iNow Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 If guns are only allowed within the confines of one's property, then how do you take it to the range to practice or engage with a gun club to improve your skill? Doing so would mean having the gun out on the roads, on public lands, and on the property of other people.
StringJunky Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) If guns are only allowed within the confines of one's property, then how do you take it to the range to practice or engage with a gun club to improve your skill? Doing so would mean having the gun out on the roads, on public lands, and on the property of other people. My #248 post was addressing personal defence only ie defend oneself in ones home with a gun but not outside it. Shooting for practice or pleasure is fine, in allowed places, and should continue. I'd like to make it clear that I don't think legislating is simple...like I said before, the UK government guidance on weapons is over 200 pages and the US version would most likely be considerably larger because of the element of self-defence which is not recognised in the UK as a legitimate reason for owning a firearm. The only area I feel that's absolutely not justified imo is assault weapons...these are not for fun. They are articles of military combat and should be given due respect and caution as befits their intended function in their intended arena. They should only be used in the gravest of circumstances for the purposes of military or law enforcement by qualified and authorised personnel.. Regulation is not prohibition. It's about a person fitting the criteria for a given type of firearm and defining where and when they can be used...at the moment it's just a free-for-all near enough or, at best, far too loose don't you think?. Edited December 20, 2012 by StringJunky
MonDie Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) If guns are only allowed within the confines of one's property, then how do you take it to the range to practice or engage with a gun club to improve your skill? Doing so would mean having the gun out on the roads, on public lands, and on the property of other people. How about this? Put the tracking devices in the guns. Make them integral parts of the guns. Of course, this would have to be limited to the new guns produced after the requirement was designated. For older guns, simply require that they be transported along with a tracking device. If you have guns in your car, but your car isn't being tracked, you're breaking the law. Removal of the tracking device should be difficult. Edited December 20, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die
zapatos Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 How about this? They can get their cars registered for the transport of guns, and this registration involves implanting a tracking device in the car. If they have a gun in an unregistered car, or a car with the tracking device removed, they're breaking the law. Better yet, put the tracking devices in the guns. Make them integral parts of the guns. No one who insists on their right to have a gun will accept electronic government tracking of their movements. I'd accept limits on guns before I'd accept someone tracking my movements. Maybe something as simple as a combination lock built into the gun would help. It would at least cut out those who steal the guns.
Moontanman Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 I hate to say it but the phase change that would have to take place in the USA for this to happen is not going to happen. Right now states are arming teachers and school officials. Not the reaction of an informed and reasonable populace ..
iNow Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 The only area I feel that's absolutely not justified imo is assault weapons...these are not for fun. They are articles of military combat and should be given due respect and caution as befits their intended function in their intended arena. They should only be used in the gravest of circumstances for the purposes of military or law enforcement by qualified and authorised personnel.I tend to agree with you philosophically on this point, but I think it's moot. As Cap'n already noted above, most deaths from guns come from handguns, which nobody is talking about banning. Even this guy in Newtown CT last week did most of his killing with handguns, so a ban on assault rifles and large magazines doesn't have much of an impact at all, IMO. It strikes me as scapegoating of those other guns and little more than security theater. 1
MonDie Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) No one who insists on their right to have a gun will accept electronic government tracking of their movements. I'd accept limits on guns before I'd accept someone tracking my movements. Maybe something as simple as a combination lock built into the gun would help. It would at least cut out those who steal the guns. You have a point. Gun Owners More Likely To Distruct The Federal Government If that's the case, we can just keep the tracking devices to the cars, making it a choice for the gun-owner. If they don't want their car to be tracked, they can't transport their guns with it. I keep forgetting that the webpage doesn't update every time I edit the post. Edited December 20, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die
StringJunky Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) I tend to agree with you philosophically on this point, but I think it's moot. As Cap'n already noted above, most deaths from guns come from handguns, which nobody is talking about banning. Even this guy in Newtown CT last week did most of his killing with handguns, so a ban on assault rifles and large magazines doesn't have much of an impact at all, IMO. It strikes me as scapegoating of those other guns and little more than security theater. Memories are short: James Holmes’ shooting in Aurora lasted for, at most, a minute and a half. Within two minutes, twenty-five police officers had responded to the scene. Within six minutes, over two hundred officers swarmed the theater. Despite the limited time, Holmes killed twelve viewers and injured fifty-eight others. Scarier still, Holmes’ .223 caliber assault weapon, a semi-automatic AR-15, jammed during the shooting. When we hear about the massacre in Aurora, we must remember only twelve were killed. An AR-15 is capable of carrying a 100-round drum magazine and of shooting between 50 and 60 bullets per minute. It’s incredibly fortunate more lives were not lost. http://hpronline.org/united-states/for-lives-and-liberty-banning-assault-weapons-in-america-3/ This kind of mass destruction does not need to happen anytime...isn't 70 people dead or hurt by one gun in 90 seconds significant? That's one person every 1.3 seconds! High-capacity assault weapons are for highly trained policemen and soldiers; they are not for civilian fantasy-soldier wannabes. It only took the UK to have one massacre with semi-automatic rifles and they were banned as were shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges. The next one caused the banning of handguns.. Edited December 20, 2012 by StringJunky
Iggy Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 By analogy, I know in the UK you have a law making it illegal to "insult someone thereby causing them distress". What law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_harassment,_alarm_or_distress The exact wording is "A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person... distress, he.. uses... insulting words... thereby causing that or another person... distress." You live there, right? Anyway " But, the US congress couldn't make that law even if the majority supported it and believed it would benefit society and make it safer." Why not? I guess it's a breach of the constitution but that's not set in stone: it can be amended. Right, congress can't enact an unconstitutional law. The UK law against distressful insults would be banned by the first amendment. Congress can't amend the constitution. That requires 3/4rs (if I recall correctly) of state legislatures. Unlike Parliament, there are certain laws that congress just can't make. Those laws are specifically the laws that protect individuals against the wishes of the majority. "So, even if there were only one person to whom a gun was a benefit (I should have to give an example)" There are many things that would be of benefit to some individuals which are banned in the US. Many drugs for example or bombs. As far as I know the right to have drugs and bombs is nowhere included in the constitutional amendments. " The one is assuming that liberty outweighs public safety and the other makes the opposite assumption." False dichotomy. I have the liberty not to get shot at. You are demonstrating what I mean. You think "liberty" is something the government gives you by restraining the governed. You are free not to be shot by your neighbor. You are free not to be insulted by your neighbor. The government makes you free by withholding things from you and telling you how to behave. The government makes you free by locking up Nick Griffin. You are free not to hear his views. People in the US don't think that way. The idea that the government can give us a liberty by telling us what to do is confusing to people in the US.
imatfaal Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 ! Moderator Note Guys, lets not have this turn into an old europe vs america argument. This is an emotive and divisive issue anyway without bringing in other matters. Please get back on the topic and leave definitions of liberty, public order offences, and other issues for another thread.
Iggy Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 Right, the analogy isn't the point. The point is that these facts from the OP's article... 4. More guns tend to mean more homicide.6. Gun control is not politically popular. ...are not necessarily discordant. People who contine to argue "Gun control should be politically popular because more guns leads to more homicides" are missing something fundamental about the political and cultural landscape. 2
Moontanman Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 Maybe we need to equate wanting an assault gun with having a small penis... that might do the trick... 2
john5746 Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 Right, the analogy isn't the point. The point is that these facts from the OP's article... ...are not necessarily discordant. People who contine to argue "Gun control should be politically popular because more guns leads to more homicides" are missing something fundamental about the political and cultural landscape. True, I think a big part of the problem is just using the word "guns". They are not all the same. Gun control doesn't mean all guns are banned. Maybe we need to equate wanting an assault gun with having a small penis... that might do the trick... LOL, some well needed relief.
Arete Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 Maybe we need to equate wanting an assault gun with having a small penis... that might do the trick... This was a speeding ad in Australia - prehaps something similar for being a douche with guns? http://youtu.be/ibAe8ArmvwY
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 This kind of mass destruction does not need to happen anytime...isn't 70 people dead or hurt by one gun in 90 seconds significant? That's one person every 1.3 seconds! High-capacity assault weapons are for highly trained policemen and soldiers; they are not for civilian fantasy-soldier wannabes. It only took the UK to have one massacre with semi-automatic rifles and they were banned as were shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges. The next one caused the banning of handguns.. The point is that this is an outlier. Unless you genuinely want to ban the most popular kind of rifles in America for the sake of two shooting incidents, an assault weapons ban would achieve little. The tens of thousands of people killed by guns every year would still be killed in equal numbers, but there'd be one or two fewer mass-media incidents. 1
iNow Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 The point is that this is an outlier. Unless you genuinely want to ban the most popular kind of rifles in America for the sake of two shooting incidents, an assault weapons ban would achieve little. The tens of thousands of people killed by guns every year would still be killed in equal numbers, but there'd be one or two fewer mass-media incidents.This is the point where I find myself right now. Banning assault weapons makes sense from a "they are only intended to kill" standpoint, but they are essentially little more than a scapegoat on the larger true problem. They account for less than 1% of all gun deaths, yet that's where the focus is placed because they're scary and designed to kill quickly, and they are slightly easier to do something about. Most owners of these massive and often rather expensive weapons, however, tend to be very responsible with them and never do commit any of these heinous acts. They are true collectors and hobbyists, regardless of how we may feel about their hobby. They are not murderers more than 99% of the time. The true issue is killings with any guns, but every one concedes we'll never ban all guns, hence the impasse and why nothing ever seems to get done on this issue. About 85 people are killed every single day with guns in the US, about 53 of those are suicides. That means 32 are killed by someone else's gun... every 24 hours. That's more people than at the Newtown school, and more people than at most of the other media-hyped hysteria massacres. I want to reduce needless death. I don't think treating the 1% of the problem is an effective route at accomplishing that. 1
zapatos Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 This is the point where I find myself right now. Banning assault weapons makes sense from a "they are only intended to kill" stand point, but they are essentially little more than a scapegoat on the larger true problem. I think even this gets overblown. All guns 'are only inteded to kill', unless of course they are for something else such as target shooting or collecting. The round from a .22 will also kill you, and the round from an AR-15 is just higher on the scale. I imagine a slug from a 12 guage shotgun would also do a significant amount of damage but no one seems to be talking about banning them.
overtone Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 True, I think a big part of the problem is just using the word "guns". They are not all the same. Gun control doesn't mean all guns are banned. Unless it does, as many posts here and in the general public debate clearly indicate is the basic motive behind a large and politically significant fraction of the gun control advocates. There's a history here, and it is one of increasing encroachment of a distant and arbitrary and unaccountable authority into the personal lives of people who resent it, a lot. Much of this governmental encroachment justified by specious argument, backed by shallowly informed people who haven't thought the situation through, and pivoting on emotionally overwhelming and reason-suspending events, btw. That is exactly what a Constitutional provision is supposed to prevent, to protect the individual from. And the people clinging to the 2nd Amendment, which is not really all that vague, are motivated in part by years of personal experience in arenas that lack such protections, such as driving and swimming and drugs and high school behavioral control and the like.
iNow Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 I just meant that fairly strong arguments can be made for acceptable usage with other guns, but that argument doesn't so easily apply to high capacity, rapid fire "assault-type" weapons. The rest of my point stands. I think focusing on them is security theater along the lines of limiting us to 3oz of liquid allowed on a plane at airports. Note: This was a reply to zapatos #267 1
John Cuthber Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 Maybe we need to equate wanting an assault gun with having a small penis... that might do the trick... But many or most people know about that correlation- and it hasn't worked yet. (disclaimer- yes I know correlation is not the same as causation)
Iggy Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 True, I think a big part of the problem is just using the word "guns". They are not all the same. Gun control doesn't mean all guns are banned. I agree, and I think the tone by which we regulate the guns that aren't outright banned would be key. If it were as hard to buy a handgun as it is to get a license to drive a class 3 truck that would be a big improvement. Mandatory keylocks, safety training, random surprise inspections, holding gun owners and manufactures civilly liable for misuse (the proceeds of which could fund massive gun buyback programs to remove illegal guns from the streets)... a person can think of a dozen things quicker than they can be typed. More stringent regulations I say
iNow Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 (disclaimer- yes I know correlation is not the same as causation)Technically guns can cause small penises depending on where you aim it.
Iggy Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 or a large one depending on who is aiming it 1
John Cuthber Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 I suddenly feel like raiding a tomb. I haven't heard it called that before. 1
Recommended Posts