|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 04 2013 02:19 Kuni wrote:
Of course people should be allowed to own and carry guns, but please, only far, faaar away from where I live.
Most of the police officers around here have never had to unsheathe their service weapon ... not even once, even throughout decades of service. I would very much like it to stay that way.
I think people who have passed the courses to have a concealed carry license agree with you and hope that in decades of carry they will never have to unsheathe their weapon... not even once, even throughout decades of carrying.
You believe people should have the right to carry just not near you. But you admit that police officers are ok to carry. Tell me why they are more trustworthy to carry?
|
On February 04 2013 02:24 Rhino85 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 02:19 Kuni wrote:
Of course people should be allowed to own and carry guns, but please, only far, faaar away from where I live.
Most of the police officers around here have never had to unsheathe their service weapon ... not even once, even throughout decades of service. I would very much like it to stay that way. I think people who have passed the courses to have a concealed carry license agree with you and hope that in decades of carry they will never have to unsheathe their weapon... not even once, even throughout decades of carrying. You believe people should have the right to carry just not near you. But you admit that police officers are ok to carry. Tell me why they are more trustworthy to carry?
You seriously are asking why we should trust police with weapons more than a civilian?
-Training
-Accountability
-Essential to perform professional duties
Police do stupid things with their guns sometimes. They are not perfect. They are still much more trustworthy with their firearms than your average citizen.
|
On February 04 2013 02:24 Rhino85 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 02:19 Kuni wrote:
Of course people should be allowed to own and carry guns, but please, only far, faaar away from where I live.
Most of the police officers around here have never had to unsheathe their service weapon ... not even once, even throughout decades of service. I would very much like it to stay that way. I think people who have passed the courses to have a concealed carry license agree with you and hope that in decades of carry they will never have to unsheathe their weapon... not even once, even throughout decades of carrying. You believe people should have the right to carry just not near you. But you admit that police officers are ok to carry. Tell me why they are more trustworthy to carry?
They have a purpose, and you can't really say they're "concealing" if they're in uniform. We trust police over citizenry in lots of ways, because we pay them to be responsible and accountable.
The chances of carrying an object on your person for decades and never using it, whatever those chances are, is certainly greater than the chance of using an object that you don't carry around with you.
One thing that is bothersome is we (America) look at Sandy Hook as reason to enforce more regulation on guns. But it really shouldn't be about Sandy Hook, but the thousand of singular incidents of gun-violence that's occurred since.
I see Sandy Hook incidents as being pre-meditated to a degree, and to an extent, I agree that pre-meditated murder is hard or impossible to prevent with gun laws (no matter which side has the gun - someone planning to kill you probably won't give you the opportunity to shoot back).
The real problem is crimes of "passion", that we never really hear about on a day-to-day basis. When a law-abiding person gets mad, in the wrong way, at the wrong time, has access to a gun and decides that now is the time to use it, is the real problem of our gun-abundance. This happens too much in this country, and if everyone has a gun, it's obvious (or at least it should be) that we'll see a lot more of this type of gun-violence. Domestic disputes, bar fights, etc. will all become even uglier affairs.
I'll also admit that banning certain types of guns or cartridges won't really prevent anything, but it's a start. If we can't start to sort out some sort of limitations now, then that's a clear sign that we're simply too ideological on this issue.
The 2nd Amendment is interpreted by the pro-gun lobby as stating, to paraphrase, that anyone can own however many of whatever weapon they could possibly want. We've already compromised on this. But we need to compromise more. Guns are only going to become more destructive, and who knows what technology will do to weaponry next. The premise the pro-gun lobby is trying to set is eventually going to break against common sense. It's just a question of when, and at what cost.
|
On February 04 2013 02:28 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 02:24 Rhino85 wrote:On February 04 2013 02:19 Kuni wrote:
Of course people should be allowed to own and carry guns, but please, only far, faaar away from where I live.
Most of the police officers around here have never had to unsheathe their service weapon ... not even once, even throughout decades of service. I would very much like it to stay that way. I think people who have passed the courses to have a concealed carry license agree with you and hope that in decades of carry they will never have to unsheathe their weapon... not even once, even throughout decades of carrying. You believe people should have the right to carry just not near you. But you admit that police officers are ok to carry. Tell me why they are more trustworthy to carry? You seriously are asking why we should trust police with weapons more than a civilian? -Training -Accountability -Essential to perform professional duties Police do stupid things with their guns sometimes. They are not perfect. They are still much more trustworthy with their firearms than your average citizen.
What's interesting is the difference between American police and police in other countries.
In Germany in the whole of 2011, just 85 bullets were fired by police in situations dealing with criminals. 49 of those were warning shots, 36 fired at people, 15 injured, 6 killed.
In America in April 2011, 90 shots were fired at a fleeing, unarmed man in LA. 84 were fired at a suspect in Harlem.
In Germany in 2012, 690 people were killed by armed violence, out of a population of about 83 million.
In America in 2012, 14,748 people were killed by armed violence, out of a population of about 315 million.
Why do you think this is the case?
|
On February 04 2013 02:40 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 02:28 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 02:24 Rhino85 wrote:On February 04 2013 02:19 Kuni wrote:
Of course people should be allowed to own and carry guns, but please, only far, faaar away from where I live.
Most of the police officers around here have never had to unsheathe their service weapon ... not even once, even throughout decades of service. I would very much like it to stay that way. I think people who have passed the courses to have a concealed carry license agree with you and hope that in decades of carry they will never have to unsheathe their weapon... not even once, even throughout decades of carrying. You believe people should have the right to carry just not near you. But you admit that police officers are ok to carry. Tell me why they are more trustworthy to carry? You seriously are asking why we should trust police with weapons more than a civilian? -Training -Accountability -Essential to perform professional duties Police do stupid things with their guns sometimes. They are not perfect. They are still much more trustworthy with their firearms than your average citizen. What's interesting is the difference between American police and police in other countries. In Germany in the whole of 2011, just 85 bullets were fired by police in situations dealing with criminals. 49 of those were warning shots, 36 fired at people, 15 injured, 6 killed. In America in April 2011, 90 shots were fired at a fleeing, unarmed man in LA. 84 were fired at a suspect in Harlem. In Germany in 2012, 690 people were killed by armed violence, out of a population of about 83 million. In America in 2012, 14,748 people were killed by armed violence, out of a population of about 315 million. Why do you think this is the case?
because every american can potentially have a gun in their pocket, american police is way faster at taking someone out with a gun. Because in a "potential" gun vs. gun engagement, there can only be one surviving.
Which is all the argument that is needed why everyone having a gun is not a solution.
|
On February 04 2013 02:48 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 02:40 Larkin wrote:On February 04 2013 02:28 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 02:24 Rhino85 wrote:On February 04 2013 02:19 Kuni wrote:
Of course people should be allowed to own and carry guns, but please, only far, faaar away from where I live.
Most of the police officers around here have never had to unsheathe their service weapon ... not even once, even throughout decades of service. I would very much like it to stay that way. I think people who have passed the courses to have a concealed carry license agree with you and hope that in decades of carry they will never have to unsheathe their weapon... not even once, even throughout decades of carrying. You believe people should have the right to carry just not near you. But you admit that police officers are ok to carry. Tell me why they are more trustworthy to carry? You seriously are asking why we should trust police with weapons more than a civilian? -Training -Accountability -Essential to perform professional duties Police do stupid things with their guns sometimes. They are not perfect. They are still much more trustworthy with their firearms than your average citizen. What's interesting is the difference between American police and police in other countries. In Germany in the whole of 2011, just 85 bullets were fired by police in situations dealing with criminals. 49 of those were warning shots, 36 fired at people, 15 injured, 6 killed. In America in April 2011, 90 shots were fired at a fleeing, unarmed man in LA. 84 were fired at a suspect in Harlem. In Germany in 2012, 690 people were killed by armed violence, out of a population of about 83 million. In America in 2012, 14,748 people were killed by armed violence, out of a population of about 315 million. Why do you think this is the case? because every american can potentially have a gun in their pocket, american police is way faster at taking someone out with a gun. Because in a "potential" gun vs. gun engagement, there can only be one surviving. Which is all the argument that is needed why everyone having a gun is not a solution.
But they're not "faster" - they fired more shots at someone who was unarmed, running away than the entire German police. Are they not just trigger happy?
|
On February 04 2013 02:40 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 02:28 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 02:24 Rhino85 wrote:On February 04 2013 02:19 Kuni wrote:
Of course people should be allowed to own and carry guns, but please, only far, faaar away from where I live.
Most of the police officers around here have never had to unsheathe their service weapon ... not even once, even throughout decades of service. I would very much like it to stay that way. I think people who have passed the courses to have a concealed carry license agree with you and hope that in decades of carry they will never have to unsheathe their weapon... not even once, even throughout decades of carrying. You believe people should have the right to carry just not near you. But you admit that police officers are ok to carry. Tell me why they are more trustworthy to carry? You seriously are asking why we should trust police with weapons more than a civilian? -Training -Accountability -Essential to perform professional duties Police do stupid things with their guns sometimes. They are not perfect. They are still much more trustworthy with their firearms than your average citizen. What's interesting is the difference between American police and police in other countries. In Germany in the whole of 2011, just 85 bullets were fired by police in situations dealing with criminals. 49 of those were warning shots, 36 fired at people, 15 injured, 6 killed. In America in April 2011, 90 shots were fired at a fleeing, unarmed man in LA. 84 were fired at a suspect in Harlem. In Germany in 2012, 690 people were killed by armed violence, out of a population of about 83 million. In America in 2012, 14,748 people were killed by armed violence, out of a population of about 315 million. Why do you think this is the case?
Well, one reason might be that when every civilian is armed, it puts a lot more pressure on the police in situations they feel are dangerous.
|
On February 04 2013 02:24 Rhino85 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 02:19 Kuni wrote:
Of course people should be allowed to own and carry guns, but please, only far, faaar away from where I live.
Most of the police officers around here have never had to unsheathe their service weapon ... not even once, even throughout decades of service. I would very much like it to stay that way. I think people who have passed the courses to have a concealed carry license agree with you and hope that in decades of carry they will never have to unsheathe their weapon... not even once, even throughout decades of carrying. You believe people should have the right to carry just not near you. But you admit that police officers are ok to carry. Tell me why they are more trustworthy to carry?
Nope, I don't really believe people should be allowed to carry guns without extremely strict rules and regulations. At least not in countries, which claim to be at a reasonable high standard in terms of development, stability and society.
There are probably many reasons why police officers are more trustworthy than others, when it comes to firearms.
Police officers do not become police officers, because they can then carry a gun and use it, the service weapon is not something a police officer desires in order to protect him and others. It's part of the job. As I said, the majority here has never even had to unsheathe it.
Normal people on the other hand, who are actively trying to own a firearm have a clear motivation towards the firearm, with the clear intent to actually use it, if a situation arises and they judge for themselves if using it is justified. "I got this gun for self defense." includes the intent to use it. I personally really do not want anyone, who intentionally gets a gun to use it, to judge for themselves, if they think firing a bullet in situation X is justified or not. Everybody has his own justice, but the police is trained and ordered to follow a standardised guideline for it.
However, I can see the freedom argument as an argument, which must be considered. Just because we live in stable countries, does not mean that the governments won't use their position to force their on will onto the people. But this scenario is not something we should prepare for or work towards in our daily lives, because it would defeat the purpose of having developed such an advanced society. That would go too far for sure.
PS: please bear in mind, that our "advanced society" as I called it has many shitholes in it, but still, I think no one would want to live in any past epoch, for that matter.
|
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-30/opinions/36647196_1_nra-wayne-lapierre-background-checks
For example, the NRA doesn't even want background checks on people who buy weapons, nor do they want to close the "gun-show loophole". They're paid by gun manufacturers, to undoubtedly help them sell as many guns to as many people in this country as possible.
This is the gun-control debate in America. It isn't about taking away people's right to own a gun. It's about simple regulations that we have to fight tooth-and-nail for, because the pro-gun lobby has inundated the discussion with so much nonsense and hyperbole. I believe there is a discussion to be had about whether or not people should own guns, but it's really a GIANT strawman at this point in time. We need to simply make more coherent and effective regulations to prevent criminals and would-be criminals from buying guns.
I think the most important step we take as a nation is that more people come to see that the NRA and pro-gun lobby opposes these small regulations, just as they opposed The Brady Bill, because they are very directly in the business of selling weapons. And every purchase counts.
|
On February 04 2013 03:00 Leporello wrote:http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-30/opinions/36647196_1_nra-wayne-lapierre-background-checksFor example, the NRA doesn't even want background checks on people who buy weapons, nor do they want to close the "gun-show loophole". They're paid by gun manufacturers, to undoubtedly help them sell as many guns to as many people in this country as possible. This is the gun-control debate in America. It isn't about taking away people's right to own a gun. It's about simple regulations that we have to fight tooth-and-nail for, because the pro-gun lobby has inundated the discussion with so much nonsense and hyperbole. I believe there is a discussion to be had about whether or not people should own guns, but it's really a GIANT strawman at this point in time. We need to simply make more coherent and effective regulations to prevent criminals and would-be criminals from buying guns. I think the most important step we take as a nation is that more people come to see that the NRA and pro-gun lobby opposes these small regulations, just as they opposed The Brady Bill, because they are very directly in the business of selling weapons. And every purchase counts.
It sure seems to be about taking people's guns when all the legislation is bullshit like high capacity magazine bans and "Assault Weapon" bans.
I'm all for background checks, but not much else.
Oh, and there isn't really a "gun-show loophole". It's not like its ok to sell guns as a private seller at a gun-show but nowhere else. Private sales without background checks are legal almost everywhere. The "gun-show loophole" is a propaganda term, because gun-control proponents know that calling it private sale regulation would be a tough sell.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's the truth.
On February 04 2013 02:58 Kuni wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 02:24 Rhino85 wrote:On February 04 2013 02:19 Kuni wrote:
Of course people should be allowed to own and carry guns, but please, only far, faaar away from where I live.
Most of the police officers around here have never had to unsheathe their service weapon ... not even once, even throughout decades of service. I would very much like it to stay that way. I think people who have passed the courses to have a concealed carry license agree with you and hope that in decades of carry they will never have to unsheathe their weapon... not even once, even throughout decades of carrying. You believe people should have the right to carry just not near you. But you admit that police officers are ok to carry. Tell me why they are more trustworthy to carry? Nope, I don't really believe people should be allowed to carry guns without extremely strict rules and regulations. At least not in countries, which claim to be at a reasonable high standard in terms of development, stability and society. There are probably many reasons why police officers are more trustworthy than others, when it comes to firearms. Police officers do not become police officers, because they can then carry a gun and use it, the service weapon is not something a police officer desires in order to protect him and others. It's part of the job. As I said, the majority here has never even had to unsheathe it. Normal people on the other hand, who are actively trying to own a firearm have a clear motivation towards the firearm, with the clear intent to actually use it, if a situation arises and they judge for themselves if using it is justified. "I got this gun for self defense." includes the intent to use it. I personally really do not want anyone, who intentionally gets a gun to use it, to judge for themselves, if they think firing a bullet in situation X is justified or not. Everybody has his own justice, but the police is trained and ordered to follow a standardised guideline for it. However, I can see the freedom argument as an argument, which must be considered. Just because we live in stable countries, does not mean that the governments won't use their position to force their on will onto the people. But this scenario is not something we should prepare for or work towards in our daily lives, because it would defeat the purpose of having developed such an advanced society. That would go too far for sure. PS: please bear in mind, that our "advanced society" as I called it has many shitholes in it, but still, I think no one would want to live in any past epoch, for that matter.
There already are laws for carrying firearms in most states. They usually include training, which is mostly about the laws of the state, especially about what the state deems as justified. So no, everyone does NOT have their own justice.
|
It seems that the NRA has posted a List of Organizations and people that oppose their positions. The media is framing it as the 'enemy list'. Source: http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15 and source http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-colmes/dear-nra-please-put-me-on_b_2600266.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
It was posted back in 2012 but I just noticed. I find it highly irresponsible to post such a list and worrisome that people would conceive the idea of such a list and actually make it. Because what if someone actually takes it upon themselves to act on that list and actually attacks the people? The debate is already polarized enough.
What is even more worrisome is the mindset behind making something like this. This reminds me of the hyperbole in Bowling for Columbine's "short history of America" only that it now almost seems to be so close to reality that it scares the shit out of me.
bottom line: The way the discussion about this topic is going worries me.
|
On February 04 2013 04:06 Doppelganger wrote:It seems that the NRA has posted a List of Organizations and people that oppose their positions. The media is framing it as the 'enemy list'. Source: http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15 and source http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-colmes/dear-nra-please-put-me-on_b_2600266.html?utm_hp_ref=politicsIt was posted back in 2012 but I just noticed. I find it highly irresponsible to post such a list and worrisome that people would conceive the idea of such a list and actually make it. Because what if someone actually takes it upon themselves to act on that list and actually attacks the people? The debate is already polarized enough. What is even more worrisome is the mindset behind making something like this. This reminds me of the hyperbole in Bowling for Columbine's "short history of America" only that it now almost seems to be so close to reality that it scares the shit out of me.
Do you really expect so little of American gun owners as to think that we're going to go all Tarantino upside that list?
It's pretty normal for politically active organisations to tell people which companies line up with them, and who don't. It lets people run boycotts and shit like that. I presume you didn't get all worried for the health of Chick Fil A owners and employees when they decided they were anti-gay, with all the associated drama?
If you think so poorly of gun owners due to a difference of opinion, you're not likely to contribute much to this thread.
|
On February 04 2013 02:40 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 02:28 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 02:24 Rhino85 wrote:On February 04 2013 02:19 Kuni wrote:
Of course people should be allowed to own and carry guns, but please, only far, faaar away from where I live.
Most of the police officers around here have never had to unsheathe their service weapon ... not even once, even throughout decades of service. I would very much like it to stay that way. I think people who have passed the courses to have a concealed carry license agree with you and hope that in decades of carry they will never have to unsheathe their weapon... not even once, even throughout decades of carrying. You believe people should have the right to carry just not near you. But you admit that police officers are ok to carry. Tell me why they are more trustworthy to carry? You seriously are asking why we should trust police with weapons more than a civilian? -Training -Accountability -Essential to perform professional duties Police do stupid things with their guns sometimes. They are not perfect. They are still much more trustworthy with their firearms than your average citizen. What's interesting is the difference between American police and police in other countries. In Germany in the whole of 2011, just 85 bullets were fired by police in situations dealing with criminals. 49 of those were warning shots, 36 fired at people, 15 injured, 6 killed. In America in April 2011, 90 shots were fired at a fleeing, unarmed man in LA. 84 were fired at a suspect in Harlem. In Germany in 2012, 690 people were killed by armed violence, out of a population of about 83 million. In America in 2012, 14,748 people were killed by armed violence, out of a population of about 315 million. Why do you think this is the case?
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. I think police are fallible and make many mistakes with their firearms, especially in the US. I still trust the average police officer much more with a gun than the average citizen for the reasons I already stated. I feel like this is common sense.
|
On February 04 2013 04:10 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 04:06 Doppelganger wrote:It seems that the NRA has posted a List of Organizations and people that oppose their positions. The media is framing it as the 'enemy list'. Source: http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15 and source http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-colmes/dear-nra-please-put-me-on_b_2600266.html?utm_hp_ref=politicsIt was posted back in 2012 but I just noticed. I find it highly irresponsible to post such a list and worrisome that people would conceive the idea of such a list and actually make it. Because what if someone actually takes it upon themselves to act on that list and actually attacks the people? The debate is already polarized enough. What is even more worrisome is the mindset behind making something like this. This reminds me of the hyperbole in Bowling for Columbine's "short history of America" only that it now almost seems to be so close to reality that it scares the shit out of me. Do you really expect so little of American gun owners as to think that we're going to go all Tarantino upside that list? It's pretty normal for politically active organisations to tell people which companies line up with them, and who don't. It lets people run boycotts and shit like that. I presume you didn't get all worried for the health of Chick Fil A owners and employees when they decided they were anti-gay, with all the associated drama? If you think so poorly of gun owners due to a difference of opinion, you're not likely to contribute much to this thread.
If you spend some time reading comments on the issue around the internet, it is pretty common to hear gun owners threaten violence to those who might try to take their weapons away. Who knows how serious they are, but its not the type of comment you hear when talking about socialized health care or something.
|
On February 04 2013 03:44 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 03:00 Leporello wrote:http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-30/opinions/36647196_1_nra-wayne-lapierre-background-checksFor example, the NRA doesn't even want background checks on people who buy weapons, nor do they want to close the "gun-show loophole". They're paid by gun manufacturers, to undoubtedly help them sell as many guns to as many people in this country as possible. This is the gun-control debate in America. It isn't about taking away people's right to own a gun. It's about simple regulations that we have to fight tooth-and-nail for, because the pro-gun lobby has inundated the discussion with so much nonsense and hyperbole. I believe there is a discussion to be had about whether or not people should own guns, but it's really a GIANT strawman at this point in time. We need to simply make more coherent and effective regulations to prevent criminals and would-be criminals from buying guns. I think the most important step we take as a nation is that more people come to see that the NRA and pro-gun lobby opposes these small regulations, just as they opposed The Brady Bill, because they are very directly in the business of selling weapons. And every purchase counts. It sure seems to be about taking people's guns when all the legislation is bullshit like high capacity magazine bans and "Assault Weapon" bans. I'm all for background checks, but not much else. Oh, and there isn't really a "gun-show loophole". It's not like its ok to sell guns as a private seller at a gun-show but nowhere else. Private sales without background checks are legal almost everywhere. The "gun-show loophole" is a propaganda term, because gun-control proponents know that calling it private sale regulation would be a tough sell. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's the truth. Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 02:58 Kuni wrote:On February 04 2013 02:24 Rhino85 wrote:On February 04 2013 02:19 Kuni wrote:
Of course people should be allowed to own and carry guns, but please, only far, faaar away from where I live.
Most of the police officers around here have never had to unsheathe their service weapon ... not even once, even throughout decades of service. I would very much like it to stay that way. I think people who have passed the courses to have a concealed carry license agree with you and hope that in decades of carry they will never have to unsheathe their weapon... not even once, even throughout decades of carrying. You believe people should have the right to carry just not near you. But you admit that police officers are ok to carry. Tell me why they are more trustworthy to carry? Nope, I don't really believe people should be allowed to carry guns without extremely strict rules and regulations. At least not in countries, which claim to be at a reasonable high standard in terms of development, stability and society. There are probably many reasons why police officers are more trustworthy than others, when it comes to firearms. Police officers do not become police officers, because they can then carry a gun and use it, the service weapon is not something a police officer desires in order to protect him and others. It's part of the job. As I said, the majority here has never even had to unsheathe it. Normal people on the other hand, who are actively trying to own a firearm have a clear motivation towards the firearm, with the clear intent to actually use it, if a situation arises and they judge for themselves if using it is justified. "I got this gun for self defense." includes the intent to use it. I personally really do not want anyone, who intentionally gets a gun to use it, to judge for themselves, if they think firing a bullet in situation X is justified or not. Everybody has his own justice, but the police is trained and ordered to follow a standardised guideline for it. However, I can see the freedom argument as an argument, which must be considered. Just because we live in stable countries, does not mean that the governments won't use their position to force their on will onto the people. But this scenario is not something we should prepare for or work towards in our daily lives, because it would defeat the purpose of having developed such an advanced society. That would go too far for sure. PS: please bear in mind, that our "advanced society" as I called it has many shitholes in it, but still, I think no one would want to live in any past epoch, for that matter. There already are laws for carrying firearms in most states. They usually include training, which is mostly about the laws of the state, especially about what the state deems as justified. So no, everyone does NOT have their own justice.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/02/01/the-morning-plum-memo-to-gayle-trotter-on-guns-you-dont-speak-for-most-american-women/
Here is Gayle Trotter also pleading that we create absolutely no regulations on what types of weapons people can buy.
Trotter told the tale of an Oklahoma woman who used her shotgun to ward off two intruders,
This was her best example. In a Congressional hearing about regulating assault rifles, she regales a story about a woman defending herself with a simple pump-action shotgun. This is the incoherence we have to deal with, even at the government level. It's just so much dishonesty, at every proposed regulation, no matter how mild.
Who's life has been saved because they had an assault rifle, as opposed to having any other kind of gun? Who's life was saved from having a high-capacity magazine? These are the questions the gun-advocates should've answered at the Congressional hearing.
Instead, they gave the usual strawmen and boogeymen arguments.
The "gun-show loophole" is absolutely not propaganda, since it happens to be true. You want to allow people to buy guns without any background checks, provided the sales are "private". It's nonsense, it's a loophole by every definition of the word, and it needs to be closed. You're opposed to it, I believe, for no other reason but because the gun manufacturers are opposed to it. There is no need for this loophole to exist. Every law-enforcement agency disagrees with you on this point.
If you sell a gun, privately, it needs to be known by the government, for very obvious law-enforcement purposes, and the buyer needs a background check. Give me one good reason why not, please, please, please.
|
On February 04 2013 03:44 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 03:00 Leporello wrote:http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-30/opinions/36647196_1_nra-wayne-lapierre-background-checksFor example, the NRA doesn't even want background checks on people who buy weapons, nor do they want to close the "gun-show loophole". They're paid by gun manufacturers, to undoubtedly help them sell as many guns to as many people in this country as possible. This is the gun-control debate in America. It isn't about taking away people's right to own a gun. It's about simple regulations that we have to fight tooth-and-nail for, because the pro-gun lobby has inundated the discussion with so much nonsense and hyperbole. I believe there is a discussion to be had about whether or not people should own guns, but it's really a GIANT strawman at this point in time. We need to simply make more coherent and effective regulations to prevent criminals and would-be criminals from buying guns. I think the most important step we take as a nation is that more people come to see that the NRA and pro-gun lobby opposes these small regulations, just as they opposed The Brady Bill, because they are very directly in the business of selling weapons. And every purchase counts. It sure seems to be about taking people's guns when all the legislation is bullshit like high capacity magazine bans and "Assault Weapon" bans. I'm all for background checks, but not much else. Oh, and there isn't really a "gun-show loophole". It's not like its ok to sell guns as a private seller at a gun-show but nowhere else. Private sales without background checks are legal almost everywhere. The "gun-show loophole" is a propaganda term, because gun-control proponents know that calling it private sale regulation would be a tough sell. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's the truth.
This is the sort of pedantic argumentation that Leporello was talking about when he indicted the manner in which the NRA conducts their lobbying efforts. The vast majority of private firearm sales take place at gun-shows, and these sorts of sales are dangerously under-regulated and under-recorded. Political change is in some sense fundamentally grounded in the distillation of information (for better or for worse); the translation of sometimes complex and expansive societal and governmental issues into something more digestible for the average man is a necessary component of a functioning representative democracy. Now surely this dynamic is taken advantage of for the worse, but in this specific instance, to claim that the use of the popular adage "the gun-show loophole" amounts to propaganda is not really honest, for the distance in truth between the nature of private sale regulation and the phrase itself is not very far. Furthermore, the mitigating factor is chiefly that of INTERNET private firearm transactions, and if gun control advocates seized upon the opportunity to politically window dress buying guns on the internet, I think you'd probably end up wishing they went back to calling it "the gun show loophole".
|
On February 04 2013 04:14 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 04:10 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 04:06 Doppelganger wrote:It seems that the NRA has posted a List of Organizations and people that oppose their positions. The media is framing it as the 'enemy list'. Source: http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15 and source http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-colmes/dear-nra-please-put-me-on_b_2600266.html?utm_hp_ref=politicsIt was posted back in 2012 but I just noticed. I find it highly irresponsible to post such a list and worrisome that people would conceive the idea of such a list and actually make it. Because what if someone actually takes it upon themselves to act on that list and actually attacks the people? The debate is already polarized enough. What is even more worrisome is the mindset behind making something like this. This reminds me of the hyperbole in Bowling for Columbine's "short history of America" only that it now almost seems to be so close to reality that it scares the shit out of me. Do you really expect so little of American gun owners as to think that we're going to go all Tarantino upside that list? It's pretty normal for politically active organisations to tell people which companies line up with them, and who don't. It lets people run boycotts and shit like that. I presume you didn't get all worried for the health of Chick Fil A owners and employees when they decided they were anti-gay, with all the associated drama? If you think so poorly of gun owners due to a difference of opinion, you're not likely to contribute much to this thread. If you spend some time reading comments on the issue around the internet, it is pretty common to hear gun owners threaten violence to those who might try to take their weapons away. Who knows how serious they are, but its not the type of comment you hear when talking about socialized health care or something.
You don't hear these comments about anything. We've gone through wars based on falsehoods, torture, taxation without representation (if you live in D.C.), people arrested and held indefinitely without trial. But you'll hear all the time that if you take someone's gun away (even though we're talking only about very specific kinds of guns) they're going to "fight the tyranny". Who they're going to shoot on such an occasion, I'm not sure.
|
On February 04 2013 04:14 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 04:10 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 04:06 Doppelganger wrote:It seems that the NRA has posted a List of Organizations and people that oppose their positions. The media is framing it as the 'enemy list'. Source: http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15 and source http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-colmes/dear-nra-please-put-me-on_b_2600266.html?utm_hp_ref=politicsIt was posted back in 2012 but I just noticed. I find it highly irresponsible to post such a list and worrisome that people would conceive the idea of such a list and actually make it. Because what if someone actually takes it upon themselves to act on that list and actually attacks the people? The debate is already polarized enough. What is even more worrisome is the mindset behind making something like this. This reminds me of the hyperbole in Bowling for Columbine's "short history of America" only that it now almost seems to be so close to reality that it scares the shit out of me. Do you really expect so little of American gun owners as to think that we're going to go all Tarantino upside that list? It's pretty normal for politically active organisations to tell people which companies line up with them, and who don't. It lets people run boycotts and shit like that. I presume you didn't get all worried for the health of Chick Fil A owners and employees when they decided they were anti-gay, with all the associated drama? If you think so poorly of gun owners due to a difference of opinion, you're not likely to contribute much to this thread. If you spend some time reading comments on the issue around the internet, it is pretty common to hear gun owners threaten violence to those who might try to take their weapons away. Who knows how serious they are, but its not the type of comment you hear when talking about socialized health care or something.
I really thought this thread was past this puerile, idiotic, prejudicial guilt by association phase. Apparently some people are too busy trying to stake their claim on their theoretical moral high ground to think about how they go about demonstrating it.
You can't judge huge demographics by the nutjob element. Seems simple enough to me. Funny how it's gun owners who are supposed to be bigoted.
|
On February 04 2013 04:23 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 04:14 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 04:10 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 04:06 Doppelganger wrote:It seems that the NRA has posted a List of Organizations and people that oppose their positions. The media is framing it as the 'enemy list'. Source: http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15 and source http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-colmes/dear-nra-please-put-me-on_b_2600266.html?utm_hp_ref=politicsIt was posted back in 2012 but I just noticed. I find it highly irresponsible to post such a list and worrisome that people would conceive the idea of such a list and actually make it. Because what if someone actually takes it upon themselves to act on that list and actually attacks the people? The debate is already polarized enough. What is even more worrisome is the mindset behind making something like this. This reminds me of the hyperbole in Bowling for Columbine's "short history of America" only that it now almost seems to be so close to reality that it scares the shit out of me. Do you really expect so little of American gun owners as to think that we're going to go all Tarantino upside that list? It's pretty normal for politically active organisations to tell people which companies line up with them, and who don't. It lets people run boycotts and shit like that. I presume you didn't get all worried for the health of Chick Fil A owners and employees when they decided they were anti-gay, with all the associated drama? If you think so poorly of gun owners due to a difference of opinion, you're not likely to contribute much to this thread. If you spend some time reading comments on the issue around the internet, it is pretty common to hear gun owners threaten violence to those who might try to take their weapons away. Who knows how serious they are, but its not the type of comment you hear when talking about socialized health care or something. I really thought this thread was past this puerile, idiotic, prejudicial guilt by association phase. Apparently some people are too busy trying to stake their claim on their theoretical moral high ground to think about how they go about demonstrating it. You can't judge huge demographics by the nutjob element. Seems simple enough to me. Funny how it's gun owners who are supposed to be bigoted.
You said: "Do you really expect so little of American gun owners as to think that we're going to go all Tarantino upside that list?"
I said: "it is pretty common to hear gun owners threaten violence to those who might try to take their weapons away."
I'm not making any claims. It's simply a fact that some gun owners have been very vocal recently about their right to defend their guns with force.
I doubt that I'm as bigoted as you think. As I said about 200 pages earlier in the thread, I own two rifles.
|
On February 04 2013 04:52 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 04:23 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 04:14 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 04:10 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 04:06 Doppelganger wrote:It seems that the NRA has posted a List of Organizations and people that oppose their positions. The media is framing it as the 'enemy list'. Source: http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15 and source http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-colmes/dear-nra-please-put-me-on_b_2600266.html?utm_hp_ref=politicsIt was posted back in 2012 but I just noticed. I find it highly irresponsible to post such a list and worrisome that people would conceive the idea of such a list and actually make it. Because what if someone actually takes it upon themselves to act on that list and actually attacks the people? The debate is already polarized enough. What is even more worrisome is the mindset behind making something like this. This reminds me of the hyperbole in Bowling for Columbine's "short history of America" only that it now almost seems to be so close to reality that it scares the shit out of me. Do you really expect so little of American gun owners as to think that we're going to go all Tarantino upside that list? It's pretty normal for politically active organisations to tell people which companies line up with them, and who don't. It lets people run boycotts and shit like that. I presume you didn't get all worried for the health of Chick Fil A owners and employees when they decided they were anti-gay, with all the associated drama? If you think so poorly of gun owners due to a difference of opinion, you're not likely to contribute much to this thread. If you spend some time reading comments on the issue around the internet, it is pretty common to hear gun owners threaten violence to those who might try to take their weapons away. Who knows how serious they are, but its not the type of comment you hear when talking about socialized health care or something. I really thought this thread was past this puerile, idiotic, prejudicial guilt by association phase. Apparently some people are too busy trying to stake their claim on their theoretical moral high ground to think about how they go about demonstrating it. You can't judge huge demographics by the nutjob element. Seems simple enough to me. Funny how it's gun owners who are supposed to be bigoted. You said: "Do you really expect so little of American gun owners as to think that we're going to go all Tarantino upside that list?" I said: "it is pretty common to hear gun owners threaten violence to those who might try to take their weapons away." I'm not making any claims. It's simply a fact that some gun owners have been very vocal recently about their right to defend their guns with force. I doubt that I'm as bigoted as you think. As I said about 200 pages earlier in the thread, I own two rifles.
Fair enough, but frankly, my point stands. There's nothing vastly different between the NRA saying "These people are anti-gun" and gay-rights groups saying Chick-Fil-A is anti-gay.
The whackjob element of every political movement will probably mention violence, that's why we call them the whackjob element. I wouldn't say the specific movement makes a difference, except possibly in the way people perceive it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
