Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 76 of 310 (669034)
07-26-2012 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by dronestar
07-26-2012 1:26 PM


Re: Inclusive
huh?
There are tens of millions of americans who are anxiously and joyfully waiting to vote for a president who gives a weekly go-ahead to assassinate nearly random people (including fellow americans).
A go ahead to assassinate nearly random people?
Do you have any support for that assertion?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2012 1:26 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2012 1:55 PM jar has replied
 Message 81 by xongsmith, posted 07-26-2012 2:47 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 77 of 310 (669035)
07-26-2012 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by jar
07-26-2012 1:33 PM


Re: Inclusive
jarbinks writes:
Do you have any support for that assertion?
No, but when Obama shares his secret criteria used for selecting his targets of assassination, I'll make sure I share it with you.
Until then, we'll need to adopt Britney Spears' mindset:
quote:
Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.
Edited by dronester, : completed Britney's incomplete quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 07-26-2012 1:33 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 07-26-2012 2:02 PM dronestar has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 78 of 310 (669036)
07-26-2012 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by onifre
07-26-2012 1:11 PM


Re: Inclusive
The fact that most aren't police officers or former military (and only current former military.)
I think you're overestimating how much training we're talking about. Believe it or not, police and military officers in training aren't studying gunplay 24-7. It's not actually that hard to use a firearm and the principles of its safe operation are not complicated. My wife holds the rank of Captain in the US Army, and her firearm training was two days out of two and a half months.
We're actually thinking of getting a gun, just so she can practice - she's got zero gun background, so qualifying has been an issue for her. She needs a lot more practice than the Army is able to afford her.
But I do recognize and value proper gun ownership.
Well, that's good.
I'd rather promote norms of proper gun ownership, than have weapons be viewed as something that it is inherently illegitimate to own and therefore, like the UK, have their possession relegated only to criminals. Particularly since we can't have gun bans here due to the Second Amendment.
You'll get no argument from me that owning a gun should come with a requirement that one be trained with it. I've already put forward a proposal for a magazine ban, which I believe doesn't infringe on Second Amendment rights. I think there's very reasonable gun control steps that could be, and need to be, taken. And I certainly find much fault with organizations like the NRA that do much to feed "gun-nut" paranoia and obstruct reasonable efforts to regulate gun ownership. I'm sorry if it feels like I've taken their side - that's unintentional, it's just nobody's staked out the NRA's position in these threads for me to argue with. I'm sure from where you are on the spectrum, it looks like I'm over on the NRA's side. But I'm not. As I said I don't even own a gun.
The point is civilians are not trained at, nor should they be allowed to, know when a situation warrents deadly force or not.
Oni, there's no "training" for that. The training that police and military personnel get is how to shoot what you're aiming at, how to keep the gun clean, under what circumstances you can be armed etc. That's all the training my wife received that had to do with firearms. There's no point in the training where they say "ok, these are the guys you need to shoot; these are the guys who look like they need to be shot but shouldn't be." There's no training for that - you have to use your own inherent judgement. There's no training in the world that will tell you whether the unfamiliar shadow in your living room is your son or an armed robber - that's something you have to determine yourself in that situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by onifre, posted 07-26-2012 1:11 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Modulous, posted 07-26-2012 3:19 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 86 by onifre, posted 07-26-2012 4:53 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 109 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2012 8:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 79 of 310 (669037)
07-26-2012 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by dronestar
07-26-2012 1:55 PM


Re: Inclusive
Okay, so once again it is just you making unsupported and by your own admission false, assertions.
Got it.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2012 1:55 PM dronestar has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 80 of 310 (669041)
07-26-2012 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Briterican
07-26-2012 12:01 PM


Re: Inclusive
I hope if you read any part of this post, it will be this part, where I apologise for accusations of a "pro-violence" attitude towards any of you. It's a passionate topic, but that was out of line. Clearly none of you approves of what happened in Colorado.
Of course not. But I think you've apologized a bit too much.
My experience is that gun advocates and gun control advocates as a group don't listen too each other very well, which results in each side coming of as entirely condescending and unreasonable to the other side. And their are nuts on each side.
Yes it is true that the US constitution strongly protects gun ownership, but it is also the case that none of the rights in the constitution are absolute, and under a strict scrutiny review, guns can be controlled at some level given a "compelling" state purpose. It is certainly the case that some of the controls I'd favor, namely the DC laws that were overturned, are clearly beyond the pale, but I doubt that NYs relatively tough laws are going down. Sometimes, gun advocates, in celebrating DC v Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
It is also the case that prior to DC v. Heller, the SC had not previously recognized a strong personal right that is currently the result of a 5-4 decision. While I don't believe that the SC would be likely to overturn that decision any time soon, regardless of how the make up changes, the make up of the court will make a huge difference in what constitutes a "compelling case" and what types of controls are allowable.
As a last point, I think that people in and outside of the US who find the armed rebellion motivation for the second amendment alarming aren't just softies who don't understand America. We've already had an armed rebellion against the US that began chiefly because one side did not like the outcome of the election in 1860.
Yesterday I listened to an advocate from GRNC which calls itself "North Carolina's Only 'No Compromise' Gun Rights Organization" explain that the real tragedy in Aurora Colorado was that the movie theatre was a gun free zone so that nobody in the smoke and dark could return fire. There is a group of people to whom that reasoning make sense, and a separate group of people who are utterly appalled. There is no shame in being in the latter group.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Briterican, posted 07-26-2012 12:01 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 07-26-2012 3:01 PM NoNukes has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 81 of 310 (669042)
07-26-2012 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by jar
07-26-2012 1:33 PM


Re: Inclusive
Do you have any support for that assertion?
Jar . . . gonzo journalism has its own value. See Hunter S. Thompson's body of work.
The Dronester was in good form there.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 07-26-2012 1:33 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 82 of 310 (669044)
07-26-2012 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by NoNukes
07-26-2012 2:45 PM


Re: Inclusive
NoNukes writes:
We've already had an armed rebellion against the US that began chiefly because one side did not like the outcome of the election in 1860.
As I understand it, political dissatisfaction became a CIvil War because of state-controlled militias seizing arms from Federal arsenals; it had little to do with privately owned weapons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by NoNukes, posted 07-26-2012 2:45 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by NoNukes, posted 07-27-2012 9:33 AM ringo has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 83 of 310 (669046)
07-26-2012 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by crashfrog
07-26-2012 10:46 AM


Re: Us poor scared people
Briterican writes:
Is it really necessary to say why?
Only if you want me to believe it's something other than fear.
Let's be fair to Briterican; he's also against gun ownership because it makes him 'sick'. (Message 21)
All valid reasons, of course...

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 10:46 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(4)
Message 84 of 310 (669047)
07-26-2012 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by crashfrog
07-26-2012 1:57 PM


Re: Inclusive
I'd rather promote norms of proper gun ownership, than have weapons be viewed as something that it is inherently illegitimate to own and therefore, like the UK, have their possession relegated only to criminals.
And hunters and farmers and recreational shooters and groundskeepers and pest exterminators and collectors...
Of course, since basically nobody carries firearms around with them, almost all criminals don't either as they are usually unnecessary and there is a high risk if caught with one. Of course, there are still plenty of guns in criminal use here in Britain but
quote:
In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants
Guns simply aren't the weapon of choice for murder here, so there's less incentive to arm one's self with one. In the US, for comparison, the value was 3.0 per 100,000.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 1:57 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 85 of 310 (669048)
07-26-2012 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ScientificBob
07-26-2012 8:32 AM


ScientificBob writes:
Are any of your surprised at the level of violence and murder with firearms in the US, vastly outperforming any other first world country?
To be quite honest, yes, I am. There seems to be something in the American culture that makes them more violent than other cultures. For again, I'd like to point to Switzerland, where there are estimates of 1.2 million to 3 million guns being in circulation on a populace of 8 million people. Yet somehow, the Swiss don't have incidents like this. There must be an explanation for this, yet I can't think of any.
Now, one could ask: for such a violent nation, should guns be so readily available? Sadly, the answer eludes me at the time.
I think that at the VERY LEAST, there should be a clear line between defensive weapons and assault/war weapons. Be serious, no civilian needs a Rambo-sized gun.
Tell that to the Swiss.
Frankly, I think it's sickening. Getting a hold of massive weaponry in the US is FAR to easy.
It's even easier in Switzerland. You're given a gun upon completion of your mandatory training in the militia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ScientificBob, posted 07-26-2012 8:32 AM ScientificBob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Jon, posted 07-26-2012 4:59 PM Huntard has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 86 of 310 (669053)
07-26-2012 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by crashfrog
07-26-2012 1:57 PM


Re: Inclusive
I think you're overestimating how much training we're talking about. Believe it or not, police and military officers in training aren't studying gunplay 24-7.
Well that's why I said I don't want an armed police force either, except for special units like SWAT or DEA.
Military officers in training is not what I think you meant to write. Some college graduate in Officer training school is NOT someone I trust with a weapon either.
But having myself served in the Marine's Corp, I can tell you we get extensive training in boot camp with the M-16 in a variety of combat situations, and once you're in the fleet you get as much training as you want with other weapons. ANd even then, the experience to remain calm and fully control a situation comes through years of training and applying what is learned in combat.
I'd say a soldier serving in the militaryis pretty well versed in marksmanship, both with small arms and larger weapons, and is trained and has (these days) experienced high pressured situations. Them I trust. You, your wife or the avergae civilian I do not.
The training that police - get
I do not support an armed police force either.
...military personnel get is how to shoot what you're aiming at, how to keep the gun clean, under what circumstances you can be armed etc.
You're talking without knowledge again, crash. I've been in boot camp, a freshly graduated Marine recruit knows more about weapons and is well trained in combat situations, more so than you or your wife will ever be. And that's just a graduate.
There's no training in the world that will tell you whether the unfamiliar shadow in your living room is your son or an armed robber - that's something you have to determine yourself in that situation.
Of course not, but the training and experience are what keeps you calm and in control during these situations. Something you or your wife will not be able to do. Sorry, neither of you is trained for hostile situations.
It's that very ignorance and arrogance that makes you think you can do it, untill you fuck up and shoot the wrong/innocent person. There are too many cases like this, from not only civilians but by police officers.
There simply is no need for an armed civilian population.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 1:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 5:20 PM onifre has replied
 Message 125 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-27-2012 3:35 PM onifre has replied
 Message 129 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-27-2012 6:36 PM onifre has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(5)
Message 87 of 310 (669055)
07-26-2012 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Huntard
07-26-2012 3:22 PM


There must be an explanation for this, yet I can't think of any.
Compare: The violent Middle East; an area of the world rife with ideological and cultural extremism, mass ignorance, and serious racial/ethnic inequalities.
And the U.S.; a country rife with religious and ideological extremism, mass ignorance, and serious racial/ethnic inequalities.
I, personally, don't think the explanations could be anymore obvious.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Huntard, posted 07-26-2012 3:22 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by onifre, posted 07-26-2012 5:06 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 88 of 310 (669056)
07-26-2012 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Jon
07-26-2012 4:59 PM


Compare: The violent Middle East; an area of the world rife with ideological and cultural extremism, mass ignorance, and serious racial/ethnic inequalities.
And the U.S.; a country rife with religious and ideological extremism, mass ignorance, and serious racial/ethnic inequalities.
I, personally, don't think the explanations could be anymore obvious.
Very well put.
It's no wonder that our country, where 85% believe in the return of Jesus, a majority are homophobic, more than half believe Obama is a secret Muslim, more than half don't accept evolution, with failing schools and racist politicians, that we suffer the same violent trends that the Middle East does too.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Jon, posted 07-26-2012 4:59 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 89 of 310 (669057)
07-26-2012 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by onifre
07-26-2012 4:53 PM


Re: Inclusive
Well that's why I said I don't want an armed police force either, except for special units like SWAT or DEA.
Military officers in training is not what I think you meant to write. Some college graduate in Officer training school is NOT someone I trust with a weapon either.
So it's not just an armed citizenry you oppose, it's an armed police and an armed military.
Except Marines. Those guys can have guns, but only while they're at work, I guess.
I don't understand how that's supposed to work, Oni. There aren't enough Marines to go around to keep civil order.
Of course not, but the training and experience are what keeps you calm and in control during these situations.
If a guy breaks into my house to rob and maybe kill me, and my only option is to wait for the Marines to show up (how do they even know to come?) in what possible sense am I "in control"? Even if I called the police, what use would that be except to put more unarmed people into harm's way?
It's that very ignorance and arrogance that makes you think you can do it, untill you fuck up and shoot the wrong/innocent person.
But Marines kill innocent people all the time. There goes your "training", I guess.
Them I trust. You, your wife or the avergae civilian I do not.
Who cares? My rights under the Second Amendment aren't subject to your "trust". I appreciate that you have a radically different vision for our society, but as I said, the Second Amendment is a pretty serious obstacle to you being able to disarm the civilian population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by onifre, posted 07-26-2012 4:53 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by onifre, posted 07-26-2012 5:41 PM crashfrog has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 90 of 310 (669060)
07-26-2012 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
07-26-2012 8:27 AM


only to say that unfortunately for you the Second Amendment constitutionally prohibits disarming the American people in the name of public safety.
So why the differentiation between automatic machine guns and semi-automatic machine guns. According to your reasoning everyone citizen in the country should be able to strap on an uzi or carry around an M-16, just in case they need it to protect themselves from our tyranical government.
It's precisely because something like an AR-15 approaches a military level of effectiveness that the Second Amendment protects its ownership.
And a fully automatic machine gun or sawed off shotguns is even one step better. Why restrict one and not the other. Your reasoning for discreminating between the two does not make any sense. There are already restrictions on the 2nd ammendment which do not allow the average citizen to own military or military-like weaponry. The question is what do we consider 'arms' protected by the 2nd ammendment, not should firearms be regulated at all.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 8:27 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 5:44 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 93 by jar, posted 07-26-2012 5:46 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 99 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-26-2012 7:02 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024