Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[chicago51]

woolybug, your comrade was the one who brought up race -- he said we'd better watch out because all the hispanics are going to turn Texas liberal.

Yea I'm the one who said that. I'm impressed with the fire I started. By the way I was not implying anyone on this board to be a racist. I was pointing out a demographic trend.

 

[Opus]

It's simple. The NRA was all up in arms (no pun intended) when the assault rifle legislation went into effect. This was the "give up an inch and we give up a mile" mentality, yet the legislation was allowed to expire. Not only did the NRA not give up a mile, but they got their inch back.

Well since the NRA was against the assault weapons ban and it was enacted anyway it would appear that the NRA did give up at least an inch. And, yes the ban expired in 2004 and was not renewed so the NRA got their inch back as you say. But now the gun control crowd is back and guess what, they want more this time. Not only are they after assault rifles but it's also certain shotguns and handguns.

Senator Feinstein has already stated that her new weapons ban proposal includes certain shotguns and handguns. The President has publicly indicated that he is in favor of her proposal. Yet in every gun control speech since the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook the only thing they talk about banning are assault rifles. If the average person is not paying close attention to the situation I'm sure their response will be "why yes, we need to ban assault rifles" not knowing that other non-assault weapons are being included in the ban. To me this tactic is very deceptive and this is the major problem I have with the gun control crowd.

I'm in favor of stricter background checks before any gun can be purchased. I'm also in favor of making every person wanting to buy a gun take and pass a fundamental weapons training class to include range time to indicate proficiency in handling the weapon. And I'm sure that every law abiding citizen would comply, however that is not going to stop the criminal element from getting guns. Sure they won't be able to buy them from a gun store but that won't stop someone that is determined to get a gun to use in a crime. And the majority of criminals aren't buying their guns from gun stores to begin with.

 

[GoIrish41]

You invoke emotion into every one of your argument. All our hearts go out to the families and no one wants this to happen again. But saying "we're asking for it" if we don't agree with the 6 or 7 new "rules" that would make you feel better is garbage.

It's all emotion: we have to do this (exhibit A) or consequence (b) will happen!!!! Now get on board!!!! or you want more kids to die!

Our objective here is that we can't prevent EVERYTHING from happening in this world when it comes to evil. Certain measures are on the table (assault weapons, harsher penalties, etc) but taking away the rights of millions because of the acts of so few is irresponsible, immoral, and in some cases waht you describe...illegal.

Maybe I'm just an emotional guy, lol. Seriously, sorry you are put off by the way I express myself but you are kinda stuck with it unless you just stop reading my posts, which is perfectly fine with me.

But, there you go again, saying I said that you are "asking for it" if you don't agree with my 6 or 7 suggestions. You know that is not what I said. I did, in fact, say that doing nothing is "asking for it," which has been proven over and over and over again as one of these mass shootings happens. Sorry if pointing out that 13 mass shootings in this country in 2012 is me just being emotional.

Agree, we cannot wipe evil off the face of the earth. We can take the tools away from those who would use them for evil. I'm not a congressional attorney, but I'm pretty sure you don't get to decide what is on the table and what isn't.

 

[Irish#1]

Come on IP, that's not what everyone is saying. The vast majority aren't for taking guns away, only putting in measures that restrict the sale of certain guns like an assault rifle and implementing laws that make it harder to get a gun. Normal law abiding citizens like you would still be able to get guns if you wanted to.

Not being a smart a$$, but for all of the pro gunners on here that think it's wrong to take away some guns and make the laws more restricitve. What is your answer to curbing the violence? What other item that is easy to carry, hide and use is used to commit crimes as often as a gun?

P.S. I'm a conservative.

Still waiting.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Yea I'm the one who said that. I'm impressed with the fire I started. By the way I was not implying anyone on this board to be a racist. I was pointing out a demographic trend.

Well you are right, as a factual matter...but as you've seen, mentioning race around here is like chumming the waters...A lot of splashing and none of it's pretty.

 

[chicago51]

I feel that corporations and/or organizations like the NRA should not be allowed buy elections. Regardless of your view point on guns and other issues you should not want elections to be brought by corporations. Unfortunately the Supreme Court said corporations are people 5-4 and can buy elections. So the only way to fix that is to amend the constition.

I encourage folks to check out the bipartison site https://movetoamend.org/ if don't want your politicians bought and paid for by corporations.

You don't have to get involve with the movement but you can just sign the petition if you want.
Move to Amend

 

[Irish#1]

Well since the NRA was against the assault weapons ban and it was enacted anyway it would appear that the NRA did give up at least an inch. And, yes the ban expired in 2004 and was not renewed so the NRA got their inch back as you say. But now the gun control crowd is back and guess what, they want more this time. Not only are they after assault rifles but it's also certain shotguns and handguns.

Senator Feinstein has already stated that her new weapons ban proposal includes certain shotguns and handguns. The President has publicly indicated that he is in favor of her proposal. Yet in every gun control speech since the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook the only thing they talk about banning are assault rifles. If the average person is not paying close attention to the situation I'm sure their response will be "why yes, we need to ban assault rifles" not knowing that other non-assault weapons are being included in the ban. To me this tactic is very deceptive and this is the major problem I have with the gun control crowd.

I'm in favor of stricter background checks before any gun can be purchased. I'm also in favor of making every person wanting to buy a gun take and pass a fundamental weapons training class to include range time to indicate proficiency in handling the weapon. And I'm sure that every law abiding citizen would comply, however that is not going to stop the criminal element from getting guns. Sure they won't be able to buy them from a gun store but that won't stop someone that is determined to get a gun to use in a crime. And the majority of criminals aren't buying their guns from gun stores to begin with.

I would be opposed to restricting shotguns because it is one of the bread and buitter weapons used for hunting. A handgun that can be fired almost like an automatic weapon? I can't see a real purpose for it.

Remember, gun control means using both hands, so you should be able to hit your target without spraying rounds all over the place when that intruder gets in your house.

 

[NDFan4Life]

To Stop Shootings, Americans Focus on Police, Mental Health

Democrats substantially more likely to see assault gun ban as effective

by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans are most likely to say that an increased police presence at schools, increased government spending on mental health screening and treatment, and decreased depiction of gun violence in entertainment venues would be effective in preventing mass shootings at schools. Americans rate the potential effectiveness of a ban on assault and semi-automatic guns as fourth on a list of six actions Gallup asked about.

The tragic shooting deaths of 20 school children and six adults at Newtown, Conn., on Friday has left elected officials, leaders, and average citizens highly focused on what could be done to prevent such shootings in the future.

A question included in Gallup Daily tracking on Dec. 18 listed six possible preventative actions. Respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of each in terms of "preventing mass shootings at schools, like the one that occurred in Connecticut last week."

Much of the discussion since Friday's devastating mass shooting has focused on the potential efficacy of new laws on gun sales and ownership. Forty-two percent of Americans say that banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons would be "very effective" in preventing mass shootings. Another 21% say such actions would be "somewhat effective," and 36% say they would be "not effective."



Americans rated the effectiveness of three potential actions higher than the semi-automatic weapon ban. But it is clear that Americans are not overwhelmingly convinced that any of the actions would be highly effective in preventing future school shootings.

• Slightly more than half (53%) of Americans say that increased police presence would be very effective. This action is at the top of the effectiveness list.
• The only other action that a majority of Americans view as very effective is government spending on mental health screening and treatment -- 50% say this would be very effective.
• Forty-seven percent say decreasing media and video game gun violence would be very effective.

Americans were least likely to say that arming at least one school official at every school and the news media refusing to publicize the name of the shooter would be very effective strategies.

Democrats Most in Favor of More Mental Health Spending, Assault Gun Ban
There are major partisan differences in the ratings of several -- but not all -- of the potential actions tested.

The biggest differences between Democrats and Republicans are on the banning of assault weapons -- 61% of Democrats rate it as very effective vs. 26% of Republicans -- and spending more on mental health actions -- 67% of Democrats say it would be very effective vs. 35% of Republicans.

Democrats are less positive than Republicans about the effectiveness of arming school officials and decreasing the depiction of gun violence in the media and in video games.

There is little difference in attitudes across party lines in views of two of the actions tested: a refusal by the news media not to publicize the name of the shooters in these incidents and an increased police presence at schools.

Bottom Line
Americans don't hold the belief that any one action -- at least out of the six tested in this research -- would be overwhelmingly effective in preventing future mass shootings at schools. At most, 53% say that an increased police presence at schools would be very effective; leaving almost half who say that such an action would be somewhat or not at all effective.

The focus since the Newtown shootings has been primarily on new gun laws. Various U.S. representatives and senators have either introduced or have promised to introduce new gun control legislation over the past several days. President Barack Obama has talked about new gun laws, and his appointment of Vice President Joe Biden to head up the White House task force to reduce gun violence will no doubt focus heavily on gun legislation. Many Americans, however, apparently continue to harbor doubts that laws, such as a ban on semi-automatic weapons, would be highly effective in preventing future mass shootings at schools.

Gallup polling conducted after previous high-profile incidents of gun-related mass shootings has shown similar attitudes in relationship to gun control. Open-ended questions asked after the tragic incidents at Virginia Tech and in Tucson, Ariz., found that respondents were more likely to suggest means of preventing these shootings that did not involve gun control than to mention preventative steps that did involve gun control.

More recently, a CBS News poll conducted after Friday's shootings found that only 26% of Americans said that stricter gun laws would have done a lot to prevent the Newtown shootings. Half said stricter laws would have had no effect.

Gallup is updating its long-term trends on gun control and will report the results next week. It is likely that support for stricter gun laws will go up. Whether or not this public support stays higher will not be evident until months have passed. The horrific nature of this latest mass shooting, however, and the fact that it involved young children, could mean that the Newtown shootings will serve as a tipping point in Americans' attitudes on preventing gun violence not seen after previous incidents.

Survey Methods Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Dec. 18, 2012, on the Gallup Daily tracking survey, with a random sample of 1,009 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cellphone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cellphone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, population density, and phone status (cellphone only/landline only/both, cellphone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2011 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days.

To Stop Shootings, Americans Focus on Police, Mental Health

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I feel that corporations and/or organizations like the NRA should not be allowed buy elections. Regardless of your view point on guns and other issues you should not want elections to be brought by corporations. Unfortunately the Supreme Court said corporations are people 5-4 and can buy elections. So the only way to fix that is to amend the constition.

I encourage folks to check out the bipartison site https://movetoamend.org/ if don't want your politicians bought and paid for by corporations.

You don't have to get involve with the movement but you can just sign the petition if you want.
Move to Amend

I agree that "big-money" may not be ideal, but what about non-profit corporations, foundations, newspapers, and media companies?

Surely we aren't saying there should be a limit on how much organizations such as these can spend on issue-advocacy, right?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Maybe I'm just an emotional guy, lol. Seriously, sorry you are put off by the way I express myself but you are kinda stuck with it unless you just stop reading my posts, which is perfectly fine with me.

But, there you go again, saying I said that you are "asking for it" if you don't agree with my 6 or 7 suggestions. You know that is not what I said. I did, in fact, say that doing nothing is "asking for it," which has been proven over and over and over again as one of these mass shootings happens. Sorry if pointing out that 13 mass shootings in this country in 2012 is me just being emotional.

Agree, we cannot wipe evil off the face of the earth. We can take the tools away from those who would use them for evil. I'm not a congressional attorney, but I'm pretty sure you don't get to decide what is on the table and what isn't.

I said specifically that full background checks, mental heath records, assault weapons should all be worth talking about and are common sense approaches. As for doing background checks of an entire family based on one person's purchase of a gun would be shot down easily in court, as would blaming one individual for a crime if their weapon is stolen and used to commit a crime. These aren't just idiotic. They're illegal.

Don't apologize for bringing up your ideas about stopping mass shootings. Apologize to the millions of law abiding citizens like many on here who own weapons for home defense, whose rights you would gladly take away because of a few psychopaths. That deserves an apology because it's a selfish point of view on your end and it wouldn't even accomplish what you wish it would. Doing all that would make you feel better.

The hundreds of thousands who die of heart disease and liver cancer/ DUI's in this country every year disturbs me, but I'm not running around with my hair on fire screaming for all fast food joints to be closed and alcohol to be banned, am I?

P.S. Still not telling you or Phork where I keep my weapon or giving you guys a "good reason" of why I need it.

 

[Irish#1]

I said specifically that full background checks, mental heath records, assault weapons should all be worth talking about and are common sense approaches. As for doing background checks of an entire family based on one person's purchase of a gun would be shot down easily in court, as would blaming one individual for a crime if their weapon is stolen and used to commit a crime. These aren't just idiotic. They're illegal.

Don't apologize for bringing up your ideas about stopping mass shootings. Apologize to the millions of law abiding citizens like many on here who own weapons for home defense, whose rights you would gladly take away because of a few psychopaths. That deserves an apology because it's a selfish point of view on your end and it wouldn't even accomplish what you wish it would. Doing all that would make you feel better.

The hundreds of thousands who die of heart disease and liver cancer/ DUI's in this country every year disturbs me, but I'm not running around with my hair on fire screaming for all fast food joints to be closed and alcohol to be banned, am I?

P.S. Still not telling you or Phork where I keep my weapon or giving you guys a "good reason" of why I need it.

This is the same tired mantra argued over and over. No one is saying to take everyones guns away. Only to take steps whether it be mental health checks along with tighter legislation, etc.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Houstonian
woolybug, your comrade was the one who brought up race -- he said we'd better watch out because all the hispanics are going to turn Texas liberal.

Yea I'm the one who said that. I'm impressed with the fire I started. By the way I was not implying anyone on this board to be a racist. I was pointing out a demographic trend.

Actually, with the way that all establishment politicans are playing it, everybody will become a (Texas or other state) Liberal.

 

[chicago51]

This is the same tired mantra argued over and over. No one is saying to take everyones guns away. Only to take steps whether it be mental health checks along with tighter legislation, etc.

This^ Reps^

 

[Irish Houstonian]

But is anyone actually proposing something that would have stopped this CT shooter?

Or are we just using the event to argue for banning stuff we didn't like in the first place?

 

[chicago51]

But is anyone actually proposing something that would have stopped this CT shooter?

Or are we just using the event to argue for banning stuff we didn't like in the first place?

If the CT shooter didn't have a gun available then he wouldn't the CT shooter.

CT shooter - guns = CT strangler?. Whatever he is it is alot less daughting than the CT shooter.

 

[GoIrish41]

If the CT shooter didn't have a gun available then he wouldn't the CT shooter.

CT shooter - guns = CT strangler?. Whatever he is it is alot less daughting than the CT shooter.

exactly.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

If the CT shooter didn't have a gun available then he wouldn't the CT shooter.

CT shooter - guns = CT strangler?. Whatever he is it is alot less daughting than the CT shooter.

Ok...but what are you proposing that would have kept a gun out of his hands? His mom owned them legally, he had no history of diagnosed mental illness, he didn't own any of the guns, he was 18 years old...

 

[Bogtrotter07]

This is the same tired mantra argued over and over. No one is saying to take everyones guns away. Only to take steps whether it be mental health checks along with tighter legislation, etc.

Here is the deal. The biggest merchants hire "dividers." They have been doing it since the Civil War. Dividers are agents who find issues and play them up. It isn't hard because most people are not as smart as suggestible. Because these people know that human nature dictates that a certain number of people will come down on either side of an issue. They can message things a bit, with spin, or popular movements, (Tea Party a good but failing example.)

Personal rights, Civil liberties, etc., Since everybody knows that every set of rights has a corresponding cost somewhere else, talking about "guaranteed rights," is just a machine to pi$$ somebody (group) off. Of course, once you pi$$ one group off they engage a group they don't like, and so on and so forth.

You see it is pretty simple. I have studied this for about thirty years now. If you follow the actual words of Jesus Christ, regardless of what you believe, you have an excellent code for living your life. And a lot of these problems fade away. Protecting our children is the right thing to do. If we all have to give up some of what we perceive as personal rights, so be it!

Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. Voltaire

In this case the absurdity is that we can actually stave off the dragon, with our little peashooters. The injustice is obvious, it is represented by empty beds, unopened Christmas presents, and sobbing and wailing into the night.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Ok...but what are you proposing that would have kept a gun out of his hands? His mom owned them legally, he had no history of diagnosed mental illness, he didn't own any of the guns, he was 18 years old...

Yes he did:

It’s not clear if he had Asperger’s syndrome or a personality disorder such as schizoid personality disorder. Both have problems with social interaction, making friends, and the latter can be connected to schizophrenia. Adam’s brother, Ryan, describes him as having a personality disorder.

This above was from five days ago, there are many more recent including reports quoting one trained professional who stated that Adam had congenital analgesia, which should have set off sirens, but didn't.

 

[irishpat183]

Yea I'm the one who said that. I'm impressed with the fire I started. By the way I was not implying anyone on this board to be a racist. I was pointing out a demographic trend.

Yeah, we know. I was trying to have a good tussle in regards to your black GOP comment but Wooly chimed in with his comments.

Nothign against you.

 

[GoIrish41]

I said specifically that full background checks, mental heath records, assault weapons should all be worth talking about and are common sense approaches. As for doing background checks of an entire family based on one person's purchase of a gun would be shot down easily in court, as would blaming one individual for a crime if their weapon is stolen and used to commit a crime. These aren't just idiotic. They're illegal.

Don't apologize for bringing up your ideas about stopping mass shootings. Apologize to the millions of law abiding citizens like many on here who own weapons for home defense, whose rights you would gladly take away because of a few psychopaths. That deserves an apology because it's a selfish point of view on your end and it wouldn't even accomplish what you wish it would. Doing all that would make you feel better.

The hundreds of thousands who die of heart disease and liver cancer/ DUI's in this country every year disturbs me, but I'm not running around with my hair on fire screaming for all fast food joints to be closed and alcohol to be banned, am I?

P.S. Still not telling you or Phork where I keep my weapon or giving you guys a "good reason" of why I need it.

I argue for changing a law to be something different than it is now -- family background checks, and owners having responsibility for his gun being used in a crime -- and you say they are illegal. This is why I get so frustrated with you Leppy. If the law was changed it would no longer be illegal. You also argue that these ideas would be shot down in court, presumably based on the law, which I'm suggesting should change. Your arguments are nonsensical. I invited you to take a look at this website (http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/major-shootings.pdf) which lists the mass shootings since 2005. It is hard for me to understand how anyone can believe that their right to gun ownership is more important than that hundreds of lives lost since 2005.

When the founding fathers put the right to bear arms in the constitution, they used muskets and had to pour powder down the barrel, then drop in a projectile, and then use a rod to pack the whole mixture in place before they could fire it. If the right to bear arms means that anyone can have a musket, then I'm all for it. I'm pretty sure some of those people would have made it out of the theater before being shot if that is what the shooter had available to him. Since that is/was not the case, an exploration of sensible gun laws to reduce the number and severity of these horrific acts is in order -- no matter how much gun owners get their feelings hurt.

 

[irishpat183]

Still waiting.

Try a facelift to our mindset.

People need to change. How we do that? I'm not sure. But slamming this kinda stuff in our face 24/7 can't be helping. How about media get their facts straight and stop glamorizing this stuff.

 

[irishpat183]

Yes he did:

This above was from five days ago, there are many more recent including reports quoting one trained professional who stated that Adam had congenital analgesia, which should have set off sirens, but didn't.

Sorry, but "having problems with social interaction" isn't a mental disorder. Come on. And glad to see that his brother is the expert quote on this...


Nothing says that he was diagnosed with anything.


And Asperger's doesn't cause this kind of behaivor. Schiozid, yeah, but Asperger is a stretch.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Yes he did:

This above was from five days ago, there are many more recent including reports quoting one trained professional who stated that Adam had congenital analgesia, which should have set off sirens, but didn't.

Neither Aspergers, nor congential analgesia are mental illnesses. So there's "should have known he was crazy" versus "let's draft a law that keeps guns out of the hand of autistics".

And again, he didn't even try and purchase them to begin with -- they were his mom's.

So when I ask "would any of these proposals have prevented the CT shooting?" I guess the answer is no.

 

[irishpat183]

If the CT shooter didn't have a gun available then he wouldn't the CT shooter.

CT shooter - guns = CT strangler?. Whatever he is it is alot less daughting than the CT shooter.

You could apply this to anything.

Again, what do you say to the guy that owns an AR that has been a model citizen (a vet, perhaps) about taking that gun away?

 

[irishpat183]

Neither Asbergers, nor congential analgesia are mental illnesses. So there's "should have known he was crazy" versus "let's draft a law that keeps guns out of the hand of autistics".

And again, he didn't even try and purchase them to begin with -- they were his mom's.

So when I ask "would any of these proposals have prevented the CT shooting?" I guess the answer is no.

It's most definately, no

 

[Irish Houstonian]

One thing I do wonder: if ESPN is smart enough not to show streakers, why can't the media get on board not to publicize mass murderers?

We've basically handed every psycho a playbook to infamy with all this news coverage of the killer.

 

[Downinthebend]

Yes that is what I'm saying. Because the consequences of those few idiots are so devestating and cause so much fear in the rest of the population, people need to understand that their "rights" are not as important as the whole of society. And the "few" doesn't seem like a "few" anymore. It seems like this sort of thing is happening with some degree of regularity. There have been dozens of these events since the Columbine incident and a lot of innocent people have been killed for no good reason. Do you honestly believe that an individual's right to own a gun is a bigger issue than this?

Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A choice quote from there.
" No claim is made that he is not loyal to this country. There is no suggestion that apart from the matter involved here he is not law abiding and well disposed."

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Both of your statements were selective and therefore seem generally invalid. You seem to have no clue about getting a child diagnosed, (or even a young adult), nor do you have any idea about HIPPA, because we will never know what his medical diagnosis is. Cannot be disclosed by law. Finally, in this world of pop psychology, most people have no idea of the difference between behavioral and personality disorders.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Here is the salient point. There is no connection between that and purchasing guns. There should be. To move it beyond HIPPA. To move it from suspected personality disorder to gun use ban. It could be simple as pie. In the 1920's and 30's drivers and passengers were mangled from relatively low impact accidents. Then research was gathered and over the intervening years was used to make cars safer, from safety glass to seatbelts. In the 1950's and 60's if you had this terrible newly discovered disease, diabetes, you were going to die, then we learned about it and began to treat it. Now it is relatively survivable.

Gun violence is the only topic the CDC is banned from researching, by law. Gun violence statistics are the only crimes compiled by the FBI or ATF that are not allowed to be reported by law.

Your points fall short, are insensitive, and disingenuous.