Debate about Gun Control

[Eric the Green]

I am angry about the constant shootings in America. I am grieved for the lives lost and for their families. I am outraged that Americans continue to support permissive gun laws. I am angry that too many police (not all, but some) have no respect for black lives. The shooting of unarmed black men, while white men are not shot, is beyond unjust.

[Mikebert]

Your choice of examples of white people getting shot is interesting.  The first two are for the same person and look like suicide by cop. Other two are for another incident that was not a cop shooting. The Salt Lake case looks like a justified shooting.  The last on looks bad and the cop has been charged with murder.  This makes it like the Tulsa case where there has been no unrest.  The problem is as follows.  On a local basis cops don't kill people all that often, so when it happens its local news.  THis means most every cop killing is covered.  Since twice as many whilte people are shot by cops as black people it would seem that there would be plenty of white cases like the black cases that have been reported.  But I have not been able to find them and it seems neither could you.

[Galen]

(09-27-2016, 12:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I am angry about the constant shootings in America. I am grieved for the lives lost and for their families. I am outraged that Americans continue to support permissive gun laws. I am angry that too many police (not all, but some) have no respect for black lives. The shooting of unarmed black men, while white men are not shot, is beyond unjust.

This lady would be dead if she wasn't armed.  This is why people like to keep firearms.  Anyone want to bet these fine upstanding members of the black community are obeying the current gun laws?  Even if they were unarmed I doubt this lady would have lasted very long unarmed against these men.  Truth is, her odds were better with a firearm than they ever would have been without one.  Who knows? Maybe the other two will wise up after seeing the lady plant their buddy in the ground.





You would rather have seen her dead just to feel better and this is why I truly despise you.  Even on the low side of 50,000 defensive uses of firearms means that there are net more people alive because of private firearms ownership.  The numbers are probably much higher since nobody really wants to deal with law enforcement, who are overly militarized, if they can avoid it.  The Hemenway  and the Violence Policy surveys were done by people with an ax to grind and their methodology was a joke.

[Galen]

(09-28-2016, 12:20 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 12:08 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-27-2016, 12:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I am angry about the constant shootings in America. I am grieved for the lives lost and for their families. I am outraged that Americans continue to support permissive gun laws. I am angry that too many police (not all, but some) have no respect for black lives. The shooting of unarmed black men, while white men are not shot, is beyond unjust.

This lady would be dead if she wasn't armed.  This is why people like to keep firearms.  Anyone want to bet these fine upstanding members of the black community are obeying the current gun laws?  Even if they were unarmed I doubt this lady would have lasted very long unarmed against these men.  Truth is, her odds were better with a firearm than they ever would have been without one.  Who knows? Maybe the other two will wise up after seeing the lady plant their buddy in the ground.





You would rather have seen her dead just to feel better and this is why I truly despise you.  Even on the low side of 50,000 defensive uses of firearms means that there are net more people alive because of private firearms ownership.  The numbers are probably much higher since nobody really wants to deal with law enforcement, who are overly militarized, if they can avoid it.  The Hemenway  and the Violence Policy surveys were done by people with an ax to grind and their methodology was a joke.

That case is a fantastic reason to have a gun as that is what they should be for. When you need to defend yourself and partly why i do not support a ban on them. For certain people who are not mentally sound then again how do you test for something like that? Or people who definitely have been convicted of violent crimes no gun (then again, the lawless will not abide by laws i mean duh). There are some seriously questionable behaviour from the police force though on how those who do not shoot straight away are fired and that does make me question what goes on in their training. I think a good suggestion for how to handle a gun safely for instance in some cases children can get hold of guns and accidentally use them shooting someone or themselves. Finger print identity on the trigger that allows for only the owner of the finger print to shoot would be ideal. A button device that scans and unlocks the trigger. That could be a start for some cases.

That technology is not a good idea because it is not very reliable.  I make a good living fixing broken electronics and all software has bugs which further reduces the reliability.  In short this could get people killed and as desktop manufacturing gets better people will build their own firearms if they can't buy what they want.  Distributed Defense is taking the first steps in that direction now.

[Galen]

(09-28-2016, 12:38 AM)taramarie Wrote: Hm ok then potential owners should go through a procedure about gun safety AND safe storage. I do not know what the procedure is over there but i hear so many cases of little kids getting hold of them and accidentally hurting or killing someone. So teaching them about how to store a gun safely should be part of the procedure on getting access to a gun. Should be common sense but unfortunately some people are clearly imbeciles. Kids can get into things. Obviously keep it in a locked area with the key somewhere they cannot get into or in a high spot away from the child with the lock on.

Generally they do but as tragic as such accidents are they are pretty rare.  Keep in mind that the total number of deaths due to firearms accidents are on the order of 1500 a year and have been decreasing through the years.  Laws on this are resisted because idiots like Eric the Obtuse would put insane rules in place that would mean the gun would be rendered useless.  Perfect safety is simply not possible if you want to have individual liberty.

Now that I think of it unfree nations tend to be even more dangerous to live in.

[Galen]

(09-28-2016, 12:54 AM)taramarie Wrote: Nations that have no freedom are corrupt due to govt having ultimate power over you but rules regarding keeping people safe is different. Like in NZ laws are there to protect people. Laws in NK for instance are to control and dictate what people do in their personal lives. So there is that difference. I do put safety over freedom due to the environment i was raised in. I won't lie, I have never handled a gun and do not intend to either. So I have that similarity with Eric. But I also am aware that some people do use it for defense and my concern is for people to use them wisely as well as at least try not to put it in the hands of a former violent felon (IF that is done over there). So safety first for me. What has caused firearm accidents to decline?

The cause of the decrease is not really known but I can tell you that if you take a gun safety course the instructor will be NRA certified.  Contrary to demonization by Eric the Obtuse, the NRA spends most of its time teaching shooting and with that comes safety training.  The NRA has been around since the 1871 and only got into lobbying since the sixties when gun control and bans started coming in.

If you take a course for a concealed weapon permit then it will be taught by an NRA certified instructor.  It should also be noted that women are quite welcome in both the courses and shooting sports.  Having been to some of them I can tell you the women are treated quite well.

Laws in the US are often written to make the exercise of constitutional rights difficult or impossible.  This has been done so often in the last fifty years that the response by default is no.  Another thing that was learned in the seventies and eighties was that no matter how much you gave up the gun ban people would want more and soon there would be nothing left.

[Galen]

(09-28-2016, 01:28 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 01:23 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 12:54 AM)taramarie Wrote: Nations that have no freedom are corrupt due to govt having ultimate power over you but rules regarding keeping people safe is different. Like in NZ laws are there to protect people. Laws in NK for instance are to control and dictate what people do in their personal lives. So there is that difference. I do put safety over freedom due to the environment i was raised in. I won't lie, I have never handled a gun and do not intend to either. So I have that similarity with Eric. But I also am aware that some people do use it for defense and my concern is for people to use them wisely as well as at least try not to put it in the hands of a former violent felon (IF that is done over there). So safety first for me. What has caused firearm accidents to decline?

The cause of the decrease is not really known but I can tell you that if you take a gun safety course the instructor will be NRA certified.  Contrary to demonization by Eric the Obtuse, the NRA spends most of its time teaching shooting and with that comes safety training.  The NRA has been around since the 1871 and only got into lobbying since the sixties when gun control and bans started coming in.

If you take a course for a concealed weapon permit then it will be taught by an NRA certified instructor.  It should also be noted that women are quite welcome in both the courses and shooting sports.  Having been to some of them I can tell you the women are treated quite well.

Laws in the US are often written to make the exercise of constitutional rights difficult or impossible.  This has been done so often in the last fifty years that the response by default is no.  Another thing that was learned in the seventies and eighties was that no matter how much you gave up the gun ban people would want more and soon there would be nothing left.

Is it compulsory for new gun owners to learn how to wisely use a gun and store a gun away?

Depends on the state.  Generally not because such laws in the end up being used like the poll taxes and literacy requirements were used in southern states to keep blacks from voting.  As the statistics show it isn't the problem that someone like Eric the Obtuse would make it out to be.

Forty years ago the issuing of concealed weapon permits was discretionary on the part of the county sheriff in almost all states and they almost impossible to get.  In California this is still true and it is almost impossible to get a permit.  Best way to get one is to make a sizeable contribution to the Sheriff's re-election campaign.  The majority of states now have non-discretionary permits and the predictions of a bloodbath on the part of gun control advocates never happened.  There are nine states now that require no permit to carry a firearm concealed.

[Galen]

(09-28-2016, 02:02 AM)taramarie Wrote: I do think it would be a wise idea to make it compulsory for new gun owners to be instructed in how to use a gun wisely and store it wisely. Just my safety first belief. I think that is totally corrupt regarding only being able to get a gun by bribing the sheriff as well as not allowing people to defend themselves. It should be a persons right after all. But it should be compulsory to train people correctly. However I am aware that the country is divided so it is not as simple as one law for all like it is here in NZ. I would be interested in what you think could bring down shootings further and what the issues really are.

You are way too trusting where government and its officials are concerned.  Give people power, particularly those that seek it, and it is guaranteed they will misuse it.  The cops used to get away with this kind of crap routinely until cell phones with cameras became common.  Cops do not like to be held accountable and this method of taking revenge is pretty common.

As for accidents, statistically they are so rare as to be practically non-existent and that number seems to get lower over time so it is clear that gun owners are, on the whole, taking responsibility for saftey.  The criminals don't give a shit and no law is going to change that.


As it is currently, giving the government more power is turning out to be more dangerous than doing nothing.  Remember, I have lived in places where entire police departments were corrupt and the problem is either getting worse or technology is making it more apparent.

[Galen]

(09-28-2016, 03:04 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 02:44 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 02:02 AM)taramarie Wrote: I do think it would be a wise idea to make it compulsory for new gun owners to be instructed in how to use a gun wisely and store it wisely. Just my safety first belief. I think that is totally corrupt regarding only being able to get a gun by bribing the sheriff as well as not allowing people to defend themselves. It should be a persons right after all. But it should be compulsory to train people correctly. However I am aware that the country is divided so it is not as simple as one law for all like it is here in NZ. I would be interested in what you think could bring down shootings further and what the issues really are.

You are way too trusting where government and its officials are concerned.  Give people power, particularly those that seek it, and it is guaranteed they will misuse it.  The cops used to get away with this kind of crap routinely until cell phones with cameras became common.  Cops do not like to be held accountable and this method of taking revenge is pretty common.

As for accidents, statistically they are so rare as to be practically non-existent and that number seems to get lower over time so it is clear that gun owners are, on the whole, taking responsibility for saftey.  The criminals don't give a shit and no law is going to change that.


As it is currently, giving the government more power is turning out to be more dangerous than doing nothing.  Remember, I have lived in places where entire police departments were corrupt and the problem is either getting worse or technology is making it more apparent.

It sounds though like you are trusting of the NRA so why not have a common high standard of training and then leave it up to people on whether they live up to those standards. Also teach kids at an early age of the dangers of weapons when misused so they are already aware. A common standard for all or at least where America is concerned state by state (if they choose to). I trust in safety and law that is designed for safety yes because here it has protected me through my youth so why would i think otherwise? Yes I see that people need to protect themselves but I do think people should be trained to be aware it is not a play thing to leave around unattended where little ones can misuse it or themselves doing so.

I do think the use of cameras available everywhere is very beneficial and I do not trust police either. Some are good but you can never tell which ones are. I do think their training procedure needs to be analyzed and I also believe they should be held accountable case by case for when they have used unnecessary force.

I think it is ok if it is for our safety. That is the kind of world i have lived in (us kiwi millennials by the sounds of things have been more protected than American millies on average) and by the govt). I would not go along with giving them more power if it was for something corrupt or too invasive. If it is for our safety I see no harm. Seems to work out well here.

Of course crims will not go by the law. I did address that I was aware of that. I am not talking about them though. Just the average gun owner and the standards they should go by. I see no harm in them taking a simple training session.

I was just stating how it was with the NRA but it doesn't have to be them, there is no legal requirement.  If they didn't then someone else would.  In my case it was my parents that taught me how to use firearms safely.  This is also very common.  Think of it as an example of how a society based on voluntary relationships would work.  It isn't utopia but its probably the best that can be done in a defective universe.

[Galen]

(09-28-2016, 03:19 AM)taramarie Wrote: Well defective maybe in America. Here we have strict laws which most of the time also do work. I feel quite safe here. Different culture and the strict laws tend to keep us safe.

Culture has more to do with it than laws.  If anything more laws tend to destroy the culture.  I suggest reading Our Enemy the State which will give you an idea of the process as it took place in the US even though it can happen anywhere.  Social convention is a surprisingly powerful way for societies to organize themselves.  According to evolution life does this all of the time.

[Galen]

(09-28-2016, 04:17 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 03:58 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 03:19 AM)taramarie Wrote: Well defective maybe in America. Here we have strict laws which most of the time also do work. I feel quite safe here. Different culture and the strict laws tend to keep us safe.

Culture has more to do with it than laws.  If anything more laws tend to destroy the culture.  I suggest reading Our Enemy the State which will give you an idea of the process as it took place in the US even though it can happen anywhere.  Social convention is a surprisingly powerful way for societies to organize themselves.  According to evolution life does this all of the time.

Yes I agree. Thinking about it in my DM to you I realized it is a lot easier to enforce certain laws only if people think and act in a certain way anyway. Our mindset already is not a gun happy one (when compared to America or certain states in America anyway....noting the differences state by state!) Culturally we are friendly if shy and you never really hear of anything to do with guns. It is more of a private thing people have rather than a whole debate on it. I would be amazed if America actually began to have that mindset given 1. each state is different and 2. the history is quite different and 3. the constitution and 4. it is viewed by many as their control of the government and therefore their freedom. We do not have anything in common in that regard. NZ was founded on people looking to start a new life somewhere exotic who were on good terms with mother England. We do not have the same connection with guns and it is not viewed as a necessity. We do not have the division so laws apply to all and it is not separated state by state as we are one nation. I am skeptical about laws destroying a culture. I cannot think of any law here that has done that so far. Maybe in somewhere like America that demands its freedom.

Think of the effect that Prohibition, War on Drugs and Civil Forfeiture have had on attitudes.  They are all recognized as being unjust by very large segments of the population.  They are ignored and evaded as much as possible and that attitude tends to spread to other laws.  The average American commits commit three felonies a day.  When that happens its more a matter of trying to avoid punishment rather than trying to be a law abiding person.

Take a look at the Code of Federal Regulations sometime and its growth and the problem becomes clear.

[Galen]

(09-28-2016, 04:43 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 04:29 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 04:17 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 03:58 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 03:19 AM)taramarie Wrote: Well defective maybe in America. Here we have strict laws which most of the time also do work. I feel quite safe here. Different culture and the strict laws tend to keep us safe.

Culture has more to do with it than laws.  If anything more laws tend to destroy the culture.  I suggest reading Our Enemy the State which will give you an idea of the process as it took place in the US even though it can happen anywhere.  Social convention is a surprisingly powerful way for societies to organize themselves.  According to evolution life does this all of the time.

Yes I agree. Thinking about it in my DM to you I realized it is a lot easier to enforce certain laws only if people think and act in a certain way anyway. Our mindset already is not a gun happy one (when compared to America or certain states in America anyway....noting the differences state by state!) Culturally we are friendly if shy and you never really hear of anything to do with guns. It is more of a private thing people have rather than a whole debate on it. I would be amazed if America actually began to have that mindset given 1. each state is different and 2. the history is quite different and 3. the constitution and 4. it is viewed by many as their control of the government and therefore their freedom. We do not have anything in common in that regard. NZ was founded on people looking to start a new life somewhere exotic who were on good terms with mother England. We do not have the same connection with guns and it is not viewed as a necessity. We do not have the division so laws apply to all and it is not separated state by state as we are one nation. I am skeptical about laws destroying a culture. I cannot think of any law here that has done that so far. Maybe in somewhere like America that demands its freedom.

Think of the effect that Prohibition, War on Drugs and Civil Forfeiture have had on attitudes.  They are all recognized as being unjust by very large segments of the population.  They are ignored and evaded as much as possible and that attitude tends to spread to other laws.  The average American commits commit three felonies a day.  When that happens its more a matter of trying to avoid punishment rather than trying to be a law abiding person.

Take a look at the Code of Federal Regulations sometime and its growth and the problem becomes clear.

Hm I did not know that. The only thing I can think of that is ignored here is the law against drugs like marijuana and P. Those two drugs are quite common here and most people ignore that law. Even i have tried it once (marijuana)....boy that was interesting experience and for some reason hilarious! I would not have thought though that it would lead to other forms of lawlessness. There is an anti child smacking policy here as it is viewed as abuse. Some think it is nonsense and continue to do it anyway. I do think that is an invasive law.

NZ is simply saner than the US at the current time.  Definitely won't improve in the near term.

[Eric the Green]

(09-28-2016, 12:08 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-27-2016, 12:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I am angry about the constant shootings in America. I am grieved for the lives lost and for their families. I am outraged that Americans continue to support permissive gun laws. I am angry that too many police (not all, but some) have no respect for black lives. The shooting of unarmed black men, while white men are not shot, is beyond unjust.

This lady would be dead if she wasn't armed.  This is why people like to keep firearms.  Anyone want to bet these fine upstanding members of the black community are obeying the current gun laws?  Even if they were unarmed I doubt this lady would have lasted very long unarmed against these men.  Truth is, her odds were better with a firearm than they ever would have been without one.  Who knows? Maybe the other two will wise up after seeing the lady plant their buddy in the ground.





You would rather have seen her dead just to feel better and this is why I truly despise you.  Even on the low side of 50,000 defensive uses of firearms means that there are net more people alive because of private firearms ownership.  The numbers are probably much higher since nobody really wants to deal with law enforcement, who are overly militarized, if they can avoid it.  The Hemenway  and the Violence Policy surveys were done by people with an ax to grind and their methodology was a joke.

What I despise is the permissive gun laws that you libertarians foist upon our country, allowing thousands to be shot that otherwise would not have been shot. Criminals and insane people are not the folks who very rarely defend themselves successfully with firearms against intruders. And certainly the myth that people with firearms can protect themselves against the police is unadulterated bullshit. Just ask the Black Panthers after they received the results of their approach. No, the fact is that firearms in this country kill far more people than they protect.

If people who are qualified to have non-military firearms still want them, then folks like me whom you despise are not going to take them from you. We are only going to take them away from folks who are not qualified, until such time as deceived and fearful folks like you can learn that firearms possession is just the rankest form of violation of the "non-aggression" principle that you libertarians tout so loudly. It is up to the people to disarm themselves, and thus protect themselves and be "sane." And that's the trend indeed. More firearms are being owned by fewer and fewer people.

Black lives matter. African Americans need to act to protect themselves from the police. Guns, riots and armed individuals shooting police are not the answer, however. Politics and activism are the answer. The police must be demilitarized, and police must be trained to respect black lives and not react with fear against black people, or any people. Those who don't, should be fired, and city officials who protect them need to be voted out. Police review boards need to be in place, and relations between public and police need to be improved. Racial profiling and stop-and-frisk have no place in the USA. The criminal justice system needs to be reformed so innocent people are not so-frequently arrested and convicted, and those convicted are not given sentences that don't fit the crime. The war on drugs as we have waged it needs to end. Police and the law need to be respected, and police need to respect the law and the people.

[Eric the Green]

From the Brady Campaign:

On June 12th, I went to Pulse nightclub in Orlando expecting a fun night out dancing with a friend. Instead the night turned deadly. I was shot multiple times. To stay alive, I pretended to be dead. Forty-nine others weren't so lucky.

I have a lot of physical therapy ahead of me before I can get back to my favorite pastime -- Zumba dancing. And I'll never forget how my life changed that night because of a man with hate in his heart. But I'm a survivor. That's why my friends call me #AngelStrong.

Today I'm in Washington, DC with my mom Mirta to share my story with members of Congress, and ask them to help me #DisarmHate. Many of them have already signed onto legislation that will help keep guns out of dangerous hands including expanding Brady background checks to all gun sales to prevent tragedies like the one in Orlando. But Senator Marco Rubio is holding out on us.

Please help me by calling him today. Ask him to help us stop the next tragedy before it happens. Tell him we need him on our side and ask him to cosponsor S. 2934 to expand Brady background checks to all gun sales.

Thank you,

Angel Colon

[Bob Butler 54]

Somewhere way back in the bowels of this thread, there was an exchange of opinions on a group of Sandy Hook parents suing Remington.  There is a federal law making such suits difficult, explicitly saying you can't sue a gun manufacturer for the results of a criminal act.  This is the PLCAA, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.  I tried to find the earlier posts, but they seem to be well buried.

At any rate, the judge has ruled in favor of Remington, and the Sandy Hook people have appealed.  Story here.

(I tried a search of this forum for PLCAA. Apparently the speed of the litigation is so slow that the earlier posts were on the old forum.)

[Anthony '58]

Both sides are exploiting this issue disgracefully and insensitively - the left with its "Did A Gun Save Her?" headline supplied to us by the notoriously anti-Second Amendment New York Daily News yesterday regarding the murder of Tyson Gay's daughter in Lexington, KY, and the right with its constant references to "Chicago" which reek of the worst sort of hypocrisy: They exalt "masculinity" when white men (like Donald Trump) show it, but when black men do - by refusing to forgive those who wrong them, which is the motive for like 99.9% of these "shootings in Chicago" - they are reviled in the sharpest and most stereotypical possible terms.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-18-2016, 12:16 PM)Anthony Wrote: Both sides are exploiting this issue disgracefully and insensitively - the left with its "Did A Gun Save Her?" headline supplied to us by the notoriously anti-Second Amendment New York Daily News yesterday regarding the murder of Tyson Gay's daughter in Lexington, KY, and the right with its constant references to "Chicago" which reek of the worst sort of hypocrisy: They exalt "masculinity" when white men (like Donald Trump) show it, but when black men do - by refusing to forgive those who wrong them, which is the motive for like 99.9% of these "shootings in Chicago" - they are reviled in the sharpest and most stereotypical possible terms.

Hillary's positions, which she repeated again tonight, is 'close the loopholes'.  She is not against a right to own and carry weapons.  There are some regulations that would increase safety and attempt to keep weapons out of the hands of deplorables.  Even Eric and I agree on certain steps, and she favors much the same steps.

I thought both candidates strolled way away from the truth in the third debate.  Hiller wasn't about child safety.  It was about a Washington DC law that essentially prevented anyone in Washington DC from owning or carrying weapons.  The intent was to establish an individual right, not to ban child safety locks.  I thought Hillary badly mischaracterized the case.

On the other hand Trump badly represented Hillary's position, painting her as an all in prohibitionist, which she is not.

A hot issue.  Yes, there are folks on both sides who will inflame and divide given any opportunity.

[Eric the Green]

[Ragnarök_62]

(10-22-2016, 01:13 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/14695349_1194530080603325_8289005467967753102_n.jpg?oh=1a346550aae16b76c579144d8bd7fd3d&oe=58A8ADCA

fbcdn? 

/etc/hosts

....


# [Facebook]
0.0.0.0 creative.ak.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 creative.ak.fbcdn.net #[textads]
# [Facebook][AS32934][31.13.71.0 - 31.13.71.255]
0.0.0.0 cx.atdmt.com
0.0.0.0 cdn.atlassbx.com
0.0.0.0 pixel.facebook.com
...


Fuckfuck sux, man.   It's a spy site for spooks and a huge repository of tawdry tales!

[Eric the Green]

That's OK, Rags, I know you're worried about goons taking away your guns, but you have my encouragement to come out and vote for Stein.