Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
Basic gun-safety, and ironically something that would not even slow him down
Don't confine the majority of accidental discharges to goofballs.
Ask Cheney.
I'd haphazardly assign the larger proportion to those that think it happens to others.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Canadians ARE a nice breed, no doubt. I love visiting Canada.
Almost seven decades of living with both Americans and Canadians has left me with the belief that Canadians are not any nicer than Americans. Seems to me that there is an equal percentage of as#@&%es on both sides of the 49th Parallel. And plenty of gun owners on both sides.
But, for whatever reason, American culture is far more violent, and disagreements are far more likely to end in flying lead.
Why? I don't know.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Don't confine the majority of accidental discharges to goofballs.
Ask Cheney.
Did you REALLY just throw such a soft pitch???
Awww... I just can't bring myself to hit it. In mercy I'll leave it where it falls.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
You look at the majority of accidental (particularly negligent) discharges, and they consist largely of goofballs playing fast-draw games, and that with less-safe weapons or weapons with safety features overridden to allow for "faster" draws.
Just reciprocating for the softball you pitched me.
edit
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IouUsPsUg4Y
Another funny one.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
So madbolter do you believe there should be no background checks at all? Anyone, including criminals, should be able to walk into Walmart and buy a handgun, with the only deterrent being punishment if they are later caught?
Are there any restrictions on arms that you believe are ok? Fully automatics? Bombs?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
So madbolter do you believe there should be no background checks at all? Anyone should be able to walk into Walmart and buy a handgun, with the only deterrent being punishment if they are later caught?
I personally have no problem with local background checks with no records of the results kept. That's how it works in Colorado. Mine took fifteen minutes, which is standard. Colorado law prohibits the record of the check to be kept at the state level, and the record cannot be passed along to the feds.
I am against universal, federally-anchored background checks precisely because I am increasingly cynical about our federal government and its ever-increasing surveillance. A local background check ties into all law-enforcement records, which serves the desired purpose; there is exactly zero compelling reason for any record to be kept or passed up to the feds.
Are there any restrictions on arms that you believe are ok? Fully automatics? Bombs?
Absolutely. The right of self-defense implies the right to the means of self-defense. So, let's parse that carefully.
I have the right to defend myself qua individual. This implies the right to the means appropriate to INDIVIDUAL defense. This implies an appropriate response to the sorts of threats I am likely to face qua individual.
Does, say, a nuke threaten me qua individual? No. Weapons of mass destruction by definition threaten MASSES, not just me qua individual. That is why we, qua "the people," band together and form governments a key purpose of which is NATIONAL defense. In this day and age, governments, not individuals need nukes for national defense. So, there is no possibility that me, qua individual, can appropriately employ a nuke to defend MYSELF.
You see the point. If a given society is such that a very real threat to my person, qua individual, includes automatic weapons, then, yes, my right of self defense implies the right to own and carry automatic weapons. In some countries, this would be a very pressing need.
In this country, imo, the average citizen doesn't need full-auto. But I think this is at the "fuzzy line" where the "need" is not as clearly defined. I think a case can be made both ways, and it can vary even community by community.
That leads immediately to a more overarching point, which is that the feds have no business in this debate. Such things should be decided at the state and even local community level. Gun control is a states' rights issue rather than something the feds have any pressing interest in.
So, the Aurora shooting takes place. Why should the feds care? This is not a matter of national interest nor national security, and anti-gun folks that try to elevate it as such envision a completely different role for the feds than this country was designed to have in place. And to call such shootings a "national tragedy" elevate the magnitude precisely FOR political purposes.
It is simply NOT a "national tragedy" that people are killed by guns. Put in proper context, if anything, it is a "national tragedy" that so many people die and are killed by smoking. But nobody is demanding that the feds pass a law....
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Ghost writes:
"This isn't rocket science folks. It's real simple -- Americans murder each other because they live in a culture of violence."
A lot of countries have a higher murder rate than we enjoy here in the U.S.
In fact, most countries suffer a higher per-capita murder rate. Even Greenland has a higher per-capita murder rate than the U.S.
But not one of those countries has a higher rate of gun ownership. None are even close.
Less murders, yet more guns. THAT'S American Exceptionalism right there.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
The biggest fallacy is if there is only a "background check" stopping a known criminal from obtaining a device he plans to use to kill/assault people with, then the system has already failed miserably. The water is already under the bridge. The horse has left the barn... etc....
If there are known violent criminals, previously incarcerated, on our streets who intend to cause great harm (and there sure are), THAT is the problem and the obvious one to deal with.
Laws are only obeyed by honest people who want to obey them in order to get along in society, like traffic laws.
Someone who intends to harm/kill absolutely WILL harm/kill regardless of what laws are in effect.
Someone who really wants to fry their brain on pot/meth/LSD absolutely WILL regardless of what laws are in effect.
Legalize drugs, end the absurd waste of money and blood. Legalize all firearms available to the local/state police to all citizens.
The government is not our friend.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
|
|
Ghost quote: "Almost seven decades of living with both Americans and Canadians has left me with the belief that Canadians are not any nicer than Americans. Seems to me that there is an equal percentage of as#@&%es on both sides of the 49th Parallel. And plenty of gun owners on both sides. But, for whatever reason, American culture is far more violent, and disagreements are far more likely to end in flying lead.
Why? I don't know."
Easy. In the 1700's folks that wanted to rock the world and toss over the accepted order via violence did it and created the US. Folks that were peaceful (for the most part) and compliant stayed or moved to Canada. The dominant paradigm of those folks and their ancestors is here in spirit to this day.
We see a bit of that here in the Pacific Northwet. Folks that came out seeking a new life from the east split in Utah. Those that wanted to raise family's followed the trail out to Oregon, those that wanted a fast buck moved to California. Ostensibly why California has so many fast buck and scam artists. Still a visible thing over a hundred years later although folks have been watering the effect down as time goes on by moving back and forth.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
This is not a matter of national interest nor national security, and anti-gun folks that try to elevate it as such envision a completely different role for the feds than this country was designed to have in place.
What the country was designed to have in place and what it has evolved to have in place are two different things (and the debate about the reach of the fed govt. goes back to the very founding of our country), so you can't say it's black and white. There are many things people believe are states rights issues that the federal govt. has needed to step in and enforce such as civil rights. You can jump in your car and drive over state lines in this country so what takes place in one state can affect the other states. That's what makes it a national interest.
Again I'm a gun owner and not anti-gun. I'm for reasonable regulations to keep them out of the hands of the wrong people.
I personally have no problem with local background checks with no records of the results kept. That's how it works in Colorado. Mine took fifteen minutes, which is standard. Colorado law prohibits the record of the check to be kept at the state level, and the record cannot be passed along to the feds.
I am against universal, federally-anchored background checks precisely because I am increasingly cynical about our federal government and its ever-increasing surveillance. A local background check ties into all law-enforcement records, which serves the desired purpose; there is exactly zero compelling reason for any record to be kept or passed up to the feds.
Why are you ok with this background check if you feel it isn't doing any good (as per your other posts)?
I'm pretty much in agreement here. If the federal govt. acts as a clearing house and provides each state with regularly updated information about individuals in all states.
So the question is would you support a national law requiring all states to require background checks for all gun purchases run through a state database that doesn't pass records to the feds? Otherwise the criminals and straw purchasers can just go to the states not requiring background checks, go to a gun show and stock up and sell them in a state that requires checks, sell them and make a tidy profit.
I believe smart gun laws are effective.. This shows Gun Death Rates in California and the Nation. Over the last twenty years, California’s gun death rate has decreased dramatically.
From: http://smartgunlaws.org/the-california-model-twenty-years-of-putting-safety-first/
Sure there's lots of factors contributing to these rates, but the difference in laws between CA and the rest of the country and the difference in the drop of the death rate is likely correlated.
P.S. BTW I'm not in favor of all of CA's guns laws. Some reach to far. I took a quick look at CO's laws and from what I saw they looked correct IMO.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
California's line would look much like the other were it not for some cops gang clubbing a black motorist unaware that they were being video taped.
While it didn't cause a riot then, the finagling of the justice system so that they were not held responsible DID!
It wasn't the anti-gun laws taking effect so much as it was some other laws NOT having an effect.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
It wasn't the anti-gun laws taking effect so much as it was some other laws NOT having an effect.
I was not aware of that
can you post the sources, links, where you read this?
thanks in advance
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Just look at the line's peak and think of when the riot was.
(sheesh)
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Legalize drugs, end the absurd waste of money and blood. Legalize all firearms available to the local/state police to all citizens.
The government is not our friend.
Amen and amen!
Regarding the decrease in California, the differential is not at all dramatic compared to the rest of the country. In fact, I would guess from looking at the chart that the difference is even within the range of statistical error (not having seen the actual study the chart was based upon).
And deriving cause from correlation is sketchy business indeed!
Bottom line is that root causes of most gun homicides are not at all addressed by the slate of present and proposed gun laws. These are complex psychological and social issues that a rubber-stamp law cannot touch.
I'm not opposed to limited background checks (of the sort I described) because they are basically innocuous. Given my belief that these laws have no practical value, I vehemently oppose laws that make ANY inroads on law abiding citizens' gun ownership, sales, possession, or use. Innocuous laws accomplish little or nothing, but they also cause little or no harm. Fine. But laws like magazine-size limits are laughably ludicrous, as even our present lib/dem governor, Hickupgoofer, is finally admitting.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
That leads immediately to a more overarching point, which is that the feds have no business in this debate. Such things should be decided at the state and even local community level. Gun control is a states' rights issue rather than something the feds have any pressing interest in.
I was beginning to agree with much of your your position until the above point, but the problem with state regulation is that states are prohibited legally (and practically) from constructing customs booths at the state border, effectively castrating state level regulations. A federal requirement for universal background checks is the only way to close the current floodgates of guns flowing into criminal hands (however or wherever administered is of no realistic concern to me).
As for open carry of loaded, unlimited magazine capacity, full-auto firearms, can you provide any possible legitimate purpose for such activity in a public place? The only people who would benefit from such "freedom" are terrorists and homicidal maniacs. Freedom is not just about lack of government oppression, effective gun control laws will make us all more free to enjoy public spaces without the irrational fear of being shot going to the ATM.
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
A federal requirement for universal background checks is the only way to close the current floodgates of guns flowing into criminal hands (however or wherever administered is of no realistic concern to me).
Well, I guess where we are going to forever come apart is that I simply don't believe that universal, federally-anchored background checks will serve the function you think they will. So, I stick with this being a states' rights issue.
As for open carry of loaded, unlimited magazine capacity, full-auto firearms, can you provide any possible legitimate purpose for such activity in a public place?
That "legitimate purpose" is going to vary state by state and even community by community. In many/most communities, the average citizen just isn't going to have to defend against armed thugs carrying full-auto munitions. In those communities, full-auto just might be illegal. In other communities, perhaps full-auto might appropriately be legal. The point is that the feds can't make such determinations accurately, so they are not fit to pass such sweeping laws.
Now, I want to mitigate even what I just said above, and I'm sure that this will yet again push us further apart.
The right of self defense was most poignant in the founders' minds with regard to the right of defense against one's government itself. I know, I know, most of you think it's just a ridiculous proposition that we might need to rise up against our government... or that it would even be practically possible. I would respond that the last 20 years or so have made the proposition seem far more likely to me than I would have imagined. And regarding the practical possibility, I've argued elsewhere that one does not have to "win" in order to prevail.
The point of the foregoing paragraph is that citizens must have available to them the sorts of arms they would need to at least engage in infantry-level resistance. We'll leave the tanks, etc. for the National Guard. But full-auto small-arms munitions? Sure.
The only people who would benefit from such "freedom" are terrorists and homicidal maniacs.
Not true. See above. Whether you agree or not, at least I've made the case that citizens would not need to be either "terrorists" or "homicidal maniacs" to have a legitimate use for all sorts of small-arms munitions.
Freedom is not just about lack of government oppression, effective gun control laws will make us all more free to enjoy public spaces without the irrational fear of being shot going to the ATM.
Well, it's hard to know what's going to count as an "irrational fear" in the mind of any particular person. I've been packing for weeks now all over Colorado, and I've gotten three verbal responses so far, all the same: "Thank you for supporting the second amendment." I've gotten repeated smiles, thumbs up, and so forth. No shock, horror, or even the slightest negative reaction. It all depends on what a community is accustomed to.
And I thus far disagree that "effective gun control laws" is a phrase that is anything but a contradiction in terms. Are we really back to the "war on..." arguments? So far I just don't see it.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
If the sight of a properly holstered pistol on someone who appears to be behaving normally causes you to "fear for your life"....
Well then.... it's you that needs some counseling...
Now as for the clowns with rifles slung in the front in Chili's... yeah, that's just plain silly and everyone I know agrees with that.
|
|
A5scott
Trad climber
Chicago
|
|
Those silly clowns in front of Chilies don't want to openly carry rifles. (I'm NOT one of them). I don't live near texas, but they are protesting that they can't openly carry pistols. They can conceal carry pistols, but open carry pistols is illegal. Long gun open carry is legal, and they believe that to be silly. thus the protest. Nobody is open carrying machine guns. I think it's life in prison when convicted of using a machine gun in a crime. that, plus they are sort of expensive. They just want to strap a pistol on their hip and be on their way. If you are afraid they are up to no good, just google fbi to compare crime stats between CCW holders and non-ccw holders.
scott
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
I understand the situation in TX but still think rifles slung in the front, and thus at the ready in populated retail outlets is just a really bad idea. Sling 'em on their backs. IMO it would be the same as me carrying a pistol at the low ready position while taking my daughter to McDonalds...
I OC all the time and am around people who do so as well.
The idea that protesting like that will result in anything favorable towards better pistol OC legislation is unlikely.
|
|
7SacredPools
Trad climber
Guelph, Ontario, Canada
|
|
Excellent post Scrubbing Bubbles.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!