Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
HermitMaster
Social climber
my abode
|
|
Since we know that killers obey the gun laws .... We should just cut to the chase and outlaw murder all together....
Yes, yes. That will be the ticket...
FYI, Chicago and all it's gun laws had 84 people shot this weekend alone.
All of Montana on the other hand.....
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
No, it is not true. Only you believe it is, but that is false.
you sure about that, couch?
you really believe that any convicted felon, anyone, cannot pick up a newspaper and buy a weapon right now with no background check required?
please explain what stops them
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
If caught, and successfully prosecuted, five years in The Joint.
What you describe is already illegal.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
Madbolter1:
How did that line of logic work out for prohibition? How did that line of logic work out for the endless war on drugs?
Why are you equating background laws (regulations) to banning? Alcohol and drugs should be legal and regulated. Just like guns.
The war on drugs would have made a lot more sense if we called it the war on drub abuse. The "war on guns" would make sense if we called it "the war on gun violence".
ALL that means is that the something will become more expensive but will still be ENTIRELY accessible to ANYBODY that wants the something.
No it also means there will be LESS guns. It's simple supply and demand economics. If something is more expensive there will be less demand.
If they are harder to get (much harder for people who shouldn't have them) there is less of a chance of them being in the wrong hands at the wrong time. Again simple logic you should be able to admit.
What you have not even begun to demonstrate is that fewer criminals will get fewer of them.
I laid it out logically. If you can't/won't follow this line of logic you are not thinking impartially.
Do you believe we should eliminate all background checks and allow anyone to buy a gun, the only deterrent being that it's illegal if the person shouldn't own one? (don't criminals by definition break the law?) If you believe background checks work at all you see the reason for them. They should be universal.
In California all guns sales must go through a FFL dealer and the purchasers must pass a background check. If this was applied nationwide there would be thousands of guns kept out of the wrong hands. Again if you can't admit that you are being illogical to support what you want to believe.
And unless you can indicate why somebody should believe that the government is even CAPABLE of virtually shutting down the flow of guns into criminal and nut-job hands, the need of self-defense against gun-toting bad guys remains real and alive.
We can't "virtually shut down" the flow of guns into the wrong hands, but we should reduce it as much a possible without any significant hardships for legal owners. Just to pull a number completely out of the air, what if we reduced the number of new guns getting to criminals by 50%. Wouldn't that be worth the extra effort of background checks? How many lives would be saved, 1, 10, 100, 1000? Isn't that worth the effort?
Nobody is saying "more guns" in general terms. What people like me are saying is: More guns in the hands of law-abiding and well-trained citizens, with a public presence of same.
The effect of not having more background checks is "more guns" in general terms. That's my point. I know gun supporters mean more guns in the hands of the right people. But how do try to make sure most guns end up in the hands of law-abiding and well-trained people without regulations?
I'd be interested to see if more guns makes places more of less safe. I'm sure it's very dependent on the particular location, in some places in may actually work. But it seems like that idea would lead back to the wild west where everyone carried. In certain situations like dangerous inner cities it may actually work (mutually assured destruction like a nuclear war), but in low crime areas I wouldn't be surprised if having more guns around leads to more crimes of passion and road rage type incidents, which would offset any reductions from career type criminals. Like the guy in the movie theater who shot a guy for talking during the previews. Personally I feel safe with less guns around unless they are in the hands of law enforcement (and I don't even fully trust them).
But having a gun does provide a measured response to a certain sort of risk, and it's a relatively easy way to address that risk. Why wouldn't I do so?
Because it's a pain in the ass to carry a heavy, dangerous tool around all the time. It's much easier and more effective to stay out of the wrong areas and use situational awareness to stay safe. I have traveled to 46 states and many countries including Mexico. There have been maybe 2 or 3 times I would have felt safer with a gun after taking a wrong turn and ending up in a dangerous neighborhood. Would it have been worth it to carry a gun around my whole life for those few minutes of slightly better peace of mind. Hell no IMO. That's like carrying around a #6 camalot on every climb I've ever done in the rare case I need it. I try to reduce the amount of crap I need to lug around, not increase it.
(Edit to add: I don't want to take away your right to carry, IF you have passed background checks and safety classes. I just don't want to have to deal with bringing a gun everywhere. I'm just getting used to have to bring reading glasses everywhere because my eyes are getting old. Just THAT is a pain, nevermind a gun.)
If you need a gun how do you feel safe in other countries where you can't bring them? I can't take a gun to Mexico (without a big legal risk) and I have never felt unsafe in Mexico because I stay out of the wrong areas and don't act stupid.
|
|
frank wyman
Mountain climber
montana
|
|
I've sold quite a few guns in my lifetime, but only to people I personally knew. I never put a add in the newspaper as I did not want anyone comming over to my house or meeting them in some parking lot. If I need to sell some unwanted gun I just go to a FFL dealer in town(gun store) and put it on consignment and they will do all the paperwork and background checks and charge me a small fee,That way I can also get rid of the ammo that goes with it as gun stores do not buy secondhand ammo.Works for me...But it is a whole different story at gun shows here in Montana, No checks on private sales just pony up the $$$ and out the door you go...That system could use some changes..
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
I hope Ron gets mental health therapy before he pulls a Zimmerman. Or he's put under house arrest. The world will be a better, safer place.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
...but rather a reactionary thing AFTER they commit more crime and finally get caught.
Ron is on to something. We need to be proactive and arrest people BEFORE they commit crime.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
This guy is worth watching and listening to.
"I'm not looking to scare folks."
Bullsh#t.
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
What is really scary is a bunch of heavily armed, paranoid people.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
Moose,, there are directives and policies pushed by the FED govt that prevent MANY illegals from being removed. The VERY same policies that now fly plane loads of recently rounded up illegals from the border to various American towns and cities. Why are those illegals not being flown back into Central or South American countries from whence they came?
These policies protect illegals from local law enforcement to a great degree. When our sheriff put an article in our local news about how many KNOWN gang members now resided in our town, he couldnt even identify them to the public as they are given the SAME rights at legal US citizens in many regards.
Maybe you should ask why several states now issue
So many stupid statements in only two small paragraphs.
Why don't you educate yourself as to what laws apply to illegal immigrants and why law dictates who stays and who goes back immediately. Also educate yourself to the legal differences between adjacent countries and non-adjacent ones. There's also a difference between children and adults aliens.
Do your own homework for a change.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
^^^
You can't expect someone to educate themselves when they display his kind of ignorance. Regularly.
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
I totally see the light now....
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Guns is totally necessary and you second amendment f*#kers are all correct in you assertions that guns are not the problem.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Why are you equating background laws (regulations) to banning? Alcohol and drugs should be legal and regulated. Just like guns.
I'm equating them because people like you are proposing that there should be NEW laws to BAN gun sales to criminals.
You are talking ban: keep them out of the hands of criminals. Your argument went as follows:
1) There are too many guns in the hands of criminals, which makes the streets unsafe, particularly in some places.
2) (1) contributes to an overall proliferation of guns, because law-abiding citizens thus wish to protect themselves.
3) Address (1) by strong legislation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and you will reduce overall gun violence, both from criminals and from law abiding citizens that might misuse their gun.
4) Thus, the solution to gun violence is increased legislation to entirely ban criminals from having guns.
You outright told me upthread that citizens would have no need of a gun if criminals could be kept from getting guns.
Thus, I talk about a "war on guns" in exactly the context of a BAN, because that is precisely what you propose: legislate guns out of the hands of criminals!
And you have EXACTLY the same chance of success with that BAN as you have seen in the other "wars on...."
CURRENT laws BAN guns in the hands of criminals. CURRENT laws preclude criminals from purchasing guns by standard channels. And NO proposed laws will have the slightest effect on mass shootings, as even Colorado's goofball current governor now admits.
You simply are not going to legislate this problem away, as we have already seen that even the current "war on guns" has had no measurable effect.
Now, regarding "feeling safe" in some areas and not in others, I can only say: good luck with that. So far you've had good luck. I promise you, however, that the woman robbed at gunpoint across the street from our office three weeks ago had EVERY reason to feel safe where she was. But that "feeling" of being in a "safe and decent area" was irrelevant to the facts.
"Tactical" and "situational awareness" already presumes the sort of training that responsible gun owners develop. You have it, so you take it for granted. But notice how you got it. The average person simply does not think like somebody who EVER carries a gun. And they should! So thank you for helping make my point.
Regarding "feeling safe" in places where I can't carry, you entirely miss the point. This has nothing to do with "feeling" anything. I prefer to intentionally address risks as appropriate, and where I cannot, I accept risks as necessary.
My gun is not a big, heavy, dangerous tool! My gun is quite small, quite light, and not at all dangerous in itself. Look up the safety features on the H&K P30. It is about the safest gun on the market, while being very quickly deployable. It would actually be HARD to accidentally fire it off. And I already don't notice it on my hip most of the day. I find my ring of keys FAR more irritating and noticeable during the day.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
4) Thus, the solution to gun violence is increased legislation to entirely ban criminals from having guns.
Woh! Holy strawman batman. I specifically mentioned we can't ban criminals from having guns, we should just take steps to reduce the number easily available to them. But it seems you don't want to debate that. Instead you need to spin my arguments into unreasonable conclusions that you CAN refute.
You outright told me upthread that citizens would have no need of a gun if criminals could be kept from getting guns.
What?! LOL. Show me where I said that.
You asked the question:
How about we go back to the really pressing question, which is: What proposed gun laws would keep guns out of the hands of criminal?
Which I answered, but in my first post I stated you would not accept the answer, and in my second post I said you would attempt to refute with fallacies (which you have done, see the strawman argument above.)
Maybe you meant "keep ALL guns out of the hands of criminals", but that's an absurd question since it's an impossible task, so I took it more as the reasonable "keep any significant number of guns out of the hands of criminals". Which is a reasonable and attainable goal.
P.S. I've learned a lot more about staying safe and avoiding confrontation in martial arts training than in firearms training. If I only could choose one to stay safe I'd take the martial arts training every time.
P.P.S. You asked for a proposed gun law. Not a "solution to gun violence". Which would logically include better mental health care, more jobs for inner city youth, perhaps legalizing drugs, etc. There is no "solution", there are just things we can do to help reduce gun violence, and some of them are gun laws. California's relatively strict gun laws have probably been a factor in the state's gun violence decreasing more than the rest of the country has, and as a gun owner they don't bother me in the least.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
News flash Gary,, entering ILLEGALLY into this country IS a "crime" punishable by law. Hence the reference "Illegals/gang members...
When you start complaining about corporations and their Republican stooges giving them jobs, I'll listen to what you have to say.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Woh! Holy strawman batman. I specifically mentioned we can't ban criminals from having guns, we should just take steps to reduce the number easily available to them. But it seems you don't want to debate that. Instead you need to spin my arguments into unreasonable conclusions that you CAN refute.
Well, actually, you blow hot and cold on this point. You do indeed often talk about "reducing," but you ALSO use verbiage that can only reasonably be taken as "ban." To whit:
Aug. 15, 2012
The whole point of course is keeping very dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals and insane folks.
Now, looking further in that passage, you do mitigate the above by saying: "the harder you make them to obtain and the less of them that are out there, the less the likelihood they will end up in the wrong hands, and the less people will die." But when you juxtapose that mitigation against the initial statement, the IDEAL would be, of course, to KEEP guns out of the hands of criminals and insane folks.
Moving on....
Jan. 18, 2013
IT'S NOT ABOUT NO GUNS IT'S ABOUT NO GUNS THAT CAN KILL DOZENS OF PEOPLE IN A FEW MINUTES.
Okay, this looks "reasonable," because you are acknowledging that we can't "ban" all guns. But this sure looks like an OUTRIGHT BAN of at least certain sorts of guns.
June 12, 2014
They won't even agree to us doing what it takes to help try to keep guns out of the hands of the crazies.
Completely unmitigated ban. KEEP the OUT of the hands of the crazies. Of course, "all we can do is try." But what is the goal? KEEP them away from crazies.
In short, you use language that is at best subject to interpretation. If you SAY that you ONLY intend to "reduce" access, well fine. But what you have actually SAID repeatedly sure looks like an effort to "ban" guns (certainly at least some sorts) from "criminals and crazy folks." No straw man here. If I've misinterpreted your (various) statements, it was unintentional. In the future I'll refer strictly to "reduce."
You outright told me upthread that citizens would have no need of a gun if criminals could be kept from getting guns.
What?! LOL. Show me where I said that.
My bad on this one. I conflated several people's statements and coupled them with you saying this: "There have been maybe 2 or 3 times I would have felt safer with a gun after taking a wrong turn and ending up in a dangerous neighborhood.... I have never felt unsafe in Mexico because I stay out of the wrong areas and don't act stupid."
I think that you IMPLY what I said you "outright told me," but that implication feels stronger to me in the context of other people's claims on this thread. So I more strongly attributed this to you than I should have. I sincerely apologize for that. I am typically more careful.
How about we go back to the really pressing question, which is: What proposed gun laws would keep guns out of the hands of criminal?
Which I answered, but in my first post I stated you would not accept the answer, and in my second post I said you would attempt to refute with fallacies (which you have done, see the strawman argument above.
Nope, this one I continue to deny. And even your "answer" based on the idea of "reduce" falls to a similar line of argumentation to what I used above.
You continue to assert that I just "won't" get it. But it's not "won't." It's that you have simply failed to convince because your idea is laden with the same problems as an actual ban.
The appeal to legislating "reductions" in gun access by criminals rests on two suppositions: 1) an actual reduction is possible; 2) a reduction will have a measurable and/or significant corollary in a reduction of gun-related homicides. And both of these rest on the common intuition: "If can save even 1 life, then isn't that a good thing?"
The issue is not so simple or "intuitively accurate," however. First, the slate of laws already in place are quite impressive. California is a great example.
Second, the only way to argue from California (or Chicago) that these laws have had the desired effect is to look at the continued rash of gun violence and say (in completely question-begging fashion): "Well, things would obviously be a LOT worse without all the gun laws that we DO have!"
The response to those points will typically be, "Okay, sure, maybe we don't know for sure, or it isn't measurable, but surely at least one life has been saved by a delay in access or a lower-quality weapon that jammed, or other such things. Obviously 'making it harder' for criminals to get high-quality guns has saved SOME lives! And isn't even ONE life saved worth it?"
And my answer to THAT question would be a resounding NO!
All human life is precious, and it is indeed a great shame when somebody unnecessarily dies, particularly in violent fashion. However, that said, we don't go to ANY lengths to "reduce" unnecessary death! We don't even go to CONVENIENT lengths!
Clearly we value people's right to smoke FAR more than we value "even one life," including the lives of the (many hundreds of) kids who die each year from second-hand smoke (WHO statistics can follow, if you desire).
There are countless examples in this society of valuing convenience and sheer hedonism over life. And we count it as a violation of some right (who knows which one?) to make smoking outright illegal. Doing so would demonstrably save far more than one life! But we won't go there.
By contrast with smoking, the rights of self defense and of revolution are inalienable rights, both protected by our Constitution. And our founders were crystal clear on both this fact and on the fact that individual gun ownership/carry derives from these rights. Forget about the second amendment! What I'm talking about is crystal clear according to the founders, by whose lights we can best interpret the Constitution.
So, the "balance" is to "reduce" criminal access to guns, while having zero effect upon the access law-abiding citizens have to them. CAN'T be done!
Thus, the problems even your "reduction" idea have include: 1) it cannot be demonstrated to have any significant effect, even in places where it has had an excellent shot at a noticeable effect; 2) the more "rigorous" the efforts are to have an effect, the more invasive these efforts are in the lives of people whose inalienable right must not be infringed; 3) "reduce" at a certain threshold (who knows what it is?) and the "effect" is negligible, leading to the doomed "save even one life" flail; and 4) the "war on" mentality is really not different at all whether the goal is "ban" or "reduce," because you are only talking about an (undefined) quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one.
To YOU, your perspective seems all obvious and intuitive. But, again, the very fact that there is such debate indicates that your perspective is NOT sweepingly obvious nor intuitive to many people (most in Colorado!).
And your response to THAT fact indeed HAS been to reduce your rhetoric to epithets and insults (happy to provide many quotes to sustain that claim, if desired).
When you talk about better mental health care, jobs and education programs for inner city youth, and so on, you've got my ear! But universal background checks, in the minds of many people, will not even "reduce" the problem, while they ARE offensive to many because of the resounding "Big Brother" implications. Not all such people are justifiably entitled to your epithets and insults.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
Yes, 'revoking' the 2nd Amendment would certainly fix the rampant poverty and gang violence in Chicago.
When the media tells you to jump, how do you know how high to go?
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
Yes, 'revoking' the 2nd Amendment would certainly fix the rampant poverty and gang violence in Chicago.
Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. As long as the rich are given free reign to run this entire nation for their, and only their benefit, there will be poverty, and with poverty comes crime. Who here would watch their children slowly wither away from malnutrition?
The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor. - Voltaire
Meanwhile, still waiting for the "legalize drugs" crowd to explain which, and how that's going to be a good thing.
Because it reduces crime and deaths. But don't take my word for it. Consumer Reports laid it all out 40 years ago.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
Read Licit and Illicit Drugs and then get back to me about prohibiting drugs.
When a mad man bursts into a school room and starts injecting children with overdoses of heroin, then maybe we can equate easy access to guns with legal drugs.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!