Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 03:04am PT
|
Yes the problem with the American police system is that cops aren't literally Judge Dredd.
Exactly. So, given the likes of teardrop-tat-seekers roaming around, better to not wait on a cop for help. Armed, my friends would have had at least a chance to keep some teardrops from getting tatted.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 06:21am PT
|
, if ALL you want to see is citizens proxying their right of self-defense, then that proxy had better be AWESOME, reliable, and very, very systematic in defense of that right!
You're putting words in my mouth, so I'll do the same: You want to give those gang-bangers all possible assistance right up to the moment they pull that trigger. You want them to have unrestricted access to all types of firearms and currently illegal mind-altering drugs, then you hope that some law-abiding citizen packing a gun is going to stop them. Most often he won't, so then you want the police to investigate that crime while gang-banging citizens are permitted to stand around legally pointing loaded guns at them, exercising a constitutional right to oppose the government by threat of force. The police will also have no available records to track the weapons, and no ability to prosecute anyone who did not actually pull the trigger. To prevent the chaos that this would cause, you believe that longer and tougher prison sentences for the tiny minority of criminals who could ever be caught will deter all the others. Lastly, the massively enlarged and militarized police and courts and prisons would ensure domestic tranquility yet not raise anyone's taxes.
I want a balanced approach, one that protects people's lives, not just their right to bear arms:
I want better funded schools in inner cities so that "these people" have an equal opportunity you say the founding fathers never intended them to have. I want anyone who wishes to carry a loaded gun in public to demonstrate proficiency. I want police to be allowed ask anyone doing so to present proof of that proficiency. I want anyone selling a gun to be required to ensure the buyer is not a criminal. I want anyone who facilitates illegal transfers of guns to be prosecuted with conspiracy to murder. I'll admit that I want many other restrictions that some would call the other end of the slippery slope, but I realize those are not politically possible at this time.
The vast majority of Americans agree with what I'm asking for, SCOTUS has stated that it would be constitutional, but the undemocratic influence of the Gun Lobby continues to successfully oppose it for their personal financial profit. If I was religious, I could accept that they will face judgement in the next life, but I'm not.
I've lived in two countries with strict gun laws and even owned guns in one of them. I believe that the freedom to walk in public without fear of a gun is a greater freedom than being able to walk in public with a gun.
Anyway, got to work, won't be here for a while.
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 01:09pm PT
|
You want to give those gang-bangers all possible assistance right up to the moment they pull that trigger. You want them to have unrestricted access to all types of firearms and currently illegal mind-altering drugs, then you hope that some law-abiding citizen packing a gun is going to stop them.
What you fail to realize is that they ALREADY do have all the access you state here. If you've actually read anything I've written, I can give your evidence after evidence that they ALREADY have "unrestricted" access to everything they could possibly want to lay their hands on! It is "restricted" in name ONLY. The PRESENT federal laws "restricting" access to military-grade weapons do not work.
YOU want another layer of the "war on..." mentality, and it DOES NOT WORK.
You want to pay for all this additional education, etc.? HOW?
We're 17-trillion in debt and climbing rapidly. Every man, woman, and child in the United States is effectively over $100,000 in debt, and that's just national debt, not even counting personal debt! HOW are you going to pay for all this additional social service?
I'll TELL you how: You STOP these stupid, ineffectual, PROVEN-worthless "war on..." things that you CANNOT in principle shut down. They you largely clear out the prisons of victimless-criminals, and you take the VAST quantity of funds freed up by disbanding useless organizations like the ATF, much of the FBI, and countless local law-enforcement agencies devoted to drugs and guns; and you start streaming THAT money into the wonderful programs you suggest.
And your inconsistencies are RIFE! You moan about mood-altering drugs like we don't already have them... and I'm not talking about the presently illegal ones. You think alcohol is anything BUT a mood-altering drug? You think it is "properly regulated" to ENSURE that it is kept out of the hands of kids? You think it is "properly regulated" to keep people from, say, drinking and driving?
WAKE UP, man! EVERYTHING a person wants to get, they can get. You cannot enforce all this crap without turning this society into a full-on police state. And even then, take a look at the USSR or China. Ever heard of the Russian Mafia?
Like how we got gangs directly as a result of prohibition, Russia got a world-class underworld as soon as they became a police state. And now it is as powerful in the lives of everyday citizens as the government itself is!
You think that's a hyperbolic statement? Then you don't know many immigrant Russians that now live here! I read about Russia a lot, and I talk to several Russians, including one who attends my church right now, and they all tell the same story. Now the Russian Mafia can actually project power globally. ALL because of yet another failed experiment in police-state thinking!
And the US has become a hotbed of gangland activity because people like YOU keep FEEDING them!
You have got the causality of what feeds them exactly reversed when you accuse me of wanting to feed them. It would be laughable except for the fact that just under half of Americans share your confusion.
The SECOND you "prohibit" something, ALL you accomplish is to drive it underground and start pouring VAST resources into fighting a "war" that YOU started and can NEVER, EVER win.
Give it up, man. This is historically-documented insanity.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 01:24pm PT
|
The SECOND you "prohibit" something, ALL you accomplish is to drive it underground and start pouring VAST resources into fighting a "war" that YOU started and can NEVER, EVER win.
Give it up, man. This is historically-documented insanity.
Then why do extremely restrictive gun laws work in so many other countries?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 01:37pm PT
|
Then why do extremely restrictive gun laws work in so many other countries?
What, exactly, do you mean by "work?"
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 01:57pm PT
|
"As an aside, homicides in England and Wales are not counted the same as in other countries. Their homicide numbers “exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise” (Report to Parliament). The problem isn’t just that it reduces the recorded homicide rate in England and Wales, but what would a similar reduction mean for the US" (http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/);.
The entire article is worth reading.
"Work" is a moving target. Good luck hitting it in convincing fashion.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 02:43pm PT
|
What, exactly, do you mean by "work?"
Um, fewer schoolhouse massacres, for instance.
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/12/us-has-more-school-shootings-rest-world-combined
...The stark difference in numbers is indicative of another stark difference between the United States and the rest of the world: only the United States maintains a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Even after 25 school shootings (not to mention shootings elsewhere) and little political change, the Amendment remains.
When there was a school shooting massacre in the United Kingdom in 1996 where a 43-year-old man killed 16 children at Dunblane Primary School, the government imposed a ban of all private ownership of guns in the country following the incident.
Today, if a U.K. citizen wishes to own a gun, they cannot do so without a legitimate reason (deemed so by law) and must undergo extensive background checks and licensing procedures to gain ownership. Since then, the U.K. has seen a major decline in shootings such as Dunblane.
A similar change in firearm legality occurred in Australia, with the government banning firearms following a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. Since then, Australia has also seen a decrease in mass shootings...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:08pm PT
|
As to my opinion I think the industrial/civilian arms complex spends way too much time defending their hallowed ground of civil rights and far too little time mourning the hallowed ground of school shootings.
Not one single proposed gun-control law would have had anything to do with the various school shootings. Adam Lanza tried to buy guns legally but was precluded from doing so in "timely" fashion by a 14 day waiting period. A pretty stiff background check and waiting period law that kept him from legally buying a gun to commit his crime. WIN, right?
Nope, he simply stole the guns he wanted, and those guns had been acquired legally. And no proposed law would have kept THOSE guns from being legally purchased.
Another thing you have to keep in mind is that the United States has almost 1/3 of a billion people, while the UK has about 63 million. Australia has about 23 million. There is no comparison between these nations!
And we've been all around this bush before: Exactly HOW much would you need to "reduce" whack-job shootings before you would agree that it was enough? HOW much do you need to infringe on the constitutional and inalienable rights of law-abiding citizens before you have had (if you could) an adequate effect?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:10pm PT
|
Says the guy who also says he wears a gun everywhere.
While I don't read every paragraph the ones I do speak of fear.
Pervasive fear.
Says the guy that locks his doors, buys homeowner's insurance, and pays cops to do his dirty work FOR him. Fear. Pervasive fear.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:34pm PT
|
I'll let you contemplate the 'how much is too much,' question; its your question, not mine.
Punt
Too bad the lives of school kids aren't inalienable, you know, like the rights the shooters had to collect whatever firearms they wanted.
Ridiculous statement.
And disingenuous too.
"In 2010, about 2,700 teens in the United States aged 16–19 were killed and almost 282,000 were treated and released from emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor-vehicle crashes" (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendrivers_factsheet.html).
From the same CDC article: "In 2010, 22% of drivers aged 15 to 20 involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes were drinking."
So, in 2010, TEENS were drinking to the tune of 594 drunk-driving deaths AMONG THEMSELVES. That's not even counting the OTHER people they killed or maimed in such accidents.
Compare that to a grand total of 90 dead in school shootings throughout the ENTIRE 21st CENTURY so far.
In ONE YEAR drunk teens kill themselves and OTHER PEOPLE by the thousands! Yet you fixate on 90 dead over 14 years!?!
It's ALL tragic. But let's get some perspective, and YOU should be honest about what the real killer of young people really is.
Three million teens in this country are alcoholics (citation if you wish). And: "Despite declines in the number of young people involved in drunk driving fatalities, on average, more than 3 people under the age of 21 die each day in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. (Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2013)" (http://responsibility.org/drunk-driving/underage-drunk-driving-fatalities-under-21)
You want to talk about an epidemic of needless and utterly STUPID violence? Then talk about teenage drunk driving, which overshadows school shootings by an order of magnitude.
Of course, the media doesn't report as a "national crisis" every time some drunk kid kills himself, a carload of friends, and a few other in another vehicle. Nothing sexy or politically-loaded about such news. But THAT happens DAILY!
Oh, and is underage drinking illegal? Oh and is drinking while driving illegal? Oh and are stores required to card everybody before selling alcohol? Oh... uhhh... well....
Seems that the laws are not getting the job done. So much for LAWS making all the difference!
The decline in drunk driving among teens in the last several years is attributed entirely to educational programs.
As I KEEP saying, perhaps we should spend our resources on education rather than legislation. You know... do something that DOES WORK.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:36pm PT
|
The NRA and their stooges don't have a clue what "keep and bear Arms" was supposed to mean.
Spot on!
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:48pm PT
|
The SECOND you "prohibit" something, ALL you accomplish is to drive it underground and start pouring VAST resources into fighting a "war" that YOU started and can NEVER, EVER win.
Banning something doesn't work? How many crimes are committed with full-auto firearms each year?
Either way, I have never suggested prohibiting ownership of any guns, only actions; negligent ownership of guns, negligent sales of guns, negligent dealers, and mentally unstable untrained civilians roaming our streets with guns. With appropriate registration (the only way to ensure responsibility), anything would be legal on my island.
Your alcohol/drug analogy? I'd have anyone convicted of any form of DUI lose their driving license for life, tough sh#t. Second offense, prison. That doesn't mean I want to see a return to prohibition.
TE
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:52pm PT
|
Not one single proposed gun-control law would have had anything to do with the various school shootings.
If you think of it as anybody can obtain any weapon they want illegally then I can see why you think that. But in the real world these school shooters typically use what they can get from friends or relatives.
Not that I'm saying I agree with it, but an assault weapons ban would have prevented Lanza from having an assault weapon with 30 round clips and he would have had the bolt action rifle he killed his mother with instead.
Instead of killing 26 people at the school it would have been less. How many less murdered 5-7 year old kids? 5, 10, 15?
Again I'm not saying I agree with an assault weapons ban, but it clearly would have had something to do with that shooting. If you can't see that it really indicates how people who don't want gun regulations, even the most reasonable ones, don't see this objectively.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 05:21pm PT
|
I have an extra X Products 50 rd .308 drum for an M1A1 for sale.
PM me.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 05:49pm PT
|
If the industrial/civilian weapons complex actually wanted to do something to tighten up the availability of firearms, they could. No laws required.
But they're not. Because of what Kos said. Profits ahead of children, every damn time.
I TOTALLY agree. No argument here!
Just remember that the alcohol industry does the EXACT same thing, and with far more terrible implications. Those clever beer commercials? Just the alcohol industry making drunk driving "sexy," and their "please drink responsibly" line is a flagrant joke.
Throughout America, on countless fronts, it is "profits ahead of children, every damn time." Why single guns out for special condemnation because a TINY proportion of America goes on on a whacky and terrible tangent?
Again, it is NOT a "national crisis." Either by raw numbers, total frequency, rate of commission, or ANY other metric... it is just not a "national crisis" that needs the feds involved in it.
And not ONE of you has started a thread against the alcohol industry, much less with the order of magnitude MORE FERVOR than you demonstrate here.
Yes, THIS thread's subject is not alcohol abuse and the horrific effects it has on the youth of this country. So, fine: START such a thread and demonstrate the fervor there that you do here. THEN I might start finding your hand-wringing here a bit more believable.
Ohhh... ooopseeewahh.... Are any of you drinkers?
Sorry! Don't want to step on any of YOUR toes, because, of COURSE, you are all "responsible drinkers."
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 07:39pm PT
|
Why are we given all these "statistics" that try to show everything is more dangerous then guns, but yet they feel a need to carry a gun incase of an armed confrontation?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 07:41pm PT
|
There you go again, trying to change the topic. Non-starter.
It's honestly sad to watch how you can't follow an obvious inference. If you think this is "changing the topic," then, seriously, I am sad for you.
As one final attempt to help you see this through, the argument is quite straightforward:
1) Gun control laws are STRONGLY advocated by some people because they say the school-shooting carnage is unacceptable.
2) Such gun control advocates appeal to emotion in claiming that school-shooting carnage is a "national crisis" that DEMANDS sweeping and federal gun control legislation.
3) Such gun control advocates do not seem to give a rip, nor start threads, nor express ANY horrified emotions regarding the MANY other "carnages" not involving guns that actually take the lives of orders of magnitude more children than do the school-shooting "carnages."
4) Such gun control advocates apparently do not have any internal consistency regarding their fervent appeals to emotion, or regarding the legislative changes they employ appeal to emotion to get enacted.
5) To be convincing, such gun control advocates SHOULD demonstrate at least bare consistency in their appeals to emotion.
6) Thus, such gun control advocates' appeals to emotion are not to be taken seriously, nor should they motivate legislative changes.
Follow?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 07:49pm PT
|
Why are we are given all these "statistics" that try to show everything is more dangerous then guns, but yet they feel a need to carry a gun incase of an armed confrontation?
I, for one, try to cover my various bases as best I can. I even carry homeowner's insurance WITH a flood rider, even though I'm not in a flood plane. Wowza!
Of course, nobody is advocating enacting sweeping, FEDERAL legislation to "further control" (as if that were possible) things like cigarettes, alcohol (and drunk driving), high-fat-intake diets, and so forth.
Start trying to get more FEDERAL legislation on these fronts also, and I'll also strongly advocate against that.
This thread focuses on guns, and gun deaths in this country are NOT some "national crisis" that needs yet more federal involvement.
If you think gun-deaths are a "national crisis," then my point is that you've got FAR bigger fish to fry on other fronts, yet nobody is proposing FEDERAL legislation to "solve" those "national crises."
The biggest problem you guys have got is that you simply cannot produce anything approaching a compelling case to the effect that there IS a "national crisis" that needs FEDERAL intervention. Or, to be consistent, you need to be proposing a whole SLEW of FEDERAL legislation to "stop the carnage" on a host of other fronts as well.
Again, show me a fervent thread on ANY of those subjects, and I'll believe in your sincerity a lot more.
As it stands, the FACT is that you guys just don't like guns. Among the MANY "carnages" you could try to get motivated to stop, you fixate on guns.
And, ironically, this is something explicitly mentioned in the constitution. So, have fun with that. I find you all to be insincere and amazingly disingenuous!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!