Hooknswoop 19 #276 July 4, 2016 And I am carded every time I buy a firearm. And alcohol isn't protected by constitution. The point is more gun control is not going to give any significant gains. Like drunk driving, education, enforcing the law, and stiff penalties. Car regulation is not going to prevent drunk driving. Derek V Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 355 #277 July 4, 2016 Education? You mean those gang-bangers are violent thugs only because nobody ever told them that was bad behavior? All we have to do is explain to them that nice people don't shoot each other over trivial incidents (taken as "disrespect") and they will see the light? Education and enforcement worked to the extent that it did for DUI because the target audience was largely people like us: people for whom a DUI conviction would have major negative consequences. At one time drunk driving was seen as not a very serious offense. "One more for the road" was something almost everybody accepted as normal. Education and penalties changed the dynamic. Now a DUI conviction could result in severe financial penalties and suspension of your driver's license at best, at worst jail time. Multiple offenses certainly will result in jail time. For most of us, losing your license and being put in jail (so you can't go to work) results in loss of your job. In my case it would mean throwing away a career for which I spent 12 years in University. Without a job, I will certainly lose the house and property I have invested many years in. The penalty I would pay would go far beyond the mere fine/sentence the court would impose, it could include everything I have worked for all my life. Since I have a lot to lose, so you can be sure I keep a close eye on my alcohol consumption. I am sure the same is true of the great majority of the population. For such people, education about penalties (in other words, deterrence) is an excellent tool. Now lets look at your average armed robber or drug dealer. Young, male, poorly educated. No job, no house to lose. Likely belongs to a social group (or gang) where everybody has pretty much the same lifestyle. Violence is an everyday human interaction. Nobody gives much thought to the future, nobody expects to live very long. Going to prison is no big deal, it happens to everybody. Some even find a measure of safety in prison, compared to life on the street. Deterrence has no meaning in that context. Here in Georgia, felons found in possession of a firearm are prosecuted. The penalty is one to five years in prison, and that time (which averages towards the 5 year end of the scale) is served in full. Using a firearm during the commission of a felony adds five years to the sentence on top of the sentence for the underlying felony. Everybody knows this. Criminals simply do not care. We have tried education and deterrence for years and it has no effect on the target audience, the career thugs and criminals. The only people who are deterred are the already law-abiding. In the meantime the toll of dead, maimed, and traumatized keeps growing. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gregpso 1 #278 July 4, 2016 when your laws will not even ban folk who are on the no fly list or terror watch list from buying guns there is no hope. When you have background checks but they do not apply to gun shows there is no hope. When you allow folk to buy Miiltary style guns to keep in the suburbs there is no hope I understand the self defence thing in the USA but some common sense should apply. I carry a hand gun at work for protection of myself and the community in Australia and would not have it any other way but you folks in the USA have to tighten laws at least.I tend to be a bit different. enjoyed my time in the sport or is it an industry these days ?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #279 July 4, 2016 Quotewhen your laws will not even ban folk who are on the no fly list or terror watch list from buying guns there is no hope. How do you get own the list? How do you get off the list? If they have not broken the law, how can you deny them their constitutional rights? What about due process? QuoteWhen you have background checks but they do not apply to gun shows there is no hope. They do apply to gun shows. QuoteWhen you allow folk to buy Miiltary style guns to keep in the suburbs there is no hope What is wrong with AR-15's? QuoteI understand the self defence thing in the USA but some common sense should apply. I carry a hand gun at work for protection of myself and the community in Australia and would not have it any other way but you folks in the USA have to tighten laws at least. What do you suggest that will make a significant difference without significantly limiting the 2nd Amendment? Derek V Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kawisixer01 0 #280 July 4, 2016 gregpso When you allow folk to buy Miiltary style guns to keep in the suburbs there is no hope Go ahead and explain why you think it's "military style"? Because it's black and the same shape? Sweet I guess a Jeep wrangler should be controlled or not sold because it's "military styled". No more camo clothes because they're military styled. An AR was actually designed and released as a civilian arm for hunting, i could produce a dated advert from it's release to prove it. An AR VARIANT was adopted by the military for many of the same reasons a civi would want to carry it for various disciplines including self defense and hunting. Many of the miltary's goals for its equipment are the same as what all of us would desire in equipment. It's very light, , dependable, extremely modular and can be fit to any task or any user without the major modifications needed on traditional rifles. Despite what idiot media will tell you, it's relatively low powered in it's original chambering of .223, being good mostly for varmint hunting and self defense, although I have taken deer with one while being a walker on drives in tight swampy areas. It's the worlds most popular rifle for a reason. Not because it's some ultra deadly and scary uber efficient killing machine. Because it is very easily customized, is easy to work on, and is fairly dependable. It's a great design that the sporting world has embraced for it's versatility not to look like GI Joe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,289 #281 July 4, 2016 QuoteThe Heller decision says otherwise. Citizens have a right to self defense and the handgun cannot be banned. Restricting it to 2 rounds would neuter its ability for protection against bad guys without such limits. Quotecan reload so quickly that it doesn't matter These two contradict each other Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,289 #282 July 4, 2016 QuoteControlling alcohol was not the solution. Yet you still can't drive while drinking a beer, even if it is your first one, nor buy beer at the gas station. You can't even have a beer within reach, nor can your passenger drink it. But you are right, alcohol didn't get controlled. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kawisixer01 0 #283 July 4, 2016 gregpso When you allow folk to buy Miiltary style guns to keep in the suburbs there is no hope Oh and by the way, you better go turn in all of your "Miltary style" skydiving gear. Because after all, you shouldn't be able to use something that the military developed and uses in war. A civi has absolutely no use for such military equipment and experiences like falling from the sky and flying a parachute. That's only for tactical advantage or saving pilots, and should never be used in the civilian world. People could needlessly die with such deadly equipment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 723 #284 July 4, 2016 Then why are sawed off shotguns and machine guns on the National Firearms Act? We really should add a few more weapons and components to that act. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,462 #285 July 4, 2016 normissThen why are sawed off shotguns and machine guns on the National Firearms Act? We really should add a few more weapons and components to that act. You've said this a couple times. What would you add? "Military style" guns? All semi autos? Keep in mind that the NFA was passed in response to the gangsters of the thirties in general, and the Valentine's Day Massacre in particular. And, interestingly, the Miller decision found it constitutional because a short barreled shotgun was not a military weapon, and therefore not suitable for a militia, so it wasn't protected by the 2nd for civilian possession. In all probability, the NFA would have been struck down had it been followed to it's full conclusion. Miller got killed before that could happen (he wasn't a very nice guy). NFA has all sorts of "uncomfortable" provisions. It puts a lot of power in the hands of a local chief or sheriff. The general idea was to keep those particular guns out of the hands of "known bad guys", but it ends up allowing an individual to say "I don't like those kinds of guns. I won't allow anyone to acquire them." Or only his buddies. I know the "trust loophole" allows people to get around that, but it no longer applies to full auto. The "tax" also is a bit disturbing. When it went into effect, $200 was a lot of money. It hasn't changed in 80 years, but there's no reason congress couldn't raise it (IIRC, equivalent would be something like $3500). And back to the first question: What would you like to see added? Any semi auto? Even a 10/22? Any military style semi? Like an AR-15, AK-47 or similar? Then where do you draw the line? Do we go back to the AWB and use cosmetic features (pistol grips, folding stocks, bayonet lugs)? For heaven's sake, let them keep flash hiders. An AR without one is really annoying to be next to. How about a Mini-14? Or an M1A? Or older stuff like a Garand or M1 Carbine? Do those not count because they have wooden furniture? How about a Remmy 742? Or a BAR? Or maybe just magazines that hold a lot of ammo. That would be a nightmare. And how would it be implemented? Have every one of the (roughly) gazillion owners of these types of guns register them with the BATF? Seriously, that won't happen. Look at Connecticut. Look at Canada. Some of the nicer folks in the world, and their registration scheme was a fiasco. And, in all seriousness, I have to agree with the post from a few pages back. It's nice to have a (generally) civil and rational discussion on this. Far better than the troll fight in the other thread."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,822 #286 July 4, 2016 kawisixer01*** When you allow folk to buy Miiltary style guns to keep in the suburbs there is no hope Go ahead and explain why you think it's "military style"? That's what Saint Ronald Reagan called them back when he wrote to Congress calling for a ban. Are you faulting Saint Ronald?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,822 #287 July 4, 2016 kawisixer01*** When you allow folk to buy Miiltary style guns to keep in the suburbs there is no hope Oh and by the way, you better go turn in all of your "Miltary style" skydiving gear. Because after all, you shouldn't be able to use something that the military developed and uses in war. A civi has absolutely no use for such military equipment and experiences like falling from the sky and flying a parachute. That's only for tactical advantage or saving pilots, and should never be used in the civilian world. People could needlessly die with such deadly equipment. What an amazingly stupid post. When skydivers use their equipment to murder 9,000+ of their fellow citizens each year I fully expect there to be controls placed on skydiving gear.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,822 #288 July 4, 2016 wolfriverjoe***Then why are sawed off shotguns and machine guns on the National Firearms Act? We really should add a few more weapons and components to that act. You've said this a couple times. What would you add? "Military style" guns? All semi autos? Keep in mind that the NFA was passed in response to the gangsters of the thirties in general, and the Valentine's Day Massacre in particular. And, interestingly, the Miller decision found it constitutional because a short barreled shotgun was not a military weapon, and therefore not suitable for a militia, so it wasn't protected by the 2nd for civilian possession. . REAL militias the world over use RPGs and hand grenades. So by your logic...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,462 #289 July 4, 2016 kallend******Then why are sawed off shotguns and machine guns on the National Firearms Act? We really should add a few more weapons and components to that act. You've said this a couple times. What would you add? "Military style" guns? All semi autos? Keep in mind that the NFA was passed in response to the gangsters of the thirties in general, and the Valentine's Day Massacre in particular. And, interestingly, the Miller decision found it constitutional because a short barreled shotgun was not a military weapon, and therefore not suitable for a militia, so it wasn't protected by the 2nd for civilian possession. . REAL militias the world over use RPGs and hand grenades. So by your logic... Well, it's not my logic. It's the argument of the US government. And it was a case where the defendants were "not represented in any form" at the Supreme Court. Link Its a pretty odd case, in a variety of ways. But, if you read the link, the government argued (and was somewhat incorrect in it's argument) that a short-barreled shotgun was not a military weapon. And that the 2nd A only applied to military weapons. And yes, by that argument, hand grenades and anti-tank rockets are protected by the 2nd A. And no, I'm not proposing that they should be legal for civilian possession. FFS, the idiots with fireworks last night were bad enough."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,822 #290 July 4, 2016 Why gun nuts lie to themselves, by a self confessed gun nut.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,098 #291 July 4, 2016 QuoteJust be honest. You like it because it makes your pee-pee big, and when you fire it, it gives you a tingle in your no-no place. Trust me, I understand. Is this true?Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #292 July 4, 2016 GeorgiaDonWe have tried education and deterrence for years and it has no effect on the target audience, the career thugs and criminals. The only people who are deterred are the already law-abiding. In the meantime the toll of dead, maimed, and traumatized keeps growing. Don Sounds more like an issue with corrections/incarceration than firearms.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 355 #293 July 4, 2016 Bolas***We have tried education and deterrence for years and it has no effect on the target audience, the career thugs and criminals. The only people who are deterred are the already law-abiding. In the meantime the toll of dead, maimed, and traumatized keeps growing. Don Sounds more like an issue with corrections/incarceration than firearms.What do you suggest? Torture? Cutting off hands? Gouging out eyes? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #294 July 4, 2016 GeorgiaDon******We have tried education and deterrence for years and it has no effect on the target audience, the career thugs and criminals. The only people who are deterred are the already law-abiding. In the meantime the toll of dead, maimed, and traumatized keeps growing. Don Sounds more like an issue with corrections/incarceration than firearms.What do you suggest? Torture? Cutting off hands? Gouging out eyes? Don Didn't suggest anything. Just pointing out the problem is not the tools, but the users. Perhaps in addition to mental health reform, corrections/incarceration reform discussions are also needed especially for repeat offenders.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #295 July 4, 2016 QuoteYet you still can't drive while drinking a beer, even if it is your first one, nor buy beer at the gas station. You can't even have a beer within reach, nor can your passenger drink it. But you are right, alcohol didn't get controlled. How do you not see the difference? Restricting the sale and possession of alcohol did not work. The assault weapon ban did not work. Laws regulating the purchase and ownership of alcohol are very limited. I can walk into any liquor store and buy as much as I want and only have to show ID proving I'm over 21. Like Bill said, education, enforcing the law, and stiff penalties is what had an impact on drunk driving. Derek V Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,289 #296 July 4, 2016 QuoteRestricting the sale and possession of alcohol did not work. You don't think that if people were allowed to drink and drive the number of DUI would go up? DUI went up in Colorado after the legalization of MJ. QuoteI can walk into any liquor store and buy as much as I want Actually, the liquor market in Colorado is pretty tightly regulated. As a consumer for instance you would not be allowed to buy large quantities from a distributor, only from a retailer. Each brand only has one distributor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #297 July 4, 2016 QuoteYou don't think that if people were allowed to drink and drive the number of DUI would go up? I am saying that regulating liquor did not have the desired effect. Laws against drunk driving, etc have had an effect. Buying alcohol vs. buying a gun: these laws are not effective. Drunk driving vs. shooting someone: these laws are effective. Do you see the difference? Regulating the object vs. regulating the action taken with the object. QuoteActually, the liquor market in Colorado is pretty tightly regulated. As a consumer for instance you would not be allowed to buy large quantities from a distributor, only from a retailer. Each brand only has one distributor. "pretty tightly regulated". You mean I can't go into a liquor store and fill up shopping carts full and buy it all? How does alcohol sales regulation compare to firearm sales regulation? How many DUI's can I have before I cannot buy alcohol anymore? Derek V Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,289 #298 July 5, 2016 QuoteI am saying that regulating liquor did not have the desired effect. A statement without any backup. In my opinion it did have the desired effect. It reduced DUIs. QuoteLaws against drunk driving, etc have had an effect. Yes, they have also had an effect. QuoteDrunk driving vs. shooting someone: these laws are effective. Are they? Both seem to happen quite frequently, specially the shooting someone part. Americans seem to have a significant problem with self control. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #299 July 5, 2016 SkyDekkerQuoteI am saying that regulating liquor did not have the desired effect. A statement without any backup. In my opinion it did have the desired effect. It reduced DUIs. ***Laws against drunk driving, etc have had an effect. Yes, they have also had an effect. QuoteDrunk driving vs. shooting someone: these laws are effective. Are they? Both seem to happen quite frequently, specially the shooting someone part. Americans seem to have a significant problem with self control. and yet as we buy more and more guns the trends of murder by gun are going down. Hmmmm Seems the tool has nothing to do with it."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #300 July 5, 2016 Bill Von wrote: ">BUT... i thought it was already illegal for felons to buy guns. Yep. And it was illegal to drive drunk in the 1970's. But people did it anyway; 60% of all traffic fatalities involved drunk driving, and 66% of the traffic fatalities between ages 16-20 involved alcohol. Fortunately, there was a lot of work done to figure out what the problem was. They learned that: -It wasn't middle aged drivers that were the problem (although they made up most of the people who were pulled over) - it was a problem that started much earlier, around the time most people got their driver's licenses. -A lot of education was missing. There wasn't much awareness of the risks of drunk driving; a DUI was something of a joke, something that was just as serious as running a red light. As a result, some laws were passed (zero tolerance for new drivers) some changes were made in driver training (emphasizing risks of drinking) and some changes were made in enforcement (penalties got much more serious.) As a result of these and other changes, fatalities from drinking and driving have been reduced by 50%, and by 70% in the 16-20 age bracket. " QuoteI am saying that regulating liquor did not have the desired effect. A statement without any backup. In my opinion it did have the desired effect. It reduced DUIs. A statement without any backup. What alcohol control law had the effect of reducing DUI's and by how much? Prohibition did not go as planned. Alcohol is not highly regulated. Show an ID that says you are over 21 and buy as much as you like. Does't matter if you have DUI's, etc. We didn't pass alcohol control laws, we passed laws against certain actions. QuoteAre they? Both seem to happen quite frequently, specially the shooting someone part. Americans seem to have a significant problem with self control. A statement without any backup. Again, Bill Von wrote; "As a result of these and other changes, fatalities from drinking and driving have been reduced by 50%, and by 70% in the 16-20 age bracket. " Seems like laws against actions are effective, while alcohol control are not. Remember, a realistic goal is not to eliminate drunk driving or eliminate firearm violence or mass shootings. Derek V Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites