View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently September 23rd, 2018, 6:25 am



Reply to topic  [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 Gun Control 
Author Message
QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 3122
Post Re: Gun Control
njroar wrote:
No, a registry isn't a good thing. Just publish who owns guns and you give people targets. Undefendable houses for theft of goods, gun owners houses for theft of firearms. Does that sound like a good idea to you?


So criminals will target homes without guns because they know they'll be unprotected -- but they'll also target homes with guns because they want to steal them? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

I have a few guns, but they're really of no protective value to me. That's because I -- like a responsible gun owner -- keep them unloaded and locked in a safe when they aren't being used. The only way your guns really provide much of a defense is if you have them loaded and ready to go at all times. In which case, you're just waiting for an accident (a kid to stumble across it, etc).

njroar wrote:
Ask the anti-gun crowd when they are going to push to eliminate all gangs in the inner cities. That would remove 75% of the gun deaths.


To be honest, no one really cares about gang violence. We can debate the morality of it, but that's the truth. If you're in a gang or you're a drug dealer and you get shot, most people will think you had it coming to you (and perhaps you did).

But people have a problem with random violence -- that you can be sitting in a movie theater one minute, minding your own business as a law abiding citizen, and the next minute be laying in a pool of your own blood. That you can be a 7-year at soccer practice and get shot in the head for no particular reason. That you can be a high school kid walking to class and get shot in the back. Etc. Etc. This is what actually bothers people and this what people want to see come to an end.

What's going to end up happening, sadly, is that in about 10 years, it will no longer be socially acceptable to own firearms (if you're an educated, upper-middle class person). Owning a gun will be seen as shameful.

This is already well underway when it comes to hunting. I don't tell people I hunt anymore, because they judge me negatively, and I'll probably give it up entirely in the near future. Ten or 15 years ago, hunting was fine -- only the true lefty loons were opposed to it. But now, more and more, the average person finds it morally reprehensible. Perhaps this was inevitable, but I blame the idiots who flaunt it -- post dead pictures of bloody animal carcasses on social media, who mount dead deer in strange poses on their trucks when they're driving down the highway, etc.

The same is going to be true for guns. As a responsible gun owner, I think you have to acquiescence to some reasonable limitations. If you continue to be unreasonable, the reasonable people in the middle are going to move against you.


December 5th, 2015, 2:36 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 10057
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Gun Control
slybri19 wrote:
As for gun control, I'm obviously against it. Unfortunately, the vast majority of American sheep have no idea what the 2nd Amendment is all about. It isn't about hunting or protecting yourself against criminals. It's about protecting yourself and your family against a totalitarian government.


Agreed.

slybri19 wrote:
While the US Military is the greatest in the world, they are limited by the incompetence of the Obama administration. They can't attack civilians at all. If the ROE (Rules of Engagement) remain in place during a civil war, it would be over rather quickly. Besides. there's a reason that we were stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan so long - Insurrection and unconventional warfare. Those same tactics can be utilized here, as well. It isn't difficult.


Agreed.

You know, when you make both these points how do you not see the issue? So we have guns to protect us from the government (yes, that might have worked 240 years ago) yet now with our military we have no chance. So basically, there is not longer any point in having guns against a gov't we couldn't protect ourselves from it we wanted to.

The 2nd amendment is outdated as you unwillingly just pointed out - thanks Sly!

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


December 6th, 2015, 3:29 pm
Profile WWW
Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3275
Post Re: Gun Control
Quote:
So criminals will target homes without guns because they know they'll be unprotected -- but they'll also target homes with guns because they want to steal them? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.


I'm not having it both ways, just pointing out that there are different types of criminals. The ones that go for goods and don't want risk or hassle, will target homes without guns. Those that want higher $ amount goods + weapons will just watch gun owners homes until they are empty and target them. The unknown factor makes people more hesitant to rush into something. Take away the unknown factor and I think you'll see it happening at a higher rate in undefended homes because you took away the risk.

And Pablo, the 2nd isn't outdated. The military isn't bigger than the population and most wouldn't attack citizens. Just look at Egypt or any of the other uprisings recently. The military couldn't and didnt do much.

But also, the SCOTUS has ruled that it currently is about the right to self defense, period. Not just against government but against everything. And when the SCOTUS turned police officers from protectors to responders, it's a necessary thing. The police have no duty to protect you. But they'll respond as soon as it's over.


December 6th, 2015, 10:07 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Player
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pm
Posts: 2578
Post Re: Gun Control
njroar wrote:
Quote:
So criminals will target homes without guns because they know they'll be unprotected -- but they'll also target homes with guns because they want to steal them? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.


I'm not having it both ways, just pointing out that there are different types of criminals. The ones that go for goods and don't want risk or hassle, will target homes without guns. Those that want higher $ amount goods + weapons will just watch gun owners homes until they are empty and target them. The unknown factor makes people more hesitant to rush into something. Take away the unknown factor and I think you'll see it happening at a higher rate in undefended homes because you took away the risk.



I know you guys are arguing the tangent now, but at what point did a Collective Gun Registy by the US Govt become an open online registry where anyone can see whose household has guns? Having all legal guns sold chipped on some registry doesnt imply it is a public registry. To me it just needs to be accessible by Law Enforcement and the Courts.


December 7th, 2015, 11:58 am
Profile ICQ WWW
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3312
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Gun Control
The idea of guns protecting against government tyranny requires two things to be true:

1. The government (i.e. the military) turn against the civilian population to enforce the tyranny
2. Civilians with guns would be effective against the military.

In my opinion, both are false. I'll take them each individually.

1. The only real means the government has to implement or enforce any tyrannical action is the military. But, the military is composed of citizens. I can envision a scenario in which some military members would turn on their fellow citizens, but I do not believe most would. So in that case, that government would not have the military force to enforce tyranny.

But, let's say they do. For the sake of argument, let's say that somehow the members of the military do turn against their fellow citizens. That leads us to point 2.

2. Even the most heavily armed person in the US would not stand a chance. People here referenced guerrilla warfare in various places as an example, but that only works when the government reins in the military. When our military has gone in with full, or even mostly full force, we've rolled over everything in our path. See Iraq when we first went in. Sure, there was some intense fighting, but ultimately the US military took over every city they wanted to. The Iraqi resistance could not stop them. And that was a group with access to military weaponry. Imagine someone in the US, with a house full of guns. If the government really wanted to get rid of them, do you think they'd send in troops? I don't. I think they'd just blow the house up from a drone strike. Or launch a cruise missile. Or drop a bomb from a plane. In every one of those scenarios, having guns wouldn't do a damn thing. Anyone who believes that owning guns could really stop the military from doing whatever they wanted is having rambo delusions. I know that if I had access to all the might that the US military has, even an entire town full of people armed to the gills wouldn't mean a damn thing. Unless those people have tanks, anti-aircraft weaponry, rockets, armor, bunkers, etc, I can just blow them up from a distance and move on. And if I'm a tyrant, I don't care how many people I have to kill to get my way. Your lives don't matter, I've got bigger weapons than you, so get out of the way or die. Simple as that.

In my opinion, that's really all it comes down to. I don't see any scenario in which guns pose any real threat against a tyrant. It's like the guy swinging his sword around in front of Indiana Jones. He's screams and yells and looks intimidating, and then gets shot and dies.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


December 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Profile
Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3275
Post Re: Gun Control
DJ-B wrote:
njroar wrote:
Quote:
So criminals will target homes without guns because they know they'll be unprotected -- but they'll also target homes with guns because they want to steal them? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.


I'm not having it both ways, just pointing out that there are different types of criminals. The ones that go for goods and don't want risk or hassle, will target homes without guns. Those that want higher $ amount goods + weapons will just watch gun owners homes until they are empty and target them. The unknown factor makes people more hesitant to rush into something. Take away the unknown factor and I think you'll see it happening at a higher rate in undefended homes because you took away the risk.



I know you guys are arguing the tangent now, but at what point did a Collective Gun Registy by the US Govt become an open online registry where anyone can see whose household has guns? Having all legal guns sold chipped on some registry doesnt imply it is a public registry. To me it just needs to be accessible by Law Enforcement and the Courts.


Because anything the government collects eventually becomes public. It didn't stop them posting a map of New York State gun owners.


December 7th, 2015, 1:10 pm
Profile
Megatron
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12534
Post Re: Gun Control
njroar wrote:
DJ-B wrote:
njroar wrote:
Quote:
So criminals will target homes without guns because they know they'll be unprotected -- but they'll also target homes with guns because they want to steal them? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.


I'm not having it both ways, just pointing out that there are different types of criminals. The ones that go for goods and don't want risk or hassle, will target homes without guns. Those that want higher $ amount goods + weapons will just watch gun owners homes until they are empty and target them. The unknown factor makes people more hesitant to rush into something. Take away the unknown factor and I think you'll see it happening at a higher rate in undefended homes because you took away the risk.



I know you guys are arguing the tangent now, but at what point did a Collective Gun Registy by the US Govt become an open online registry where anyone can see whose household has guns? Having all legal guns sold chipped on some registry doesnt imply it is a public registry. To me it just needs to be accessible by Law Enforcement and the Courts.


Because anything the government collects eventually becomes public. It didn't stop them posting a map of New York State gun owners.
Like the sex offenders DB or the NCIC....
Mistakes happen, the information that private companies collect also goes public, but that hasn't stopped us from using those. IMO this is more about network and information security. Regardless of the system, it needs to have proper security and encryption in place.

_________________
Quote:
Detroit vs. Everybody
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


December 7th, 2015, 2:31 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10989
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Gun Control
Pablo wrote:
slybri19 wrote:
As for gun control, I'm obviously against it. Unfortunately, the vast majority of American sheep have no idea what the 2nd Amendment is all about. It isn't about hunting or protecting yourself against criminals. It's about protecting yourself and your family against a totalitarian government.


Agreed.

slybri19 wrote:
While the US Military is the greatest in the world, they are limited by the incompetence of the Obama administration. They can't attack civilians at all. If the ROE (Rules of Engagement) remain in place during a civil war, it would be over rather quickly. Besides. there's a reason that we were stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan so long - Insurrection and unconventional warfare. Those same tactics can be utilized here, as well. It isn't difficult.


Agreed.

You know, when you make both these points how do you not see the issue? So we have guns to protect us from the government (yes, that might have worked 240 years ago) yet now with our military we have no chance. So basically, there is not longer any point in having guns against a gov't we couldn't protect ourselves from it we wanted to.

The 2nd amendment is outdated as you unwillingly just pointed out - thanks Sly!


You obviously misunderstood me, Pablo. If the current ROE remain in place, then the US citizens would defeat the US military (whom would mostly sit out) and the government rather easily. Not the other way around that you implied. The current ROE have an implicit mandate to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. That's what hinders our military to do their job and win in a timely and efficient manner. Therefore, they would be hand-tied during any potential engagement.

I could tell you what a Civil War would look like, but I refuse to get into many specifics on a public forum. The military and police wouldn't be the primary targets because many of them would be on our side. Take away the voice and the muscle. I'll let you decide what those two entities are.

_________________
Image


December 8th, 2015, 3:31 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 10057
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Gun Control
So in gov't vs people - which isn't going to happen or in a Civil War what happens to ROE? They go out the door, just look at those situations in our past or around the world.

The whole notion of us still protecting ourselves against a totalitarian government in modern times is downright silly and outdated, let's be frank and honest hear. Using that to justify the 2nd amendment doesn't make any sense to me. That said, if their are 21st century reasons to support the "right" to bear arms - I'd be interested in hearing them. When that amendment was made we had foreign armies on our soil, "savages" (at least how we labeled them) throughout the country, and no Wal-Marts to get our meat from. I totally get why people needed guns back then. What are the reasons now?

As people we have "rights" until we do something that causes us to lose them. Given all that continues to happen, it is time to question whether we still have that "right".

I'm only questioning right now, looking for arguments on both sides. I live in Texas, believe me there are guns around from my neighbor's waking my boys in the middle of the night having fun shooting off their rifles to the driver next to me who pointed his handgun at me because I honked at him when he was about to sideswipe me from a 4-lane change from and entrance ramp. I get most gun owners are very responsible, but those aren't the one's we need to worry about.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


December 8th, 2015, 11:55 am
Profile WWW
Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3275
Post Re: Gun Control
Pablo wrote:
So in gov't vs people - which isn't going to happen or in a Civil War what happens to ROE? They go out the door, just look at those situations in our past or around the world.

The whole notion of us still protecting ourselves against a totalitarian government in modern times is downright silly and outdated, let's be frank and honest hear. Using that to justify the 2nd amendment doesn't make any sense to me. That said, if their are 21st century reasons to support the "right" to bear arms - I'd be interested in hearing them. When that amendment was made we had foreign armies on our soil, "savages" (at least how we labeled them) throughout the country, and no Wal-Marts to get our meat from. I totally get why people needed guns back then. What are the reasons now?

As people we have "rights" until we do something that causes us to lose them. Given all that continues to happen, it is time to question whether we still have that "right".

I'm only questioning right now, looking for arguments on both sides. I live in Texas, believe me there are guns around from my neighbor's waking my boys in the middle of the night having fun shooting off their rifles to the driver next to me who pointed his handgun at me because I honked at him when he was about to sideswipe me from a 4-lane change from and entrance ramp. I get most gun owners are very responsible, but those aren't the one's we need to worry about.


Regardless of your agreement/disagreement over what 300 million people can do vs 200 thousand troops, the current interpretation of the 2A is the right to self defense. That's not going away, so arguing that it's outdated is pointless.

Continues to happen... Every single year since 1993, gun deaths has gone down. Not up, but down. The media makes it seem like it's getting worse, but it's not. Every single shooting has been due to mental illness, that for some reason we can't/won't add to the background system, which makes any expansion of the current background system a non-effective change. And California is due to the ineffectiveness of our visa and screening process. The rifles were purchased by a friend, which makes it an illegal straw purchase, and if the screening process had worked, the background check would have failed.

Murders by guns = 8,000, right? Remove 75% from gangs, since they aren't using legal guns and zero laws will change that and you have 2,000. Remove the 300 from assault rifles and you have 2,700 deaths from guns. Now if background checks eliminated mentally ill, that number would drop, and if you could remove the negligent parents, it'd be even lower. But since those same negligent parents lead to 3000 deaths of children by swimming pools a year, I'm sure those kids would be just as unsafe even if there wasn't a gun.

There are a very small percentage of people dying purposefully in this country to guns. We should always look for ways to do more, but the average law abiding citizen who owns a gun, already commits crimes at a lower percentage than non-gun owners. Because breaking the laws will take away their guns. We don't need reactionary changes that only effect those already following the law. You need to look at changes that have an impact on the criminal aspect. And the majority of the changes only effect the law abiding citizen. And that's why there's always going to be this argument.


December 8th, 2015, 12:12 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 10057
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Gun Control
Excellent points njroar, the biggest issue is stopping those who are mentally unstable from getting the guns in the first place. That needs to be the immediate action taken.

While our numbers were on the decline (and have been flat for the past few years), that is only one way to look at it. Compared to other strong economic countries, are rates are extremely high. I place a very high value on human life, to me the number of homicides by gun are way too high.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


December 8th, 2015, 10:36 pm
Profile WWW
Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3275
Post Re: Gun Control
Pablo wrote:
Excellent points njroar, the biggest issue is stopping those who are mentally unstable from getting the guns in the first place. That needs to be the immediate action taken.

While our numbers were on the decline (and have been flat for the past few years), that is only one way to look at it. Compared to other strong economic countries, are rates are extremely high. I place a very high value on human life, to me the number of homicides by gun are way too high.


Oh I agree completely that mental health is the 2nd biggest problem area, but the biggest problem area when it comes to "high profile" shootings. San Bernardino is the only mass shooting that hasn't been linked to mental health, although I'm sure Blue might consider fundamental religion a mental illness ;)

The issue is people fighting against having those issues on a background check. I know NICS only holds the background checks for 24-48 hours, but some believe that they'd keep it longer, or there's problems with misdiagnosis, etc.. Mental health itself needs to be addressed before there's a foolproof way to know who's a threat or not, but that's probably what's holding up that aspect of it. Putting marijuana on the list of drugs that prevent purchase was what got it killed.

The biggest contributor to homicides are gangs, and the majority of those are in the major cities. But that's going to take the systematic failures and discrimination to be dealt with, which I wouldn't hold my breath. One day.

3rd, I'd make it mandatory for anyone with children, or who have children visit, must purchase a gun safe or locker (not glass, like CT) in order to store it in your home. The death of children always hits home and it's always negligent parents that if you make a few high profile examples of, maybe they'll see the light.


December 9th, 2015, 12:32 am
Profile
QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 3122
Post Re: Gun Control
It's not perfect, but I'd favor something like:

You want to buy a handgun, you need a permit. The permit is given to anyone that successfully passes a psychological evaluation. You can only sell your handguns to other permit holders, and you need to get your permit renewed once a year.

Most long guns, assault rifles and the like, are fine, but reasonable limitations like a ban on high capacity magazines make sense.

If you have children under the age of 12 in your home, your guns should be locked in a safe. It would be hard/impossible to enforce it, but you could charge people after the fact.

End the war on drugs.


December 9th, 2015, 1:43 am
Profile
Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3275
Post Re: Gun Control
Blueskies wrote:
It's not perfect, but I'd favor something like:

You want to buy a handgun, you need a permit. The permit is given to anyone that successfully passes a psychological evaluation. You can only sell your handguns to other permit holders, and you need to get your permit renewed once a year.

Most long guns, assault rifles and the like, are fine, but reasonable limitations like a ban on high capacity magazines make sense.

If you have children under the age of 12 in your home, your guns should be locked in a safe. It would be hard/impossible to enforce it, but you could charge people after the fact.

End the war on drugs.


We have a FID (firearm ID) card in NJ. There's no renewal but it has our fingerprint and can be revoked if you commit a crime. Have to go through the entire gamut of local, state and federal background checks as well as the fingerprint search. Costs a pretty penny the first time, but no renewal.

We then have to fill out a permit form each time we want to buy a handgun. They rerun your background check, minus the fingerprints. Takes up to 10 weeks for permits to be filled out (even though law demands it take less than 30 days). Can only purchase 1 handgun ever 30 days. Can only sell handguns through a FFL, so that mandates a NICS check and purchase through registered dealer.

Rifles have no limits, but just a single form plus NICS check.

We have a safe law in the state, and hard to enforce, except if something happens. So it's an extra charge after the fact, so doesn't really make things any safer.


December 9th, 2015, 1:34 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Player
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pm
Posts: 2578
Post Re: Gun Control
njroar wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
It's not perfect, but I'd favor something like:

You want to buy a handgun, you need a permit. The permit is given to anyone that successfully passes a psychological evaluation. You can only sell your handguns to other permit holders, and you need to get your permit renewed once a year.

Most long guns, assault rifles and the like, are fine, but reasonable limitations like a ban on high capacity magazines make sense.

If you have children under the age of 12 in your home, your guns should be locked in a safe. It would be hard/impossible to enforce it, but you could charge people after the fact.

End the war on drugs.


We have a FID (firearm ID) card in NJ. There's no renewal but it has our fingerprint and can be revoked if you commit a crime. Have to go through the entire gamut of local, state and federal background checks as well as the fingerprint search. Costs a pretty penny the first time, but no renewal.

We then have to fill out a permit form each time we want to buy a handgun. They rerun your background check, minus the fingerprints. Takes up to 10 weeks for permits to be filled out (even though law demands it take less than 30 days). Can only purchase 1 handgun ever 30 days. Can only sell handguns through a FFL, so that mandates a NICS check and purchase through registered dealer.

Rifles have no limits, but just a single form plus NICS check.

We have a safe law in the state, and hard to enforce, except if something happens. So it's an extra charge after the fact, so doesn't really make things any safer.


See this seems fairly reasonable. But unless sokmething becomes federally mandated and all states comply people can just move to places where this isnt an issue. Gun Control should not be a state by state situation.


December 9th, 2015, 10:05 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.