Guns

[Nicksfix]

One day every gun will be manufactured to be fired, either by fingerprint actuation, or voice recognition, by only the person responsible for holding title to that gun - and there wouldn't even be keys that could be passed to another - like the keys to that killer Veyron.

Chip technology is right around the corner.

Upon reading the article, it may have some flaws / concerns, but they are working on them. Could it possibly end up going public ? It could be be a good start.

 

[FoolKiller]

And what best thread would one go to to be clearly understood when trying to make a point that the name of this debate shouldn't be 'GUN CONTROL DEBATE' but 'Firearms Regulations Talks' or something more to the point?
We're not talking about 'Control' again -that sounds like a nasty word, right.
We just want to 'regulate' a few things - maybe tweak those obviously present regulations that we have now and make them reflect more the times we are in, make it even safer for all concerned, even more efficient and enforceable than it already is.
Screaming 'Control' is not going to help things. Nor screaming 'Ban' or 'Prohibit' - these all smack of Big Brother.

Government Control = force. Government Regulation = force.

Playing semantics does not change the fact that you are talking about Big Brother and won't make the dumbest of gun nuts think you are talking something different.

But let the powers-that-be get together and find ways to make living with guns more safe. Regulate, with even more perception regarding the objects and their use in society, the sales, and ownerships, and the types of guns that can be purchased by which particular individuals - as well as maybe more serious fines, etc, for careless storage, use, etc.

Good luck enforcing that on criminals. They care so much about the law that you'll stop them dead in their tracks.
And need I point out, again, that Connecticut already had these kinds of laws in place?

Nor is comfortably saying: "There, there, everything's okay, the rules are fine right now, don't touch them, they were put together by Einstein, Johnson, Lincoln and Socrates. They work 100%. Amendments shouldn't be amended, etc, etc."

Actually, we are pointing out that if you want to change the amendments then you must amend the Constitution. But our government forgot that fact a long time ago. I think the last time they properly followed that process for regulating something was the beginning and end of Prohibition. There have been other amendments, but those have just codified rights or changed certain political processes.

I also find it funny you throw a jab at the 2nd amendment then never actually address what it actually says. But clearly, it should be changed?

One day every gun will be manufactured to be fired, either by fingerprint actuation, or voice recognition, by only the person responsible for holding title to that gun - and there wouldn't even be keys that could be passed to another - like the keys to that killer Veyron.

Because that will be 100% foolproof. Don't kid yourself into believing you can pass new regulations under the guise of them not being necessary in the near future. If a human can create a security system another human can break it.

Till technology catches up, we must evolve the present regulations, to catch up with changing sociological behaviors that pertain to guns.

Will that change the killing sprees? No. But some lives may be saved from bullets.

And thats all it takes to make you feel better, only a few children dying? I'm still not accepting this argument.

As for guns - we need them for now - if the first responders that got to the shooter in Webster, for instance, hadn't guns - they couldn't have stopped the problem so quickly.
And if the shooter had a bunch of people with him, and they were all armed to the teeth with that lovely gun from Eraser (a short technological walk from here in Time) then those first responders would have to have a bunch of EM-1 Rail guns, themselves.

And if a man carrying a gun in an Oregon mall hadn't allowed a shooter to witness him pulling his gun and taking cover the shooter would have tried using the bag full of ammo he brought instead of putting his third shot into his own head. Or they could have waited for the 5-10 minute response time for first responders to arrive with their guns.

As for cops with big guns, it's called SWAT.

I have a huge amount of guns at home. Most of them are from NZ, and all of them have the word Nerf on them.
I gave up on the real guns since I have nothing to hunt in the city . . . maybe milk and gas sometimes-and I don't need a gun to score that, just a smile and some cash, the smile actually being optional. And if I need someone with a gun, I'd call one of my cop friends. Or 911.

And hopefully they get there faster than it takes to perform a crime.

That's not to say I have anything against responsible humans playing with real guns. And I mean as responsible as a good cop, or firefighter.

Firefighter? They don't carry, but seeing recent news, maybe they should.

 

[JJSCHMITTY2000]

I hate to put it like this, and will probably get some hate while I'm at it, but I'm really not all that surprised at the school shooting in CT.

I read a quote by somebody, some high-up CEO or something, and they were talking about it, and they said that the reason that the person didn't just off themselves in their basement was because they saw the news about the previous shooting, and said to themselves," I can do better than that guy!" And henceforth they try to get as much media attention as possible; to go out with a bang (no pun intended).

As some fellow GTP'ers have said before me, no guns wouldn't prevent massacres. The people would just use sharp bits of metal as throwing stars or throw a big bomb in the place and call it a day.

If you want to minimize the chances of a school shooting happening, you have to do something about it. By the sound of it, the guy's mom whom he stole the gun from was a perfectly rational person, and was a teacher at the school. So, in a world where my statements are somewhat reliable, she could have gotten a gun even with strict regulations. The shooter himself couldn't get a gun. He tried. So, he took a gun from somebody else. What are you to do at this point? Now, to examine the psychology of something like this, you almost have to go to war strategy.

If you've ever played a war game, you know not to run into a room of people that all have guns. Sure, you might take down one or two, but at the end of the day, you're dead. However, if those people don't have guns, there's no harm in going in there and killing them all! No reinforcements will arrive for at least a few minutes, and by then, you'll be dead! This was the logic in part by the CT. school killer. Now, you have to ask yourself which is better: accidentally killing 2 children after the shooter has already killed 10, or not killing any children yourself and have the outcome that we all know about happen.

At the core of that statement, I'm asking a deeper question. If somebody were to kill a criminal who was committing a massacre, but (the shooter who killed the criminal) also killed one other person (who, for the sake of this, would die whether the shooter was there or not), would they be tried for murder? In killing 1 person, they saved the lives of others. In your mind, is this acceptable?

Just my 3 cents.

 

[photonrider]

Hello, hello, Foolkiller.
How's that ticker - don't want to fire it up now, do you hear? And I'm already pissed at you for not doing any gardening . . . never mind no news at all in the Veggie Thread.
Alright - with all due respect - or else I would have shrugged your post away, and gone spent my time in the more enjoyable threads around here . . .I'll try to address some of the conclusions you appeared to gain from the post I made.

First off - I see that you were holding forth for some time here - but my post had nothing whatsoever with what had transpired before. I was only looking for a GUN thread to post a 'random' (if you will grant me that) comment about guns. I hear there is a 'Gun Control Debate' on.
It was a simple and personal wish that they called it Firearms Regulations Talks.
Of course you may disagree with me on the new 'label' I've picked - but the reasons you think I have for relabelling it in my mind - and even offering the idea to the world - are only your own.
I just like if they call it it 'Firearms Regulations Talks' - even if it was to talk about controlling the sale of SWAT-Grade weapons to schoolchildren.

But let's look at the conversation as a whole - it almost seemed like you were arguing with yourself - and was fascinating in its own way to track your perceptions.

But, of course, Government control = government force = tyranny = stripping of will = order = opposite of entropy = etc, etc, etc.
The statement you are addressing doesn't argue that - or whatever you think it is arguing.
We can call it The Great Gun Grab, whatever - won't change that, right? I don't think that statement said it would, though.
Of course playing semantics won't make the dumb nuts who own guns any dumber - or smarter. At least we'll try to find labels for the concept of control that may be palatable to all. If possible. It's not the biggest thing about the GUN CONTROL DEBATE calling it the Firearms Regulations Talks.
Just a random thought.
Like instead of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms . . . why don't we call it Liquour, Smokes, and Guns.
Gun Control Debate? Firearms Regulation Talks? Same thing - no big deal. Maybe just a bit of whimsey - though of course some pedant somewhere may pace the floor all night in anger about it.
Whatever we call it it's just some people talking about the way firearms are being regulated at the moment -that's all - like for instance going to a gunshow and just buying a gun - is that possible? And why? And so on.. . .
Social, as well as political discourse taking place throughout the world about the same concept.
GUN CONTROL.
Or Firearms Regulations.
Maybe even the gun nuts may not mind.
We don't know for sure, do we FK?
Just another label? Do you have anything personal against relabeling it?
I have to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you really don't care. That you cared enough about saying it doesn't mean anything surprises me.
Of course, it doesn't really mean anything. Just a new brand name.
No it won't make the 'talks' or 'debate' any less heated.
You can call them 'debate' - I don't mind. I wish they call them 'talks'.
I like 'talks' instead of debate. It's probably personal to the way I look at the concept of negotiation.

Your first sentence - that's crystal-ball stuff. We don't know.
Your second sentence - Oh! Such wishful thinking. A man after my own heart - I would like that, too. And if you are merely being sarcastic (at the concept) - Oh! I'll buy that, too. These criminals!!
Of course we don't really know how many criminals were dissuaded from doing what they would have liked to do by the present 'laws'. (Remember - Controls? Regulations? Laws? Yes - same thing, of course - just another word.)
And of course if you saying that making laws won't stop criminals - I'll agree if there is a conditional - it won't stop all criminals. More likely?

Did you see me throw a jab? Why wasn't it an upper-cut? Or a roundhouse? Do you see me as a 'jabby' sort of guy.
Actually I'm more left-hook than jab.
I don't see you that way, as a person making jabs and cuts, etc, etc. I see you as a good father, an excellent cook, a staunch fighter, loyal ally, and a man of words and intellect. Am I right?

The point I am trying to make here is not against any particular amendment. It's about the concept that rules can be changed - whether one calls them laws, controls, regulations, rules, amendments, commandments or semantics defining the proprietorship of reality.
There was no 'jab at the 2nd Amendment' other than as the relevant illustration pertaining to the subject - guns - or rather the suitable and dignified bearing of firearms - and the attendant bearing of unwanted bullets flying around.

Is your first sentence there meant to be a statement or question? I'm assuming it to be sarcasm - resigned sarcasm, anyway - please correct me if I'm reading you wrong.
Nothing is foolproof. That is why we have foolkillers.

Your second sentence makes no meaning at all - please rephrase if you have to - it says I'm kidding myself (did you actually see me giggle behind my hand?) about making laws that won't exist . . in . . the . . future . . .what . . wont exist . . what . . who??
I know there is an interesting thought you are trying to put down here - but somehow it seems to have got convoluted; I can't comprehend it - something about the syntax or tense throws me (and believe me, I'm usually okay at understanding people - even the ones who speak the most broken English; I've worked a lot with mutes, once - the most delightfully humourous people - once you learn to communicate. So it bothers me that I can't understand the concept you, who are so articulate, are throwing me.)

Your last sentence about a human being making a security feature that another human can break . . . yes, yes, FK . . it's been happening for ages. Should we stop? Is that what you are saying?
We need to keep two steps ahead, FK. Or at least try. It's kind of a game, and we hope we win - since we can change the rules anytime we want. (Of the people, by the people, etc, etc, remember?) Or at least we'll try to.
We're always trying to make it better.

Again . . what children?? Where?? Who . . . I thought this was a thread about guns . . and we were discussing GUNS in General . . also maybe Gun Laws and Gun Controls and Gun Regulations and Gun Technology and so on.

No children here, FK. You must be fighting ghosts.

Did you think I typed all this out to feel better? About what?

I just liked to add my 2 cents worth about the Great Gun Grab. I mean GUN CONTROL DEBATE. The one I whimsically wished on a Gaming Forum that they would term 'Firearms Regulation Talks'. Even if it easily understood by gun nuts and numb nuts alike as some talks about making the use of Firearms (controlled/banned) safer. For everybody.
However - if you want me on your side to rally in standing that it should be called GUN CONTROL by these CONTROLLING BASTARDS, the Stupid Controlling Government - hey, what are friends for. I'll be there, poster placard and all.

Now, what argument were you not accepting?That I shouldn't feel . . . better . . or . .
These rebuttals to self-made counterpoints are puzzling.

The statement you are rebutting there is trying to say that 'it's a good thing there was a cop with a gun there when those firefighters went to put out the fire'.

Do you see that?

And the statement (that you are rebutting with some incident in Oregon about a lone gunman's possible motive for taking his life {that crystal ball is a killer alright })is actually a statement also trying to say that the 'Gunfight at OK Corral' could be worse.

Do you see that now?

It's saying that when the SWAT gets there, the bad guys may have BIGGER Guns. They bought them at a gunshow. Or wherever. Somewhere in America. Or made in a basement out of fibre optics.

As for calling 911 and them taking their time - what would be a realistic time?
I've called cops and had them here in under 60 secs - but that's because there was a patrol car in the area.
Well . . . sometime they do take their time when I call them about a rabid dog. And then much later, having made me stalk around the parking lot for an hour, they send me a Pest Control guy with a pop gun. Well . . . comparative pop gun; guess what is just needed.

Now, FK - that last sentence talks about comparative sense of responsibility - not about packing. Both firefighters and policemen are taken to be responsible individuals - our 'finest', because of what they do, not what they carry.

However - to again counterpoint (in the spirit of friendly discourse, of course) the rebuttal you made to a concept conceived in your own head; that both cops and firemen are responsible because they're packing guns.. . .
Both policemen and firefighters I would think being responsible people - we would surely trust them with a gun. Or 50,000 PSI Water Cannon perched a hundred feet in the air. When we get to inventing the laser extinguisher - we'll trust them with that light-pusher, too. No?

And as for your idea (your idea?) of having firefighters pack a gun - Oh! Absolutely. I've always been partial to a Walther PPK myself. I'm just scared I'll shoot myself in the foot with it before I find someone worthy of taking it between the eyes.

Ans now that I have your attention - my best regards and compliments to your wonderful family, and hope you are still kicking butt wherever you go.
Mine is still sore - and for no good reason, too.

TC, FK . . . And thanking you for pulling apart my post for analysis; I'm hoping my 'stance' is more visible, now. There was no offence intended at all - neither to persecuted nor persecutors. All is One.

............................................................................................................

At the core of that statement, I'm asking a deeper question. If somebody were to kill a criminal who was committing a massacre, but (the shooter who killed the criminal) also killed one other person (who, for the sake of this, would die whether the shooter was there or not), would they be tried for murder? In killing 1 person, they saved the lives of others. In your mind, is this acceptable?

To understand this better - are you talking about the concept of collateral damage? As in - is it okay to wipe out a million people in one blow to stop a war - like say - drop a hydrogen bomb on some city?

Chip technology is right around the corner.

Upon reading the article, it may have some flaws / concerns, but they are working on them. Could it possibly end up going public ? It could be be a good start.

Yes. Good article - seems like the future always catches up with us.
Maybe we will even get to a point where no one will feel like shooting a gun - homo sapiens nogunnus.
Or some kind of brain pill - everyone must take one - no more inclination to kill.
Those scientists better get cracking.

Boy, good luck with that one, Harry. We have so many new members joining the discussion, and their stances are all over the place.

You mean they just leave the site in disgust at being misunderstood and never return?

Quite possible.

 

[arora]

Just a few quick things, I'll leave the rest as I'm indifferent to your cause. You can call it whatever you want, a custodial engineer is still a janitor. I suppose puffery is just as bothersome to me as slang is to you, no big deal.

Of course playing semantics won't make the dumb nuts who own guns any dumber - or smarter.

I'm hoping you don't mean all gun owners are dumb nuts, and if you have selected a few what is the criteria?

like for instance going to a gun show and just buying a gun - is that possible? And why?

I don't believe that is possible in the U.S. anymore, although it used to be. At least in the state I live in you go through the same process at a show as you would at a shop. Gun show transactions used to be treated simply as private sales so those laws used to apply. I can't recall exactly but I'd guess that rule changed when the Brady bill passed(too lazy to look it up ).

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to give you one reason the laws changed. Way back when you and I where the only adults that would have been on this site, shows where nothing more then very small swap meets between enthusiasts for the most part. As the years moved on they became more of a traveling market with a handful of vendors selling to, well, whomever. Times change, laws change, is a good thing.

 

[Keef]

'Firearms Regulations Talks'

The word "firearm" implies the debate is only over small arms such as pistols and rifles. But how am I supposed to protect myself from tyranny if I don't access to any sort of weapon that the tyrants might have? The debate isn't about just firearms, it's about guns, which are mechanical devices from which projectiles are shot. Potato guns are illegal, for example. Why? I don't know, it shoots ****ing potatoes for cripe's sake. I love potatoes.

As for "regulation", yeah, we could call it regulation except for the fact that the Constitutional intention and modern implementation of "regulation" are completely different. The founders used the term "regulate" to mean make regular, as in make sure it happens and that States don't blockade each other and go to war with each other and all that nonsense. A "well-regulated militia" isn't a controlled militia, but one with widespread participation and a whole helluva lot of guns. Therefore, we shouldn't call this regulation because it isn't regulation, it is control.

Finally, we're not talking about gun control. We're debating it. Comparing, contrasting, justifying opposing arguments. We're not having a chat over tea, like oh yeah, man, did you hear about that new firearm regulation? That sucks. Yeah dude, but I don't know I don't really mind it. That's not what we're doing. We're not talking, we're debating.

This is a gun control debate.

EDIT: As for gun shows, a 21 year old can enter to buy guns. If they buy at the show from a licensed dealer (store owner, etc.) then they do the usual ID and background check. If they step one booth over and buy from an unlicensed seller, no background check is required and ID checks are apparently inconsistent.

To summarize: In Ohio a person 21+ can buy a gun/ammo/magazine at a gun show without a background check.

Private trades and sales of unregistered guns are extremely common. Lots of people like to trade amongst their coworkers during lunch break.

 

[JJSCHMITTY2000]

To understand this better - are you talking about the concept of collateral damage? As in - is it okay to wipe out a million people in one blow to stop a war - like say - drop a hydrogen bomb on some city?

In practice, yes, I am saying that. For the sake of this argument that I have been presenting though, let's assume that everybody in that city would have been dead no matter what happened.

 

[photonrider]

...................................

This is a gun control debate..............................

Thanks, Keef. Well put. You've persuaded me. 👍

In practice, yes, I am saying that. For the sake of this argument that I have been presenting though, let's assume that everybody in that city would have been dead no matter what happened.

Well . . . I see where you are coming from . . . but do go on . . . expand on how and why this applies?

 

[JJSCHMITTY2000]

This forum is about gun "regulation", as I understand it. (If I have something off on that statement, please don't correct me on it, as it really doesn't acomplish anything.) So, as others have said, is it better to have everybody armed and with it a chance of manslaughter? Or is it better to have no manslaughter and when a killer comes, you're screwed? If we arm everybody, a criminal might get a gun in his hands, and decide to kill everybody. In the same scenerio, going back to COD-esque logic, how many people will he actuallly wound before somebody else kills him, and accidentily one other person? Let's say that the same criminal got his hands on a gun, and nobody was allowed to have a gun. What would happen then?

 

[Sphinx]

An interesting statistic is that between April 2010 and March 2011 there were 3,105 recorded offences involving handguns alone (which are practically completely illegal here). The most available firearms in the U.K (Air weapons) were involved in 4,203 recorded offences. Wait, what? One of the most restricted gun types in the U.K was involved in almost as many offences as the least restricted!? Isn't that strange...

This could be due to the dramatic year on year drop in offences with air weapons.

At its peak (2002/03) there were 13,822 air gun offences. It now stands at 4,203 (2010/11).

In the same period (2002/03) there were 5,549 hand gun offences. It now stands at 3,105 (2010/11)

The dramatic drop in air gun offences does appear to suggest that tighter controls regarding air guns are working.

The drop in hand gun offences, albeit at a slower rate than air guns, also appears to suggest that tighter gun controls are working, even with the fairly new occurrence of the imported gang culture that we have to endure today.

This is positive news as far as I'm concerned, although I'm sure if we dig deep enough there will be a downside somewhere, as with many things.

 

[FoolKiller]

Let me start by saying, screenshots? Really? My iPhone viewing eyes are not happy after that.

Hello, hello, Foolkiller.
How's that ticker - don't want to fire it up now, do you hear?

No firing up here. I'm cool as a cucumber. I can disagree with people I like. I mean, I'm married.

And I'm already pissed at you for not doing any gardening . . . never mind no news at all in the Veggie Thread.

I gardened some and posted picks of my banana peppers.

Alright - with all due respect - or else I would have shrugged your post away, and gone spent my time in the more enjoyable threads around here . . .I'll try to address some of the conclusions you appeared to gain from the post I made.

First off - I see that you were holding forth for some time here - but my post had nothing whatsoever with what had transpired before. I was only looking for a GUN thread to post a 'random' (if you will grant me that) comment about guns. I hear there is a 'Gun Control Debate' on.

You did step into the middle of something, which does make it appear you were joining in. Poor timing?

It was a simple and personal wish that they called it Firearms Regulations Talks.
Of course you may disagree with me on the new 'label' I've picked - but the reasons you think I have for relabelling it in my mind - and even offering the idea to the world - are only your own.

Then I have no clue what your purpose behind talking about how control brings about images of Big Brother and so on had to do with it. It appeared you were trying to suggest changing the wording would alter gun owners perceptions of what is being suggested.

I just like if they call it it 'Firearms Regulations Talks' - even if it was to talk about controlling the sale of SWAT-Grade weapons to schoolchildren.

Is your sole reasoning because you just like the term better? If so, talk to the media. Gun control debate rolls off the tongue easier, making it have better flow in media coverage and political speeches.

And if you just want to change it for some aesthetic preference, I'll disagree on the grounds that the politically correct crowd already tries to change the terms we use on a regular basis. I don't think I can handle more changes.

But, of course, Government control = government force = tyranny = stripping of will = order = opposite of entropy = etc, etc, etc.
The statement you are addressing doesn't argue that - or whatever you think it is arguing.

As I said before, you had a bit about it creating negative images one way and not the other. I was pointing out that your new term does not change that.

Of course playing semantics won't make the dumb nuts who own guns any dumber - or smarter. At least we'll try to find labels for the concept of control that may be palatable to all.

But that is my point. It is no less palatable because it ultimately means the same thing and no one would think otherwise. All gun owners will care about is it will limit their gun ownership.

Gun Control Debate? Firearms Regulation Talks? Same thing - no big deal.

That's my point. It is the same thing, just different words (semantics) and so it so it won't be more palatable to anyone. They are not reacting to the term used to describe the regulations, but the proposed regulation itself.

Maybe even the gun nuts may not mind.
We don't know for sure, do we FK?

If it results in gun owners with less guns, they will. And yes I know that. It's kind of their whole purpose.

You can call them 'debate' - I don't mind. I wish they call them 'talks'.
I like 'talks' instead of debate. It's probably personal to the way I look at the concept of negotiation.

I won't bust out the dictionary links, but debate and talks are not synonyms for each other, and since there isn't an agreement on if there should be a law the term debate is more fitting.

Your first sentence - that's crystal-ball stuff. We don't know.

It's not crystal ball stuff and I do know I'll explain below.

Of course we don't really know how many criminals were dissuaded from doing what they would have liked to do by the present 'laws'. (Remember - Controls? Regulations? Laws? Yes - same thing, of course - just another word.)
And of course if you saying that making laws won't stop criminals - I'll agree if there is a conditional - it won't stop all criminals. More likely?

Actually, I know for a fact how many criminals are dissuaded by laws. None. By definition, a criminal has broken the law. And as for a new law dissuading current criminals, I can't see a person willing to kill being dissuaded by a law restricting how firearms can be sold. It is a fact that new, stricter laws will create new criminals as not everyone will just give in to the idea that what they were allowed to do one day is illegal the next. And some will openly break the law in protest.

Did you see me throw a jab? Why wasn't it an upper-cut? Or a roundhouse? Do you see me as a 'jabby' sort of guy.
Actually I'm more left-hook than jab.

<mental note: avoid figures of speech around photonrider.>

The point I am trying to make here is not against any particular amendment. It's about the concept that rules can be changed - whether one calls them laws, controls, regulations, rules, amendments, commandments or semantics defining the proprietorship of reality.

Which I pointed out requires a specific process to ensure that the rights of the people are not harmed by a simple tyranny of the majority.

There was no 'jab at the 2nd Amendment' other than as the relevant illustration pertaining to the subject - guns - or rather the suitable and dignified bearing of firearms

You have to admit, it isn't illogical to come to that conclusion.

Is your first sentence there meant to be a statement or question? I'm assuming it to be sarcasm - resigned sarcasm, anyway - please correct me if I'm reading you wrong.
Nothing is foolproof. That is why we have foolkillers.

Your second sentence makes no meaning at all - please rephrase if you have to - it says I'm kidding myself (did you actually see me giggle behind my hand?) about making laws that won't exist . . in . . the . . future . . .what . . wont exist . . what . . who??

Are you not suggesting technology will progress to a point where limiting who has access to firearms will in part be done by the gun itself, thus making fighting new regulations a moot point, because it will prevent illegally obtained guns? Or were you just on a tangent that had nothing to do with the regulation topic?

If so, I'm saying that still has no bearing on what the law should or should not be. If its just unrelated talking, then I don't see how what you said applies to the topic of regulation.

since we can change the rules anytime we want. (Of the people, by the people, etc, etc, remember?) Or at least we'll try to.
We're always trying to make it better.

Limiting freedom makes nothing better.

Again . . what children?? Where?? Who . . . I thought this was a thread about guns . . and we were discussing GUNS in General . . also maybe Gun Laws and Gun Controls and Gun Regulations and Gun Technology and so on.

It isn't a general gun discussion thread. And the gun control debate was rekindled recently due to 20 children killed by a sociopath with a stolen gun.

No children here, FK. You must be fighting ghosts.

Did you think I typed all this out to feel better? About what?

I'll give you a pass because you clearly jumped in without paying attention to earlier posts. So let me explain.

You referenced that the killing is from those showing sociopathic behavior. I have been repeatedly pointing out in this thread that controlling guns is just a minor adjustment at best and harmful at worst if we are not trying to fix the sociopaths. People disagree with me saying controlling access to guns won't stop killing but it will reduce the number of victims. Using the most recent major incident as an example, I counter with asking why five dead children is acceptable.

So, when you made that same case I made the same counter. Why is a killing spree of only a few innocents preferable to a killing spree of 20 when we aren't even looking at treating the illness that makes them want to kill?

If saving just one life is worth it, then surely even one death is too many. Reducing the number of victims doesn't solve the problem.

The statement you are rebutting there is trying to say that 'it's a good thing there was a cop with a gun there when those firefighters went to put out the fire'.

Do you see that?

Yes, and I was adding how private gun ownership can work as well when first responders don't happen to be standing nearby when the killing begins. There is a reason sociopaths often attack places like schools and theaters.

And the statement (that you are rebutting with some incident in Oregon about a lone gunman's possible motive for taking his life {that crystal ball is a killer alright })is actually a statement also trying to say that the 'Gunfight at OK Corral' could be worse.

I'm referencing something already posted in this thread. If you think I am somehow suggesting untrained shoot outs are preferable then you aren't aware of what I am referring to. Nor do I believe you know what most legal gun owners do with their guns.

It's saying that when the SWAT gets there, the bad guys may have BIGGER Guns. They bought them at a gunshow. Or wherever. Somewhere in America. Or made in a basement out of fibre optics.

I'm beginning to wonder what exactly you think most gun owners have or have access to. It sounds like you are watching too many movies and missing the part where the criminals are getting military grade weapons illegally from Mexicans, terrorist groups, etc. Now, granted the Mexican cartels do have access to American military weapons, but those were sold to them by our own government. Does that sound like the guys you want making the rules?

As for calling 911 and them taking their time - what would be a realistic time?

I cant find national statistics since 2005, but the best city data I see is around four minutes is when no one happens to be wandering by at that exact moment. The worst is over an hour to priority calls. In the 2005 Department of Justice report the national average was 6 minutes. The average criminal/victim interaction was 90 seconds.

I've called cops and had them here in under 60 secs - but that's because there was a patrol car in the area.

Since we can't all rely on luck, what is the quickest you've had when you didn't have a patrol happening by?

Out of curiosity, how often do you call the cops? I've done it once, to report a car crash. I don't report non-violent offenders, unlike my brother who reports water restriction violations.

Now, FK - that last sentence talks about comparative sense of responsibility - not about packing.

Why would you trust one to firefighters right now, when they have no training but not a private citizen with hours of safety training and practice time?

However - to again counterpoint (in the spirit of friendly discourse, of course) the rebuttal you made to a concept conceived in your own head; that both cops and firemen are responsible because they're packing guns.. . .

Not what I thought.

Both policemen and firefighters I would think being responsible people - we would surely trust them with a gun.

They are still humans capable of anger and mistakes. In fact, now that we all have cameras we see many police break the laws and a use their power. Locally we just had one fired for violating the 4th Amendment rights of a college student.

And I still don't see why a well trained private citizen isn't just as responsible.

And as for your idea (your idea?) of having firefighters pack a gun - Oh! Absolutely. I've always been partial to a Walther PPK myself. I'm just scared I'll shoot myself in the foot with it before I find someone worthy of taking it between the eyes.

Maybe you should take one of those government approved safety courses offered by one of our "dumb gun nuts." You might learn something and be relieved of some preconceived notions.

Mine is still sore - and for no good reason, too.

Need some Preperation H?

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

This is positive news as far as I'm concerned, although I'm sure if we dig deep enough there will be a downside somewhere, as with many things.

I don't think that 'less' gun crime at the expense of a growing gang culture prepared to use guns is that great of a success. As we saw in the 2011 riots, there are people with no issues about bringing an illegal firearm out in public with full intent to shoot at police officers.

 

[Sphinx]

I don't think that 'less' gun crime at the expense of a growing gang culture prepared to use guns is that great of a success. As we saw in the 2011 riots, there are people with no issues about bringing an illegal firearm out in public with full intent to shoot at police officers.

It's not at the expense of growing gang culture. Gang culture, with guns playing a part in said culture is a fairly new occurrence, a new addition to the issues that were already there when gun controls were introduced. Excuse the pun, but your 20-20 hindsight is impeccable.


Edit:
Positive is what I said. Never mentioned success. That's a long way off.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

It's not at the expense of growing gang culture. Gang culture, with guns playing a part in said culture is a fairly new occurrence, a new addition to the issues that were already there when gun controls were introduced. Excuse the pun, but your 20-20 hindsight is impeccable..

It's a logical progression in my opinion, if somebody has a knife you get a gun. If gang culture had been targetted instead of guns, we'd have even fewer gun crimes than we do now. In fact, we'd have even fewer crimes altogether than we do now. The 2011 riots may not have even happened.

Edit:
Positive is what I said. Never mentioned success. That's a long way off.

I never said that you did.

 

[photonrider]

Just a few quick things, I'll leave the rest as I'm indifferent to your cause. You can call it whatever you want, a custodial engineer is still a janitor. I suppose puffery is just as bothersome to me as slang is to you, no big deal.



I'm hoping you don't mean all gun owners are dumb nuts, and if you have selected a few what is the criteria?



I don't believe that is possible in the U.S. anymore, although it used to be. At least in the state I live in you go through the same process at a show as you would at a shop. Gun show transactions used to be treated simply as private sales so those laws used to apply. I can't recall exactly but I'd guess that rule changed when the Brady bill passed(too lazy to look it up ).

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to give you one reason the laws changed. Way back when you and I where the only adults that would have been on this site, shows where nothing more then very small swap meets between enthusiasts for the most part. As the years moved on they became more of a traveling market with a handful of vendors selling to, well, whomever. Times change, laws change, is a good thing.

Let's look at your question (highlighted in red - I shall not use the best visual colour scheme/text known to man this time around: )

It does look different when one sees the post in it's entirety, eh?

Seems almost like I brought the 'gun nuts are dumb' idea to the table first. But no, my dear arora - you may have to find a new research assistant - the original concept was placed on the table first by someone else. You may have to redirect your question about the statistics. I was merely referring to what was already referred to.

Do you know where this comes from?:

Get to an 80 inch LED screen if you'd like it thrown bigtime in your face.

In practice, yes, I am saying that. For the sake of this argument that I have been presenting though, let's assume that everybody in that city would have been dead no matter what happened.

Tough question, SCHMITTY - and one that has plagued us for centuries. It strikes me whenever I have to overhaul my aquarium - the end of the world requires collateral damage, and some fish will die, however careful I am.
Take the shooting beside the Empire State Building (my comments on that situation are already in the thread.) A lot of innocent people got shot. Couldn't be helped. I still stand by the police action taken.
Fact remains that there are already too many guns in the world.
How we solve the problem is beyond a simpleton like me. I leave that to the socio-political Einsteins amongst us.

........................
This is positive news as far as I'm concerned, although I'm sure if we dig deep enough there will be a downside somewhere, as with many things.

That, Sphinx, I find is almost always the case. There will always be a pro to a con.

I'm cool as a cucumber.
Need some Preperation H?

Now, now, playing with cucumbers and Prep H can be dangerous.
I myself enjoy the most amazingly virile good health - but I tend not to gloat; it can be offensive to those less fortunate.

Will give you more attention later, FK - too many nice threads around.

 

[FoolKiller]

Seems almost like I brought the 'gun nuts are dumb' idea to the table first. But no, my dear arora - you may have to find a new research assistant - the original concept was placed on the table first by someone else. You may have to redirect your question about the statistics. I was merely referring to what was already referred to.

Do you know where this comes from?:

Get to an 80 inch LED screen if you'd like it thrown bigtime in your face.

Just so we are clear, I was referring to an extreme minority of a certain demographic. The way you reworded it does not carry that connotation.

 

[arora]

Let's look at your question (highlighted in red - I shall not use the best visual colour scheme/text known to man this time around: )

It does look different when one sees the post in it's entirety, eh?

Seems almost like I brought the 'gun nuts are dumb' idea to the table first. But no, my dear arora - you may have to find a new research assistant - the original concept was placed on the table first by someone else. You may have to redirect your question about the statistics. I was merely referring to what was already referred to.

Do you know where this comes from?:

Get to an 80 inch LED screen if you'd like it thrown bigtime in your face.

Easy nancy

Even if I had seen fk's post, as he points out, your comment has a different meaning. It was a general response to defend gun owners. Besides the fact I asked a simple question and even weighted it in your favor, you chose all that.

Nice posting style btw, a fresh breath of entertainment. Stepped up you game

 

[hogger129]

I do not feel more laws or controls are the solution. Didn't that Brevik guy in Norway use an AR-15 rifle? Pretty sure those weren't legal there. Or look at Columbine -- weapons which were prohibited by the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban were used. The solution really is for people to have the means to defend themselves. I also do not agree with making it so having the means to defend yourself, means you have to jump through all sorts of legal hoops like getting registered or fingerprinted or having these pointless waiting periods. Nor do I agree with a bloated bureaucracy in Washington D.C. deciding what means of self defense is adequate for you to have, while they are protected by armed security using weapons that you cannot legally own.

The Second Amendment specifically says it's the right of our people to be armed and form well-regulated militias and these rights are not to be infringed.

A lot of people would like to say we have a culture of "gun nuts" here in America. But if you took the time to understand these people, you'd find they are far from being nuts. Many of them are loving, caring people. I also find it silly and a bit scary that so many people would demonize self defense advocates as a bunch of "nuts."

If you don't want a gun, don't get one, but don't impede upon my rights.

 

[Zenith]

Breivik used a Ruger Mini 14. It fires the same round as an AR-15. It has the same capacity as an AR-15. It is another weapon that was not prohibited by the 1994 Federal AWB because it doesn't have a pistol grip, adjustable stock, or other similar features.

 

[JJSCHMITTY2000]

Tough question, SCHMITTY - and one that has plagued us for centuries. It strikes me whenever I have to overhaul my aquarium - the end of the world requires collateral damage, and some fish will die, however careful I am.
Take the shooting beside the Empire State Building (my comments on that situation are already in the thread.) A lot of innocent people got shot. Couldn't be helped. I still stand by the police action taken.
Fact remains that there are already too many guns in the world.
How we solve the problem is beyond a simpleton like me. I leave that to the socio-political Einsteins amongst us.

Conviently enough, this is an opinion forum, so what's your take on it?

 

[hogger129]

Breivik used a Ruger Mini 14. It fires the same round as an AR-15. It has the same capacity as an AR-15. It is another weapon that was not prohibited by the 1994 Federal AWB because it doesn't have a pistol grip, adjustable stock, or other similar features.

I heard he used an AR-15. Anyway, point is that we deserve the right to protect ourselves from maniacs like these. How does depriving law-abiding people of the right to self defense, stop criminals? For the record, the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban had basically no effect on crime rates. The FBI has said as much.

 

[Bram Turismo]

I heard he used an AR-15. Anyway, point is that we deserve the right to protect ourselves from maniacs like these. How does depriving law-abiding people of the right to self defense, stop criminals? For the record, the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban had basically no effect on crime rates. The FBI has said as much.

You cannot defend yourself as a child against someone wearing a bulletproof vest, gathering all children pretending to be a policemen and then shooting every child on sight with an automatic weapon.

Except the Breivik case, see how many other gun shooting cases you can find me that happened in Norway. And yet most Norwegians have guns for hunting purposes.

 

[Keef]

You cannot defend yourself as a child against someone wearing a bulletproof vest, gathering all children pretending to be a policemen and then shooting every child on sight with an automatic weapon.

Children do not possess the same rights as adults, both legally and logically, because they're not yet able to comprehend such things. The responsibility for defending their rights falls on the adult guardian, both legally and logically, and the adult guardians in this case were the teachers, as per the typical contract between parents and the school. Despite teachers' responsibility to protect their students, they are not allowed to carry weapons and therefore were unable to defend their students against an attacker. If the teachers were allowed to carry concealed weapons with a license like most other Americans then the outcome most likely would have been very different.

An example of adults carrying weapons at their work place (because of course you're still alive and aware at work, which means you still have a right to life, which means you still have a right to defend it) is my place of employment. Not a god damn person is gonna walk through these doors flailing any kind of weapon without 20 guys aiming at him in seconds with anything from a .38 revolver to an AR15. I don't have a gun myself but if I feel safe from maniacs anywhere it's here at work amongst various experienced gun enthusiasts and hunters.

 

[Nicksfix]

Despite teachers' responsibility to protect their students, they are not allowed to carry weapons and therefore were unable to defend their students against an attacker. If the teachers were allowed to carry concealed weapons with a license like most other Americans then the outcome most likely would have been very different.

Pending State, and or City, and or Township, and or County laws / ordinances. It's a lot of red tape to go through, but it's not totally illegal.

It has never really been brought up or discussed publicly until recent events, but, Texas has a town where it's school teachers are allowed to carry firearms. More States to follow, I'm sure.

Article

 

[Antmeg26]

Pending State, and or City, and or Township, and or County laws / ordinances. It's a lot of red tape to go through, but it's not totally illegal.

It has never really been brought up or discussed publicly until recent events, but, Texas has a town where it's school teachers are allowed to carry firearms. More States to follow, I'm sure.

Article

I have relatives who are teachers. They would find use for these as this is why they got into teaching for...

 

[Keef]

I have relatives who are teachers. They would find use for these as this is why they got into teaching for...

They became teachers so they could shoot kids? What?

 

[dautolover]

Um, you are aware I am refuting individual points and none of what you quoted from me above was my suggested answer, right? I mean, I have to assume you know as that would only have required reading the conversation back a small bit more and seeing I had a whole post on how the gun debate is pointless because it won't ultimately solve anything.

Trying to refute my individual responses to other members by constantly bringing up culture shift is wasting your time when you could have just quoted this post and told me that you agree with me.

You quoted two parts of my post... the first one regarding the argument people use in regards to defending against one's government; the second one regarding the part where Americans are crazy... and that we should focus on changing our way of thinking, rather than arming the potential victim.

You then mentioned that I was merely arguing against individual responses to someone else's points. But thereafter you proceeded to talk about how the second amendment exists primarily to empower citizens against their overreaching government, and that that was the main intent of the amendment... meaning that my responses aren't a waste of time, and that they actually address the argument people (like you) use all the time in defense of the second amendment (to defend oneself against their government).

And to summarize the points I made above... I don't really think people stow away guns just in case they feel they need to defend themselves against the government. They may cite that reason to justify their use/ownership of guns. But that doesn't mean they believe it seriously.

The whole ordering of the bill of rights and its amendments doesn't seem persuasive. Sure, there are subsections that can be easily identified, but you can always play around with the order to discern importance. The Supreme Court has done this whenever it has had to deal with difficult social issues and are confronted with scenarios in which two different amendments conflict with each other. I mean, how many times has the tenth amendment conflicted with the fourteenth amendment, fifth amendment, fourth amendment? A bunch of times... (Roe v. Wade for instance). The first amendment isn't as absolute as people think (you can't scream fire in the theater, you can't print the recipe for a nuclear weapon in your newspaper, etc.). In the Pentagon Papers case, SCOTUS found that in certain scenarios, government does have the power to limit speech. The conflict in that case was government's inability to limit speech and its duty to protect the nation against disasters. When the newspaper tried to divulge sensitive information that could have jeopardized national security, the government tried to stop them, and the NY Times sued, citing the first amendment. They won, sure, but that didn't stop the court from issuing a ruling that said something like "the government must need proof (a lot of it) to show that divulging this information would lead to imminent danger." In other words, the first amendment can defer to other parts of the Constitution in certain situations. Not many people like that (I don't), but that example is just to show you that when it comes to the ordering of the amendments, there's nothing special about that.

 

[Zenith]

Hasn't Utah been giving free concealed carry classes to teachers for some time now?

 

[FoolKiller]

You quoted two parts of my post... the first one regarding the argument people use in regards to defending against one's government; the second one regarding the part where Americans are crazy... and that we should focus on changing our way of thinking, rather than arming the potential victim.

You then mentioned that I was merely arguing against individual responses to someone else's points. But thereafter you proceeded to talk about how the second amendment exists primarily to empower citizens against their overreaching government, and that that was the main intent of the amendment...

You must mean in later posts, because it wasn't in the response I made to you. And that means I was responding to others questions or comments. I'm not controlling the flow of the conversation, so do not think that by me participating in the flow of the thread that I am saying people primarily own guns for a reason. If I answer a question about the wording of the second amendment or defend it that doesn't mean I think that is why people own guns.

meaning that my responses aren't a waste of time, and that they actually address the argument people (like you) use all the time in defense of the second amendment (to defend oneself against their government).

Explaining the second amendment to those questioning about it does not mean I am arguing a guy deserves a .22 handgun because he may have to fight off tanks.

Is defense against the government one of many just reasons to own a gun? Yes. Do I think it is the only or primary reason people do? No.

And to summarize the points I made above... I don't really think people stow away guns just in case they feel they need to defend themselves against the government. They may cite that reason to justify their use/ownership of guns. But that doesn't mean they believe it seriously.

No one claims it is. It is the reasoning given in the second amendment, so if someone wants a legal reasoning it is that.

The whole ordering of the bill of rights and its amendments doesn't seem persuasive. Sure, there are subsections that can be easily identified, but you can always play around with the order to discern importance. The Supreme Court has done this whenever it has had to deal with difficult social issues and are confronted with scenarios in which two different amendments conflict with each other. I mean, how many times has the tenth amendment conflicted with the fourteenth amendment, fifth amendment, fourth amendment?

The first ten were added all at one time. The fourteenth amendment is not even part of the equation for the numeration. No clue what you are saying there. And when has the 10th conflicted with the fifth or fourth? The tenth blatantly says it refers to unnamed rights in the Constitution. The fourth and fifth are named rights. If a state argues sovereignty in using warrantless searches and arrests or punishing prople for crimes without due process they will lose their case.

A bunch of times... (Roe v. Wade for instance).

Please explain. The best you can argue is state sovereignty vs the sixth Amendment. But then that's the debate, murder (a state jurisdiction) or right to one's body (sixth amendment), isn't it? Of course, it all actually comes down to how we define human life. Once the Supreme Court made that determination they could rule. Hence the purpose of Roe v Wade. And when there appears to be a conflict of rights/laws is one of the reasons why we have the court system. Once they did their job we had a legal answer and any conflict between the 10th and 6th amendment was resolved.

To say people disagree on how certain rights should be applied does not mean there is a conflict.

The first amendment isn't as absolute as people think (you can't scream fire in the theater, you can't print the recipe for a nuclear weapon in your newspaper, etc.).

Because those are actions that are part of other crimes. Saying that free speech gives you the right to endanger people by creating a panic is like some saying their right to defend themselves gives them the right to open fire in public.

In the Pentagon Papers case, SCOTUS found that in certain scenarios, government does have the power to limit speech. The conflict in that case was government's inability to limit speech and its duty to protect the nation against disasters. When the newspaper tried to divulge sensitive information that could have jeopardized national security, the government tried to stop them, and the NY Times sued, citing the first amendment. They won, sure, but that didn't stop the court from issuing a ruling that said something like "the government must need proof (a lot of it) to show that divulging this information would lead to imminent danger." In other words, the first amendment can defer to other parts of the Constitution in certain situations. Not many people like that (I don't), but that example is just to show you that when it comes to the ordering of the amendments, there's nothing special about that.

Weird, the other parts you refer to here would be the main body of the Constitution, which is before the first Amendment.

 

[fubar214]

Before I throw in my two cents on this topic I'll give you some relevant facts. I am a former active duty United States Marine. I'm a two time veteran of OEF (Afghanistan). I am currently in the Marine Corps reserve and work a full time civilian job. I've worked with many NATO countries during my military career, mainly Canadians and Brits. I own over 20 firearms, most of them are of a military nature. I fire roughly 10,000 rounds of ammunition per year. I carry a concealed handgun everywhere I'm permitted to by law.

Now onto gun control. I can understand why on the surface some people feel it is a legitimate issue to pursue. All across the world many thousands of people are killed by firearms every year. Read that last sentence again, "killed by firearms". First of all that firearm is incapable of causing a death by itself. There was a human being behind that gun that made the decision to pull the trigger. Now let's reword that sentence and make it a fact. All across the world many thousands of people are killed by someone who decided to shoot them with a firearm each year. Catching my drift yet?

Humans have been killing each other since the dawn of time. First with their bare hands, then sticks and stones, swords and spears, muskets and cannons and now today we've moved on to machine guns and laser guided missiles. In the future we'll probably be using some sort of Star Wars ray gun or something. The tool used is completely irrelevant. If all of a sudden at this very moment every firearm in the world just vanished into thin air what do you think would happen? Can you honestly say that it would have an effect on violence? I KNOW for a fact that it wouldn't. There would still be no shortage of robbery, rape, murder, serial and mass killings. Violence will NEVER go away, sorry to break it it to you if that's not what you want to believe.

I could literally write a book on this subject but I'll refrain for now. If you can give me ONE legitimate reason to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens like myself who don't abuse them, please feel free to let me know.