gun control rant thread

poopshovel wrote: I'll say this: I'm watching Meet the Press, and for the last hour, I haven't heard a single suggestion on what could've been done to stop this tragedy, rather, I've heard Diane Feinstein and Michael Bloomberg using this tragedy to push their political agenda, and it's berkeleying disgusting. Kudos to all involved in the debate here for using a healthy dose of logic. I'm glad GRM (so far,) is allowing us a forum for this kind of discussion among folks who I believe are generally of above-average intelligence. We should all run for Congress!

Exactly what was going through my head yesterday. The priest at the National Cathedral, Feinstein and Schumer, the President...they all want to push their agenda on the fearful people who are now open to just about anything as long as it will make them safe.

Evil exists, has to exist, and always will exist. Evil is the counterpart of Good. The two are inseparable.

In reply to Jerry:

You want a tank and a nuke? Well the government never said you could have a nuke, but they DIDN'T say you couldn't have a tank!

alfadriver wrote: In terms of regulation vs. the second amendment. Many of the amendmants seem quite firm and clear, yet they also have regulation with them. Free speech? Yes, but there are limits- you can not slander, and you can't harm others with your speech. I think it's funny that this is regulated quite a bit (with hate speech), and IMHO, this is more of a basis of freedom than guns- yet Amendment 2 is much much more contended than part of 1. Freedom of regligion- you have it, yet it's also partially regulated. There are some laws that set limits on what a religion is- so that benefits of that can be seen. Again, freedom of religion is far more important in a free society than guns should be- and there are laws for it. voting right- another biggie for a free society. Yet we regulate that one, and the SC just allowed some restrictions for the ability to vote. Proof of citizenship, sure- but it is a restriction. Search and seizure- if you live close to a border, you may be shocked to find that some rather intrusive search and siezure laws apply to you. Even with that, we are subjected to searches as we board planes, applied by the government. I could go on, but there are so many of the rights that are laid out in the Consitution and the Bill of Rights that are regulated beyond the simple words which are vital to a free society, yet when we talk about guns- nobody can touch that right.... As for the "reason"- against an oppressive government. Well, recent uprisings in very oppressive countries should point out that freedom of speech, religion, and search and seizure are far more important in fighting oppression than guns will- people stood up and talked against an armed government, and WON. Then the whole "gun's don't kill, people do"- sure, it's true. But what kind of weapon other than an assult rifle is capable of killing 28 people that quickly? I don't think a knife is going to wipe out a classroom of kids. Smart regulation is reasonable.

Sure...and I'd love for the 2nd Amendment to be recognized as a fundamental right like the right to vote. Heck, let any restrictions on the 2nd Amendment be held to a Strict Scrutiny level of judicial review. If any proposed restriction passes that test, I'd be fine with it.

Regarding your comment about people successfully talking down their armed oppressive government, really? Which ones? The two outliers I can think of are Tunisia and Yemen. Other than that, the successful ones I can think of off-hand have involved violence (Libya and Egypt). The jury is still out on Syria, but there's plenty of violence going on there. The Arab Spring where lots of folks have been protesting has been largely ineffective. The unsuccessful uprisings in Bahrain and Iran involved mostly talking from the people and mostly violence from the government. It's not PC to say, but outside of rare, very specific circumstances (Ghandi back in the day, MLK Jr. later), non-violence doesn't seem to be very successful.

Hey alphadriver,

Good input. I do want to clarify something, though.

alphadriver As for the "reason"- against an oppressive government. Well, recent uprisings in very oppressive countries should point out that freedom of speech, religion, and search and seizure are far more important in fighting oppression than guns will- people stood up and talked against an armed government, and WON.

You are mostly correct. In places like Egypt and most other Arab Spring nations things were resolved without open warfare, but there were armed groups attacking protesters in Tahrir Square with sticks and machetes. The situation was compared to medieval warfare. (...and there were nasty cases of abuse.)

In Libya, the arab spring still had to be resolved with weapons. If the opposition hadn't had them, they would have been wiped out. (Heck, if we hadn't given them air support, they would have been wiped out.) Privately held weapons as well as seized weapons - and lots of DIY fabrication were crucial to the effort http://www.nationaljournal.com/the-homemade-weapons-of-libya-s-rebel-forces-20110615

In reply to mpolans:

While there were violent protests, there was not an armed revolt in Egypt. It was protests that brought down the government.

And to basically dismiss Tunisia and Yemen as "outliers" -interesting.... Funny how people see the situations...

Three countries in one of the most opressive areas in the world isn't ineffective.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

alfadriver wrote: what kind of weapon other than an assult rifle is capable of killing 28 people that quickly?

Springfield XDm 9mm with nicely placed shots. Thats less than two magazines.

A 10lb bag of nails, gasoline and a _____________. A 100lb keg of chlorine from the pool store and a couple gallons of ________. Killer BEES!

I guess I should expect examples like that, coming from who they do.

You should also say home made nukes....

GameboyRMH wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: No guarantees you win - the docs just give you a chance to try. If you think millions of angry people with sticks and small arms wouldn't scare the E36 M3 out of an army with tanks and machine guns... google Korean Conflict. You can melt the barrel on a .50 and still only get a small percentage of the hoard before they over run you :)

Even so, the big army stomped all over the scrappy underdogs until the US intervened.

And then we got our shiney happy asses nearly pushed back into the ocean by the Chinese.....

In reply to N Sperlo:

You can, I believe you'll have to pay a $200 tax stamp and 6 month wait for each main gun round though, stupid ATF Destructive Device laws.

Most people don't even know you can legally have M203 grenade launchers and the 40mm grenade projectiles here......Class 3 laws have made those weapons a playground for the wealthy.

This topic was started to discuss responsible gun control, but inevitably it's swung around to the event/s that prompted the discussion of gun control in the first place. This isn't a bad thing, since the two are related.

First, I think it's not a good idea to be talking about gun control immediately after a tragedy such as this. Laws should be crafted carefully, and intelligently; when people are behaving with fear and emotion, good legislation cannot result. What we need to do right now is deal with the tragedy and it's results. And move on.

Second, it's interesting to look at the history of violence, and instructive. Someone brought up that Bath tragedy, over 80 years ago. Violence isn't a new thing. Humans are violent, and I don't think that'll ever change. But something has changed, and that is, ironically enough, the very thing that is allowing me to make this post that will likely be read by dozens of people. Information dissemination has expanded tremendously. We went from spoken word, cave scrawlings, and hand-transcribed manuscripts to what we have today over the course of a few hundred years. Real, mass information dissemination didn't start until the printing press came about, about 1500 A.D. But the whole idea of instantaneous, real-time information is quite new- you might be able to stretch it back to the 1920's or so, with the mass-acceptance of radio. And, of course the internet at everyone's fingertips is a phenomenon of only the past half-dozen years.

Humans have been around for tens of thousands of years.

So now you're combining an ingrained mentality of violence, which we've had since the first humans climbed up on 2 legs and started beating each other with sticks, and the ability to read about it, hear about it, watch it, and become involved in it, which really only happened big time in the past 10 years or so. I'm no philosopher, or psychologist, but it seems like technology is running away from evolution, and we're seeing the results.

Not to mention (bringing this back around tot he gun control debate) the technological advances in weaponry from those first two sticks the first two humans beat each other with, to the weapons that exist today that are capable of vaporizing the entire Planet many, many times over.

How do we deal with this?

alfadriver wrote: I guess I should expect examples like that, coming from who they do. You should also say home made nukes....

I should expect you to be more creative. Have you seen the things that come out of the garages of folks in here? Do you really think you could even predict the sort of horrors that might show up at the $2013 Weapons Challenge?

You can fixate on guns if you like but we killed each other by the thousands before them. They were an "improvement" to something we were planning anyway. People have always been the problem.

alfadriver wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

alfadriver wrote: what kind of weapon other than an assult rifle is capable of killing 28 people that quickly?

Springfield XDm 9mm with nicely placed shots. Thats less than two magazines.

A 10lb bag of nails, gasoline and a _____________. A 100lb keg of chlorine from the pool store and a couple gallons of ________. Killer BEES!

I guess I should expect examples like that, coming from who they do. You should also say home made nukes....

28 people, hell that's not even a challenge with a truck in a crowded city sidewalk, then there's the IED, a good sword could do that in well trained hands, a 5 gallon can of gas, a home made flame thrower, a chainsaw....want me to actually think about this, I bet I can come up with 100 ways.

Oh and mine is the voice of experience. From a country with severe weapons restrictions.

People will find a way, the only difference will be a citizen's ability to defend their family or themselves.

Like the ban on carrying in hospitals and schools, which seem to be the favored choice of these nutbags.

Raise the standard of training and qualification to gain a CCW for sure, but banning them removes the best defense. A well armed population.

This is my opinion only, but not many here can comment with my experience in 2 types of ingrained firearms mentality and law enforcement background.

Disarming Australians, meant that only criminals carry weapons, however they have no concern about the public resisting them.

Take from that what you will.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I'm a shooter and occasional hunter who carries when I feel a need but I don't belong to the NRA.

I've made a few people greatly upset with me when I refuse to join the NRA.......they always ask "Why?", my reply is never different....."Thanks for NFA." Sadly, only people over 45 or who actually look into history that isn't reported mainstream will understand that.

In reply to aussiesmg:

Carry rights are beginning to loosen up. I don't think tighter restrictions are the answer.

My state has about as little restrictions as possible, but carrying in schools and hospitals is still a no-no.

yamaha wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I'm a shooter and occasional hunter who carries when I feel a need but I don't belong to the NRA.

I've made a few people greatly upset with me when I refuse to join the NRA.......they always ask "Why?", my reply is never different....."Thanks for NFA." Sadly, only people over 45 or who actually look into history that isn't reported mainstream will understand that.

Linked so ya'll know what Yama is talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

The reason I don't belong is unrelated to that - they simply do not represent my views on almost anything so I don't give them my money.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

yamaha wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I'm a shooter and occasional hunter who carries when I feel a need but I don't belong to the NRA.

I've made a few people greatly upset with me when I refuse to join the NRA.......they always ask "Why?", my reply is never different....."Thanks for NFA." Sadly, only people over 45 or who actually look into history that isn't reported mainstream will understand that.

Linked so ya'll know what Yama is talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act The reason I don't belong is unrelated to that - they simply do not represent my views on almost anything so I don't give them my money.

I carry all the time because off the work I do. I'm uncomfortable without my weapon and continually try to protect it when its not there. Obviously I don't carry where it is not legal for me to do so or when I think I'll be drinking near or past the point of intoxication.

Not a member of the NRA. I feel they hinder more than help. (Columbine for example.)

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

I haven't read the wiki lately, to check if it still lists the NRA as the NFA's supporter, but I happened across the cspan video footage awhile back of that day for that vote.........it was taken numerous times, overwhelmingly no. One last vote it miraculously became overwhelmingly yes.

yamaha wrote: In reply to N Sperlo: You can, I believe you'll have to pay a $200 tax stamp and 6 month wait for each main gun round though, stupid ATF Destructive Device laws.

You left out the $10K-$20K for the weapon. I posted all that on the first page of this thread

JoeyM wrote: link to gun blog

And here’s the requirements to buy a fully automatic firearm: * Have around $10,000 in cash, more for “good” guns * Submit two sets of fingerprints to the ATF for a background check * Submit two passport photos to the ATF * Fill out a Form 4 and submit it to the ATF detailing why you want the gun * Pay a $200 tax to the government * Wait 6 months for the ATF to perform the background checks and approve the purchase

yamaha wrote: Most people don't even know you can legally have M203 grenade launchers and the 40mm grenade projectiles here......Class 3 laws have made those weapons a playground for the wealthy.

You're right....the wealthy can afford bigger guns than the rest of us. Heck, Larry Ellison has a couple fighter jets. BATF made him remove the guns, but I haven't heard anything about the missile hard points. I'm not especially worried about that, though....he

All I have to add is this:

There are countries with little gun control and low murder rates.
There are countries with lots of gun control and low murder rates.
There are countries with little gun control and high murder rates.
There are countries with lots of gun control and high murder rates.

As far as I'm concerned, that makes it a culture problem, not a gun control problem.

scardeal wrote: All I have to add is this: There are countries with little gun control and low murder rates. There are countries with lots of gun control and low murder rates. There are countries with little gun control and high murder rates. There are countries with lots of gun control and high murder rates. As far as I'm concerned, that makes it a culture problem, not a gun control problem.

This is the best thing I have read in this thread.

JoeyM wrote: You're right....the wealthy can afford bigger guns than the rest of us. Heck, Larry Ellison has a couple fighter jets. BATF made him remove the guns, but I haven't heard anything about the missile hard points. I'm not especially worried about that, though....he

Yep......although, I know of a few privately owned and flown P51's that still have "working" 50 cal brownings in the wings

What's 6 $200 tax stamps and a 6 month wait when you're buying a $1-1.5 million dollar warbird.

If NFA laws don't change, and prices remain constant, my entry into full-auto will be a M2 Carbine from the Korea Era. $5-7k for good non-conversion ones....you can get the media's dreaded Mac 10 or Mac 11 for under $3k

I have the solution:

More sex = less violence. Everyone gets mandatory sex one time a week and more is encouraged. Think of how relaxed and chill everyone would be if we were all getting it on a consistent basis. Then we don't even need to think about gun control, because no one wants to go shoot people up.

I'm only half kidding.

but watch out for UpgrayeDD

Jerry wrote: I'll admit I've never even fired a real weapon (even after 6 years in the Navy - two chances were both blown by circumstances) but it's on my bucket list. I've never been in favor of strict gun control or banning them, but when people say "well anything can be a weapon - gun, tire iron, knife, sword, wooden stake" only one of those things is solely for killing.

Really? Only one of those?

I'm married to an elementary teacher who deals with mentally challenged children and their mentally challenged parents. What we have an issue with is not the firearms, their "ease of access", how many bullets their magazine holds or how many firearms someone owns. The real issue is how we're (not) treating the mentally ill.

I could point out all the facts about gun ownership(already been done here ad nauseum), I could point out that this shooter could have been stopped by an armed person in hte principles office (been pointed out, I'm sure), or many other of the common talking points. But I'm not. I will say this: Use some berkeleying common sense people. We already have all the laws on the books one could possibly want to fix this. In fact, how many laws did ding-a-ling break doing this? Lets count: Firearm on school property, theft, murder, discharging a firearm in city limits, attempted murder, B&E, illegal possession of a firearm. That's 7 laws he broke. 3 were done before he ever left his home.

Look, the police are not there to protect you. You, and your family's, protection is up to YOU. This goes back to that self responsibility thing that no one wants to mention. If I am home, and suffer a break in/murder at my house and I was lucky enough to have called 911 the instant it happened, It would still be 7-15 minutes before an officer could respond. I'm not waiting that long. I'm damn sure not making my wife wait that long.

scardeal wrote: All I have to add is this: There are countries with little gun control and low murder rates. There are countries with lots of gun control and low murder rates. There are countries with little gun control and high murder rates. There are countries with lots of gun control and high murder rates. As far as I'm concerned, that makes it a culture problem, not a gun control problem.

Yes.

I still think that guns are generally bad juju, and believe that fewer guns = better. But my opinion on guns aside, the observation above is spot on.

Now, you think gun control is a complicated conversation, wait 'til we try to solve the cultural reasons for our high rate of violence. Hope it doesn't come to blows

yamaha wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I'm a shooter and occasional hunter who carries when I feel a need but I don't belong to the NRA.

I've made a few people greatly upset with me when I refuse to join the NRA.......they always ask "Why?", my reply is never different....."Thanks for NFA." Sadly, only people over 45 or who actually look into history that isn't reported mainstream will understand that.

My Grandmother was disappointed when I didn't renew my free NRA membership she had given me. I am very pro-gun, but the NRA is not my cup of tea.

With that said, I understand why the NRA is so far right. The anti-gun people are sooooo far left it's scary.