Kennedy 0
Recommended Posts
Newbie 0
QuoteQuoteI'm not trying to dictate anything. Offer no ways or means? Ok how about if you want a gun, you have to have it registered, along with your details, have compulsary cooling off periods, detailed background checks, training for the type of gun you are buying and some kind of "responsibility" training, to be laid down in law (i.e. if this gun is mislaid and falls into the wrong hands, we will be coming after you).
1) Registration leads to confiscation. Period. There are no two ways about this. If you want to claim that we gun owners are yelling about a boogeyman with regard to this equation, we have only to point to NEW YORK CITY, WASHINGTON D.C., CALIFORNIA, ENGLAND, AUSTRALIA, and NAZI GERMANY. Those are real-world examples of exactly what we are concerned about: GUNS WERE FIRST REGISTERED, and then the knowledge that the police had regarding who had what guns and where was used TO GUIDE THE POLICE IN THE CONFISCATION OF THOSE GUNS. How can you argue that we are making a big deal out of a phantom fear when it's a fear that has become reality already, even in parts of the United States?!
2) "Cooling off periods" are generally unnecessary. Many of the "heat of the moment" killings take place at a time of day when gun stores are not even open, so it's not like people are rushing out, buying a gun, and then going and killing someone. I think this concept is largely a myth. And there should definitely be no "cooling off" delay if a person is buying his second, third, or thousandth gun. If he already has guns available to him, if he wanted to murder someone, he'd just use those.
3) If a person mislays his gun or allows it to fall into the hands of a child in the household, there are penalties in place in many jurisdictions that will apply. But if a person's gun is STOLEN in a criminal theft, I hardly think that he should be held legally or criminally responsible for crimes that are then committed with it. Your car could be stolen and then used to run someone down. Should you then be held accountable as though you were the murderous driver? What about your kitchen knives? Your chainsaw? Your can of gasoline?QuoteI would say the problem in the US is far from "not broken" at least in major metropolitan cities.
Are you referring to those major metropolitan cities like NYC, D.C., and Chicago, where despite the most stringent gun control there is -- BANS -- they still lead in gun murder rates on a consistent basis? Seems to me that you provided the biggest argument yet for the abandonment of the very policies you are advocating: they're abysmal failures.
Blue skies,
-
http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/nypd/html/dclm/ldinfo.html
How is this document stating you cannot own a gun in NYC? And i quote:
"It has come to the attention of the License Division that certain consulting firms have advised licensees that renewals are no longer automatic and that the License Division has refused to renew hundreds of licensees. This is untrue. License renewals continue to be routinely processed and approved in the overwhelming majority of cases."
Violent crime in NYC is down to it's lowest levels in years. This is according to the FBI as of last year...
http://www.nycvisit.com/content/index.cfm?pagePkey=1091
"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts
Quote
http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/nypd/html/dclm/ldinfo.html
How is this document stating you cannot own a gun in NYC? And i quote:
"It has come to the attention of the License Division that certain consulting firms have advised licensees that renewals are no longer automatic and that the License Division has refused to renew hundreds of licensees. This is untrue. License renewals continue to be routinely processed and approved in the overwhelming majority of cases."
Yes, RENEWALS. What part of "renewals" is hard to understand?
Renewals for people who have the nearly-impossible-to-get permit in the first place. In the seventies, they went around and asked everyone who had guns legally to register them.
They swore they would never use the lists for anything but keeping track. In fact, in the face of concern that they would use the lists for confiscating guns at some point, they promised that would not be done.
And several years later, when NYC crime was in its 1970s heyday, THEY DID EXACTLY THAT. They used the very registration lists of who had what guns and now came around and said, "We know you have these guns, because you told us you did. Now the law says you may not have them, and we're here to confiscate them. If you don't give up the guns, you're going to jail."
Then once the legal guns were rounded up, a person had to get a permit to have them. Guess what? The police grant the permits at their discretion. And that ends up meaning they hardly give out any at all -- and when they do it's to major political contributors, rich people, and celebrities.
So you can quote me the NYPigD website all you want, but the fact remains that their so-called permit system is exclusionary. It doesn't surprise me in the least that they claim to renew "the overwhelming majority" of permits -- they're just renewing the connected people who are the few who got permits once the draconian laws were enacted in the first place!
Next.
Blue skies,
-Jeffrey
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Oh, and fees of $255 and $99 in order to get the application processed.
$354 to find out that they don't think, "I want to be able to defend myself from criminal attack" is a worthy reason to grant you the privilege of being able to purchase and own firearms.
Fuckin' NYC pigs.
But if you want to go on believing that any old honest citizen can get a permit to have a handgun in New York City, go right ahead. Like I give a shit if you live your life believing a lie.
-
$354 to find out that they don't think, "I want to be able to defend myself from criminal attack" is a worthy reason to grant you the privilege of being able to purchase and own firearms.
Fuckin' NYC pigs.
But if you want to go on believing that any old honest citizen can get a permit to have a handgun in New York City, go right ahead. Like I give a shit if you live your life believing a lie.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
tkhayes 153
I am having sooooo much fun with this - but it is Saturday and I have to work - so later
TK
BTW, I am right
TK
BTW, I am right
JohnRich 4
QuoteI said GUNS were designed to kill - which they were, I never at any time said that gun-owners are, or tend to be killers.
First of all, not all guns are designed "to kill." Many of them are specialized strictly for target shooting. But even those that are "designed to kill", such killing is to be done for lawful purposes only, such as in hunting, and for self-defense. Thus, there is nothing evil about this purpose, as you try so hard to impute.
QuoteI did say that "If there were no handguns, then no one could be killed by a handgun"... Then you ask that I surrender my guns as if that would accomplish my goals. I already know that this will not help the situation, as do you.
Ah, I think I understand now. You want *other* people to surrender their firearms, but you want to keep all of yours. How quaint.
Quoteif the governemnt tomorrow decided that we will ban all guns, in the interest of saving innocent lives from harm, we will stop the manufacture of all guns in hopes that in 20 years or so they are all out of society, then I would actually be willing to surrender my guns, as I would have no use for them anymore.[/repy]
First of all, no nation has ever been successful in banning anything like that. How long have addictive drugs been banned in America, along with the corresponding "war on drugs"? Decades. Has that made illegal drugs less available on the street? No. Even in the Nazi-controlled Warsaw ghetto in WWII, they couldn't keep the Jews from smuggling a few guns. And that had to be one of the most highly controlled environments in history. Your dream is a fairy tale - it won't happen.
And once again, if you want people to respect your views, you should take the moral high ground, and start the program you believe in, by turning in your *own* guns. Instead of expecting everyone else to go first.QuoteAnd i have not advocated diarming anyone - I did advocate more training and more restrictions in the hopes of reducing the number of guns out there, which i still and always have believed will reduce the number of unwanted gun accidents and murders.
Um, excuse me, but banning the manufacture of guns would certainly keep honest people from becoming armed. More restrictions would disarm some people who already have guns. You're contradicting your own words...
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteYou are free to choose your own options when faced with those crimes. However, the law in many states allows deadly force for those crimes, because you can't count on them only being "simple". No one can predict what a burglar's intentions are when he breaks into your house. You don't know if he wants just a VCR, or your life. You can put *your* life in the hands of a criminal if you want, but you have no right to demand that everyone else also do so.
The 'law' allowed us to lynch niggers in the 20's - it is not always right.
Then you should be advocating a change in the law, instead of trying to ban handgun ownership. And I don't think you would have a prayer of getting a law passed that would make it illegal for a citizen to shoot an intruder in their own home.
The extreme nature of your view is highlighted by this comparison of legitimate self-defense to illegal racial lynchings.
QuoteQuoteOh yeah, I forgot, you think those pesky Bill of Rights Amendments are just trivial "afterthoughts"...
I never said any such things.
Your statement is right there in message #107: "The gun trhing was an amendment, an afterthought."
You seem to have forgotten your own statements in this thread. Please try to keep up.
QuoteIf that gun is sitting in that nightstand for 10 years, then y'know what? It is not needed.
Bzzzt. Wrong. It's on standby, to provide necessary self-defense, just in case. It doesn't matter how long it sits unused. It only has to be useful once, to save someone's life from criminal attack. Then it becomes the most valuable tool in the whole world. Frequency of use, means nothing about importance. I once went a stretch of 10 years without having to use my reserve parachute - does that mean that I should have saved myself the weight and removed it from my parachute rig?
QuoteIn the hands of the untrained housewife or joe-blow at the office - it is more a menace than a self-defense weapon.
Simply not true. There are several million self-defense uses of guns every year, by the very people you here accuse of being incompetent. The record speaks for itself, in favor of guns.
Armed Defense Stories
JohnRich 4
Quotewhat about these? Son Charged In Accidental Shooting, etc....
So, because some people are careless with guns, therefore nobody deserves to own them? Gosh, what a model for freedom that is!
Maybe since some people hurt themselves with hook turns, therefore nobody should be allowed to skydive. How's that idea sit with you?
Gun accidents are tragic. No doubt about it. But taking guns away from everyone, because of the misuse by a few, is contrary to freedom, and the wrong approach to take.
I haven't heard you comment yet on my suggestion to you about making gun safety training mandatory in the public school system. What say you? Wouldn't that achieve the goal you desire - everyone having the knowledge to be safe with guns?
JohnRich 4
QuoteYes, accidents happen. Anecdotes are great to tug on emotional strings but they are misleading. How many millions of guns are there? How many MORE people are killed by everyday house hold objects?
Why is an accidental death by a gun more emotional and upsetting than accidental deaths by numerous other causes? Seriously. If you substitute any other object for gun in those articles, ANY other object, would you suddenly be in an uproar about the need to control and restrict it? Or is the image of GUN that makes it so horrifying?
Good point.
In the U.S., the principal types of accidental deaths in 1994 were:
Motor vehicles ........... 43,000
Falls .................... 13,300
Poison ................... 8,000
Fire ..................... 4,200
Drowning ................. 4,000
Choking .................. 3,000
Guns ..................... 1,500
Suffocation (gases) ...... 700
All other * .............. 14,500
------
Total: 92,200
* "All other" includes medical complications, machinery, air
and water transport accidents, and freezing.
(National Safety Council, "Accident Facts"
Guns were responsible for just 1.6% of all accidental deaths.
If we should ban guns to prevent 1,500 accidental deaths, then we
should also ban cars, buildings and ladders over five feet tall,
poisonous substances, matches and flammable liquids, pools and bath tubs, and lastly, gluttony. That would save 75,000 lives per year!
soilman 0
JohnRich writes
Tho it might be hard to convince the publice to have special courses in gun safety plus gun use, I don't think it would be too difficult to include some gun-safety education as part of health education or whatever. I think this could be done in a way that is acceptable to both pro-gun and antigun parents. What to do if you find an unsecured gun: basic things like checking the chamber, working the safety, pointing out that you should never point the gun at anyone, unless you are preparing to possibly kill them in self-defense. Pointing out that bullets go thru walls and people in the next room or even the house next door can be in the line of fire. We have sex education of this sort. We teach small children how to cross the street safely -- motor-vehicle encounter safety. Moter vehicles are ubiquitous; in recognition of this fact, such training has long been done. Same thing with basic fire safety. We teach children how to make sure that matches totally out, before putting them in a waste basket. Gun-encounter safety could be similar.
QuoteI haven't heard you comment yet on my suggestion to you about making gun safety training mandatory in the public school system. What say you? Wouldn't that achieve the goal you desire - everyone having the knowledge to be safe with guns?
Tho it might be hard to convince the publice to have special courses in gun safety plus gun use, I don't think it would be too difficult to include some gun-safety education as part of health education or whatever. I think this could be done in a way that is acceptable to both pro-gun and antigun parents. What to do if you find an unsecured gun: basic things like checking the chamber, working the safety, pointing out that you should never point the gun at anyone, unless you are preparing to possibly kill them in self-defense. Pointing out that bullets go thru walls and people in the next room or even the house next door can be in the line of fire. We have sex education of this sort. We teach small children how to cross the street safely -- motor-vehicle encounter safety. Moter vehicles are ubiquitous; in recognition of this fact, such training has long been done. Same thing with basic fire safety. We teach children how to make sure that matches totally out, before putting them in a waste basket. Gun-encounter safety could be similar.
____________________________________
Animal husbandry may not be necessary. We can maintain soil quality, for plant husbandry, with green manures and cover crops.
Animal husbandry may not be necessary. We can maintain soil quality, for plant husbandry, with green manures and cover crops.
QuoteGun-encounter safety could be similar.
And thanks to Eddie the Eagle, there exists a pretty damn good curriculum to model it from.
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteThere is a gun problem, and we simply disagree on the remedy. The solution you are advocating has been proven time and again to fail.
It has not been proven 'time and time again' to fail here in the USA, it has not even been tried. So I disagree with your stance that it has alreayd been proven not to work.
It has been proven not to work in other countries. Why do you so easily dismiss those examples? You're wearing blinders.
And even here in the good ol' USA, it's been tried. Look at Washington, D.C., where handgun ownership is banned outright. To own long guns, you have to have a permit, and register the guns. D.C. has everything you want. According to your theory, D.C. should be a utopian crime-free haven. Yet, every year, it is one of the cities with the highest murder rate in the nation.
Gun bans are a failure.
Washington, D.C. Gun Laws
Most Dangerous Cities
soilman 0
I was more thinking along the lines of satisfying the kids' curiosity -- take them on a field trip -- let them handle guns under supervision. Let them see and hear guns being fired, and the effect that bullets have on watermelons and canteloupes. That should impress them about why they should be careful -- bring some reality to the situation rather than bore them with abstractions.
____________________________________
Animal husbandry may not be necessary. We can maintain soil quality, for plant husbandry, with green manures and cover crops.
Animal husbandry may not be necessary. We can maintain soil quality, for plant husbandry, with green manures and cover crops.
JohnRich 4
Quoteproduct safety recalls, banning the use of various products, new regs, lawsuits over product liability - but not for guns - God forbid - they are our RIGHT!
Bzzt. Wrong again. I see a trend developing here. Gun and ammo manufacturers conduct product safety recalls when there is a problem. There are 20,000 laws on the books regarding the manufacture, sale, and usage of guns. Gun makers get sued all the time by people who have been injured or killed by their products. There are also industry standards for manufacture. They are subject to all these market forces, just like any other product manufacturer. I don't know how you could have missed all this stuff, unless you just plain aren't looking...
QuoteIf you need to defend yourself - how about arming everyone with tasers?
Tasers are less effective. They're a one-shot weapon, and if you miss, you're screwed. Even a 100-year-old revolver gives you six shots to save your life. And tasers often are ineffective against some criminals, such as those who are high on dope. A .45 handgun will stop anyone.
If some putz cuts in line, then shoves me when I call him on it, no big deal. But if he continues to rant and rave, and looks, acts, and talks crazy, then comes at me grabbing a club on the way, I can defend myself, no?
If a man is burglarizing my home, does he deserve the benefit of the doubt? Not a fucking chance. He is the one invading my home, my castle, breaking our laws, and yes, he may only be after my dvd player, but he may be after my gun and/or my life. How would I know? Should I ask him and trust his answer? Or should I stop him and hope I don't have to hurt him?
Human life is worth protecting, defending, and valuing,even violent predators. However, I don't value their life at the risk of my own. I value my family and then my own far above theirs.
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites