back. You won't be able to nuance them to anything else as they're at face value as is.

Look, you're either going to be charitable or you're not. When I say "context," I mean that I've been perpetually referring to federal law throughout everything I've said on this thread, except for cases in which I talk about specific state laws. If you can't get that fact, then you are simply determined to "find me in inconsistency," for what point I remain unclear. If you are that uncharitable, then you're not worth dealing with.

When I've misunderstood someone, I've apologized for it. You should get over yourself and consider doing the same. I know what I have thought and what I've intended. On a forum thread, misunderstandings are easy to come by. Why don't you get off the "inconsistency" kick (for whatever you think you're accomplishing by it) and just accept that misunderstandings happen?

The rest of you above are nothing more then anything new must fall within your guidelines. While you restate that your against magazine limits, many of your arguments against them don't hold much water and there is a tide much larger than you for them.

Well, here and in what follows, you start referring to a "tide" that doesn't agree with me about magazine limits. All I can say is that, as one example, Colorado had its foray into that territory, and the tide has completely turned against it. In the next election, the dems are going to have some serious problems, as upwards of 60% of Colorado now opposes what they did when they owned the legislature. Two got recalled already, a third resigned before that could happen, and the tide is strongly against the dems now.

Even our way-awesome governor, Hiccuplooper, is now running scared from his earlier signage of those laws, has flatly stated that they were a mistake, and is saying that he is looking forward to working with the legislature to get them repealed. If there's a "tide" in Colorado is IS one of extreme backlash against these recent gun-control laws.

Elsewhere? We'll see. You're mighty confident that the "tide" is going to go your way. Good luck with that. It's not at all obvious that it will.

Regarding my arguments against magazine-size limits, all I can say is that they are shared by 56/62 sheriffs in Colorado, by many dems now, and by Hiccuplooper, who now clearly states that he failed to gain all the facts and that none of the new laws would have done ANYTHING to save even one life in the Colorado shootings that have made all the news. So, even THAT goofball now admits EXACTLY what I've been saying. The "tide" appears to agree with me, even if you don't.

Not that that matters when your door is closed. Thats just one front you refuse to budge, your totally ensconced on many other workable amd sensible laws. Please read any of your other hundreds of posts as proof.

Again, you are totally uncharitable regarding my position. My door is not "closed" on a range of subjects, IF anybody can trot out some "sensible" argumentation. YOU haven't, and your "side" hasn't. TE has done FAR better than most of you, and he's moved me already in some ways.

Again, I'm not against guns,

Well, it's not clear to me in what sense you are "for" them. Nobody like YOU has answered a simple question I've asked repeatedly and from the start: WHAT magazine-size limit is "just right?" You don't like more than 15 rounds. But if the difference from, say, 17 to 15 would (apparently) save lives, then surely cutting even that in half, to, say, 7 would save even more lives. What about 5? HOW could ANYBODY ever need to fire more than 5 rounds in self-defense??? Ridiculous! No way!

Ahh... right, ideally, we're back to single-shot muskets, which is what the founders knew about. And people on this thread have actually SAID that outright. Are you among them in your own thinking?

Bottom line is that you SAY you're not against guns, but then you are all about this "save even one life" mind-set, and that really means such limitations on them that you effectively ARE against guns.

Or perhaps YOU can explain YOUR deeply nuanced position!


but you've got to be dense if you don't acknowledge there is a change a coming.

That's it. I'm dense. Now I understand why I just don't "get it."

Oh, wait. If I "get" why I don't "get it," then I must not be SO dense. Ahh... now I'm just deeply confused. Oh, and probably still dense.

Or, perhaps this "change" in the "tide" is NOT as obvious as you (in your wishful thinking) imagine that it is. It SURE isn't "a coming" in Colorado. What's "a coming" in Colorado is a backlash against the dems and an "a overturning" of this failed little experiment.

If we don't get a grip on mass slayings of children there will be laws that even I wouldn't want.

Oh, wow. It's like this entire thread (expect for expressions of YOUR perspective) literally has not existed.

I'll say once more: Even Hiccupgoofer now acknowledges that NONE of the gun laws recently passed would have done ONE THING to address the "mass slayings of children" or anybody else. He ADMITS that he made a huge mistake, pissed off all the sheriffs for no good reason, and that he and the legislature were "not in possession of the facts."

Neither you nor anybody else on this thread has even started to make the case that any of the proposed gun-control laws will accomplish anything statistically significant to "get a grip" on the problem.

What sorts of law would "even you" not want, and that you think might be coming down the pike? I'm just really curious what, in your version of reality, will be the end-game here. Colorado has been the scene of MUCH of the media coverage you are surely referring to. Yet Colorado is about to move in the opposite direction you suggest.

Must be that all Coloradans are also "dense."

Get flexible or you can stand your ground while at first the rest of the country moves around you, only to find your soon entombed by your own convictions.

I am flexible when compelling arguments can be presented. Of course, let me "budge" even a little, and YOU'VE got me all "bait and switch" up in the house. So, with the likes of YOU, I'm in a no-win position. If I don't "budge," then I'm "entrenched." And if a sensible argument or suggestion IS made, and I see the merit and modify my stance in the slightest, then I'm a bad, bad boy in the other direction.

Guess what. I don't give a rat's left testicle how you assess me or my positions. I argue what I believe as best I can. People that can be moved are. People that find that my positions MORE "entrench" them in theirs are. This is the nature of argumentation. We bounce off of each other, and the intellectual chips fall as they will.

I'm in no way convinced that "the rest of the country" is moving as you say. If it is, then so be it. People like me will have to decide what stands can be made and in what ways. Or, the country will move against YOU, and YOU'LL have to decide what stands can be made and in what way.

Politics is FORCE, and people that are forced too far will react. Interesting times ahead!
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 18, 2014 - 01:13am PT
I'm personally strongly in favor of a gun registry, for handguns at least. It is the obvious difference between US and Canadian laws, and I believe a large reason for the dramatically lower gun homicide rates in Canada compared to the US.

And there we disagree again. There are so many reasons why Canada has a lower homicide rate than us, and they have nothing to do with a gun registry.

We could start with their vastly different demographic.

Then there's....

Difference in immigration

Difference in the nature of their Southern border

Difference in their gang issues

Difference in the mindset of their people from the inception of our two nations

Difference in their relation to England, from whence our nations both sprung

Difference in their population density, particularly relative to land-mass

And it goes on and on.

What gun-control folks don't see is that you don't address the complex sociological issues that underlie crime (including homicides) by patching over this or that symptom. It's a superficial approach that temporarily placates some people (like the dems in Colorada), but it is later seen to actually not be based on the facts (as Colorado's governor now admits).
Bargainhunter

climber
Jul 18, 2014 - 05:33am PT
Ok, a couple of dramatic news stories in California yesterday.

A gang related shoot out in a 7-11 in Van Nuys and a bank robbery in Stockton with hostages taken and used as human shields. Both gruesome outcomes, and tragic for innocent victims at the bank.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-police-looking-for-oneeyed-double-murder-suspect-20140717-story.html

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bank-robbery-three-dead-gunbattle-20140717-story.html

So, conceal carry permitters, are these crimes justification for your carry? Would you have intervened?

I'd say that for the 7-11 murders, it looks like it was gang on gang mad-dogging followed by the inevitable blast fest.

The gangsters in Stockton however were even more ruthless and resulted in 3 innocent bystanders being shot, 2 killed, then the perps volleyed AK-47 gunfire with cops for an hour before 2 were killed and the 3rd, a 19 year old Jaime Ramos, was apprehended. I suspect Jaime won't last long on death row as he'll probably be murdered in prison.

Could Madbolter have, or any of us, saved the day?

Damn we live in a violent country. I was in Brazil last year where crime related violence is at a whole other level. Sadly, we don't seem to be far behind.
crankster

Trad climber
Jul 18, 2014 - 05:52am PT
We'll get there, Bargain. The NRA will see to it.
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Jul 18, 2014 - 09:34am PT
Oh please spare me your lecture madbolter1.

The facts are you continually open your arms with your feet completely stuck in concrete, unable to move with anything your open arms receive.

Also spare me your cherry picked Colorado whom you mostly agree with. The fact that many of the PUBLIC ELECTED OFFICIALS called sherrifs IN PUBLIC STATE there against any new gun laws bear no wieght. If all law enforcement officers had a vote without finding which voted which way you'd have a different outcome.

One of the reasons the majority would like to see a limit on magazines is right in your answer above. The last thing we need is the unintentional consequences from more bullets flying in public confrontations by self proclaimed gun aficionados. Training doesn't overide your senses when caught up in the split second dicisions needed. Even the one on the offense is often subdued while fumbling around switching magazines. Please don't list your reasons for large capacity magazines, it would be mundane to go back over that road of the cons of it in response.

I don't see any law that doesn't have the oversight of the fed having any teeth, states will argue back and forth till no end. Maybe thats what you want, not me. Gun registration and sales need to be able to retrace the owner of the gun at the time of the crime the gun was used in when needed for LEO'S. I know the paranoid will have a thousand excuses against this avenue.

Lets shorten up this process, you say exactly what you want a law to say instead of us trying to guess within your tenents. You want us to be flexible within your guidelines, try stepping out of your comfort zone, not just up to the edge of it.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Jul 18, 2014 - 09:41am PT
Credit: Ron Anderson




Pick of the day~~ Heckler Koch 45 caliber semi auto - made in Germany.



Want a 45 that feels like your shooting a 9mm? This is the one.

Complete with exposed hammer features, thumb safety and night sights. And as per normal, rails for light/ lazer add ons..

The recovery between shots is easy and quick, especially given that its a .45 caliber.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 18, 2014 - 09:53am PT
I certainly don't have your wealth of experience, Ron. But I will say that after holding dozens and dozens of guns before making a purchase, nothing feels as good in the hand as an H&K. And both my wife and I can shoot it well. In the end, that's what really matters: bullets on target and nowhere else.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Jul 18, 2014 - 09:58am PT
Yes it has Glocks beat six ways to sunday. Id say the next closest thing would be a Springfield .45, in sweetness of handling. But the new desert Eagles are quite sweet as well. Feel in the hand and all. ;-)
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Jul 18, 2014 - 09:58am PT
Are gun stores now doing all this?

Then I'd say I didn't realize they were doing all that.

Gun Dealers must keep the records, (with trivial penalties for "lost" records), but they do not report them to a central location. When a gun is being traced by the police, they must start at the original manufacturer, and step by step trace each transfer down through each successive wholesale dealers. For older guns, this will most likely be a dead end. For newer guns, if a buyer can be traced, he can simply say "I lost it" or "It was stolen from my unlocked car", or "I sold it to some dude in a bar". Since these are currently acceptable answers in most states, the trail runs cold. Due to the manpower involved and the low likelihood of a prosecution for any serious offense, police rarely bother to trace crime guns.

Universal background checks (with mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns) with a database linking dealers to gun sales would cut off a large source of illegal guns and make "responsible gun owners" legally responsible for their guns.

TE
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jul 18, 2014 - 10:08am PT
They've done just that - with cold medicine - in an attempt to wipe out methamphetamine.

It didn't work.

Meth production just moved out of the country, and now there's more meth here than ever.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 18, 2014 - 10:30am PT
Chaz, you're wasting your time, as I've now realized I have been.

The "it doesn't work" argument just rolls off them. They don't understand the notion of burden of proof, they don't see how the burden is HEAVY on them, and they don't intuitively resonate with how rights actually work.

You can't make a communitarian thinker into a libertarian thinker. No argumentation gets it done. In the end, I see that they are incommensurable paradigms.

They want everything handed to the feds, and that sucking sound is the sound of the swirling federal vortex draining away your freedoms, rights, and money at an ever-increasing pace.

All I can do is HOPE that john-boy is wrong about "the tide." We'll see as the backlashes start hitting.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 18, 2014 - 10:36am PT
now there's more meth here than ever.

According to Colorado LEOs, it's the single biggest crime problem they face.

And, of course, its ripple effects include whack-jobs and all sorts of related crime and violence.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 18, 2014 - 10:37am PT
Solve the gang problem and the drug problem, and you solve the "gun problem."
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jul 18, 2014 - 10:40am PT
Yeah, give it to the Feds.

We have a border that two-year-olds are crossing on their own, and Obama has established that the Executive branch not only has no obligation to enforce Federal laws, but can re-write the laws or use the laws to go after its political opposition.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 18, 2014 - 10:51am PT
Once the vehicle stopped at an intersection, they used their last hostage identified by CBS Sacramento as Misty Holt-Singh as a human shield. She was killed in the gunfire.

Clever how they word that!

"Gunfire" killed the hostage. It just reached out all by itself and did the deed.

I want to know WHO shot her. The odds of it being a cop bullet are at least 50/50 and probably higher.

The guy teaching our CCW class is one of 8 people in Colorado certified to do firearms training for the LEOs, and he deals with hundreds of them. He's also a former cop himself. He told us flat out that most cops can barely pass their firearms qualifying and often need extensive work to make it: 2 shots, both within an 8-inch circle, both within 15 seconds, from 25 yards.

Sad!

My wife could do better than that after having shot a gun TWICE in her life. And I also would have no problem with such an "exam" at any time on any day. That "final exam" is NOT HARD!!!

That's the "high bar" that the cops have to get over? Well, it explains a lot....

Cops in a shooting situation OFTEN empty their entire magazines and hit nothing, then reload and still hit nothing. And it's 50% that a killed cop got killed by his/her own gun.

Could the (typically better-trained) public do WORSE in these situations???

Yes, I'd like to see the carrying public be even better trained and have to pass formal standards. But all the ones I know are far, far better, both tactically and in terms of marksmanship, than the average cop. They "self- police" themselves to a higher standard.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Jul 18, 2014 - 11:12am PT
If universal background checks moved gun production out of the country, that would show just what a large proportion of the gun trade supplies the illegal market. The demand and profit margins for illegal guns is so disproportionately small compared with drugs, that while smuggled guns would come in, the volume would be dramatically lower than the current unlimited domestic supply. Guns are a lot of fun, but they aren't that addictive.

Comparing guns with drugs is even dumber that comparing guns with cars.

Lastly for this week, nowhere in the US constitution is there an onus to prove that any legislation will work prior to passing, even if that legislation restricts some perceived rights. There are thousands of laws restricting specifically enumerated rights that have withstood supreme court challenge, and some of those have likely achieved nothing: that is the "due process of law".

TE
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jul 18, 2014 - 11:15am PT
"Comparing guns with drugs is even dumber that comparing guns with cars."


Prohibition is prohibition.

It didn't work then. ( booze ) It's not working now. ( drugs ) It won't work in the future.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Jul 18, 2014 - 11:19am PT
As for cops training, our local crag is also the firing range for several local police forces (yes, that does cause some interesting problems). The spread of holes in that target used only from 10 yards is extremely troubling. Sure, cops should be trained far better, and paid far better, but nobody wants to pay for that. Perhaps a $500 impact fee on all firearms sales?

TE


Messages 5541 - 5560 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