|
cracklover
Jul 23, 2012, 10:18 AM
Post #1 of 107
(1481 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9676
|
... is it mere coincidence, or is there anything to be learned here?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Jul 23, 2012, 12:30 PM
Post #2 of 107
(1457 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4403
|
It's a nice place to visit but don't live there?
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 23, 2012, 2:15 PM
Post #3 of 107
(1439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
cracklover wrote: ... is it mere coincidence, or is there anything to be learned here? GO
When you remove all barriers to the owning of assault weapons, you probably shouldn't be surprised when you see a regular stream of nutcases wielding assault weapons?
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Jul 23, 2012, 2:20 PM
Post #4 of 107
(1436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
Pffft..."assault weapons"...what a sheep.
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Jul 23, 2012, 6:19 PM
Post #5 of 107
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12417
|
2nd amendment says folks can have guns, but if the founding fathers knew that we'd be applying that rule to modern mass-murdering technology, they'd be rolling in their grave and saying 'Those dumb f*cks!'
I'm fine with single shot long barrel guns for hunting, and small hand guns/pistols for the 'self defense' nuts. Anything remotely semi or auto belongs exclusively to police and armed forces, maybe they can be hosted at shooting ranges but they can't leave the premises. Firearms over a certain caliber or power have no business being owned by the general populace.
Signed, a gun owner.
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Jul 23, 2012, 6:20 PM
Post #6 of 107
(1413 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12417
|
carabiner96 wrote: 2nd amendment says folks can have guns, but if the founding fathers knew that we'd be applying that rule to modern mass-murdering technology, they'd be rolling in their grave and saying 'Those dumb f*cks!' I'm fine with single shot long barrel guns for hunting, and small hand guns/pistols for the 'self defense' nuts. Anything remotely semi or auto belongs exclusively to police and armed forces, maybe they can be hosted at shooting ranges but they can't leave the premises. Firearms over a certain caliber or power have no business being owned by the general populace. Signed, a gun owner.
Add: Outside of a shooting range, where they cannot leave, one can only buy 50 rounds of ammo in a year. And they should cost $20 a pop.
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Jul 23, 2012, 6:46 PM
Post #7 of 107
(1410 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
carabiner96 wrote: 2nd amendment says folks can have guns, but if the founding fathers knew that we'd be applying that rule to modern mass-murdering technology, they'd be rolling in their grave and saying 'Those dumb f*cks!' I'm fine with single shot long barrel guns for hunting, and small hand guns/pistols for the 'self defense' nuts. Anything remotely semi or auto belongs exclusively to police and armed forces, maybe they can be hosted at shooting ranges but they can't leave the premises. Firearms over a certain caliber or power have no business being owned by the general populace. Signed, a gun owner.
Yes, because all the violent criminals I've read about and seen would always check in their auto and semi-auto weapons at the range.
You do realize smoking crack is very unhealthy, right?
Signed, a gun owner that sees the larger picture.
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Jul 23, 2012, 7:12 PM
Post #8 of 107
(1405 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12417
|
carabiner96 wrote: carabiner96 wrote: 2nd amendment says folks can have guns, but if the founding fathers knew that we'd be applying that rule to modern mass-murdering technology, they'd be rolling in their grave and saying 'Those dumb f*cks!' I'm fine with single shot long barrel guns for hunting, and small hand guns/pistols for the 'self defense' nuts. Anything remotely semi or auto belongs exclusively to police and armed forces, maybe they can be hosted at shooting ranges but they can't leave the premises. Firearms over a certain caliber or power have no business being owned by the general populace. Signed, a gun owner. Add: Outside of a shooting range, where they cannot leave, one can only buy 50 rounds of ammo in a year. And they should cost $20 a pop.
Lets keep rolling. A special license, with yearly/ bi yearly renewal process, including psych evaluation, to own more than X amount of fire arms per adult per household. I'm thinking 3...who needs more than three?
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Jul 23, 2012, 7:27 PM
Post #9 of 107
(1401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
carabiner96 wrote: carabiner96 wrote: carabiner96 wrote: 2nd amendment says folks can have guns, but if the founding fathers knew that we'd be applying that rule to modern mass-murdering technology, they'd be rolling in their grave and saying 'Those dumb f*cks!' I'm fine with single shot long barrel guns for hunting, and small hand guns/pistols for the 'self defense' nuts. Anything remotely semi or auto belongs exclusively to police and armed forces, maybe they can be hosted at shooting ranges but they can't leave the premises. Firearms over a certain caliber or power have no business being owned by the general populace. Signed, a gun owner. Add: Outside of a shooting range, where they cannot leave, one can only buy 50 rounds of ammo in a year. And they should cost $20 a pop. Lets keep rolling. A special license, with yearly/ bi yearly renewal process, including psych evaluation, to own more than X amount of fire arms per adult per household. I'm thinking 3...who needs more than three?
You know, you'd make a perfect bureaucrat...because that's what this country needs, more of those.
You really want to make things better? Here's my advice: #1 CLOSE THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE. #2 Enforce the laws that are already on the books.
You do that and you will eliminate a significant portion of the "guns in the hands of criminals/psychopaths" problem.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Jul 23, 2012, 7:30 PM
Post #10 of 107
(1399 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388
|
While in general I support the constitution and the second amendment, I don't believe semi and full automatic weapons were even imagined when the document was created.
Semi automatic and automatic weapons, I just don't understand what purpose they serve to the average private citizen in America. Yes, I know some will say it's pure recreation. Some will just say it my right, so I want it. I bet many of the people who support the 2nd amendment can't name the other 9 articles of the the Bill of Rights without the net and google..
More laws, I rarely support that. Let face it, many, most likely most, of the guns used illegally were most likely obtained illegally. The argument being the criminals will find ways to buy guns even if they are illegal to buy over the counter.
Making gun illegal would mean that less legal guns would be on in homes, cars, and other places people keep them. Not having those guns out in the public would mean less access to criminals who often steal legally bought gun.
Semi automatic, depending on your personal definition, and automatic weapons definitely serve no purpose in the private sector. It's actually pretty easy to convert semi automatic weapons to full auto in your garage or on the kitchen table.
For me, I am in the grey on the issue. I see nothing wrong with people buying guns if they are going to use the guns properly. I also see no reason to actually own semi auto weapons.
Hunting, I think guns are a silly way to hunt. I really believe people should hunt animals, other than birds, with bows to make it a bit more sporting. Seating in a hide, armed with a riffle that reaches out 300 meters, equipt with a scope seems to remove 90% of the skill to me.
On the hunting front, People in Europe hunt too, they have much stricter gun laws than the United States.
(This post was edited by guangzhou on Jul 23, 2012, 7:34 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Jul 23, 2012, 7:44 PM
Post #11 of 107
(1393 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12417
|
Can you put breathalyzer locks on guns? Similar to the kind that will keep you from starting your car if you're over the limit?
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Jul 24, 2012, 4:07 AM
Post #12 of 107
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17535
|
blondgecko wrote: cracklover wrote: ... is it mere coincidence, or is there anything to be learned here? GO When you remove all barriers to the owning of assault weapons, you probably shouldn't be surprised when you see a regular stream of nutcases wielding assault weapons?
Remember, in the Netherlands, thery have some of the srictest gun laws in the world, and a nutcase slaughtered many more on an island.
Gun laws aren't the silver bullet. No pun intended.
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Jul 24, 2012, 5:06 AM
Post #13 of 107
(1358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2004
Posts: 3015
|
rrrADAM wrote: Remember, in the Netherlands, thery have some of the srictest gun laws in the world, and a nutcase slaughtered many more on an island.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Jul 24, 2012, 10:44 AM
Post #14 of 107
(1337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17535
|
sbaclimber wrote: rrrADAM wrote: Remember, in the Netherlands, thery have some of the srictest gun laws in the world, and a nutcase slaughtered many more on an island. Wrong country!?
Ooops... Norway.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 24, 2012, 2:03 PM
Post #15 of 107
(1313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
rrrADAM wrote: blondgecko wrote: cracklover wrote: ... is it mere coincidence, or is there anything to be learned here? GO When you remove all barriers to the owning of assault weapons, you probably shouldn't be surprised when you see a regular stream of nutcases wielding assault weapons? Remember, in the Netherlands, thery have some of the srictest gun laws in the world, and a nutcase slaughtered many more on an island. Gun laws aren't the silver bullet. No pun intended.
My bold. Norway had one case. You guys seem to average at least one a year.
As they say, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Just because an action won't eradicate a problem doesn't meant you shouldn't take it to reduce the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jul 24, 2012, 5:11 PM
Post #16 of 107
(1301 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2390
|
pinktricam wrote: carabiner96 wrote: carabiner96 wrote: carabiner96 wrote: 2nd amendment says folks can have guns, but if the founding fathers knew that we'd be applying that rule to modern mass-murdering technology, they'd be rolling in their grave and saying 'Those dumb f*cks!' I'm fine with single shot long barrel guns for hunting, and small hand guns/pistols for the 'self defense' nuts. Anything remotely semi or auto belongs exclusively to police and armed forces, maybe they can be hosted at shooting ranges but they can't leave the premises. Firearms over a certain caliber or power have no business being owned by the general populace. Signed, a gun owner. Add: Outside of a shooting range, where they cannot leave, one can only buy 50 rounds of ammo in a year. And they should cost $20 a pop. Lets keep rolling. A special license, with yearly/ bi yearly renewal process, including psych evaluation, to own more than X amount of fire arms per adult per household. I'm thinking 3...who needs more than three? You know, you'd make a perfect bureaucrat...because that's what this country needs, more of those. You really want to make things better? Here's my advice: #1 CLOSE THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE. #2 Enforce the laws that are already on the books. You do that and you will eliminate a significant portion of the "guns in the hands of criminals/psychopaths" problem.
well, the aurora nutcase bought his guns absolutely legally.
go ahead and try and argue that he could have killed just as many people without a semi-auto, though, I'll wait.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jul 24, 2012, 5:32 PM
Post #17 of 107
(1297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 14400
|
rrrADAM wrote: blondgecko wrote: cracklover wrote: ... is it mere coincidence, or is there anything to be learned here? GO When you remove all barriers to the owning of assault weapons, you probably shouldn't be surprised when you see a regular stream of nutcases wielding assault weapons? Remember, in the Netherlands, thery have some of the srictest gun laws in the world, and a nutcase slaughtered many more on an island. Gun laws aren't the silver bullet. No pun intended.
no, but the Japanese seem to have done something right.
"Friday's horrific shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater has been a reminder that America's gun control laws are the loosest in the developed world and its rate of gun-related homicide is the highest. Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's."
and
"In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11..."
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 24, 2012, 9:01 PM
Post #18 of 107
(1278 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18043
|
pinktricam wrote: Signed, a gun owner that sees the larger picture.
You also see Jesus on a regular basis. Delusional people like you should not have guns.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Jul 25, 2012, 4:27 AM
Post #19 of 107
(1261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17535
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: rrrADAM wrote: blondgecko wrote: cracklover wrote: ... is it mere coincidence, or is there anything to be learned here? GO When you remove all barriers to the owning of assault weapons, you probably shouldn't be surprised when you see a regular stream of nutcases wielding assault weapons? Remember, in the Netherlands, thery have some of the srictest gun laws in the world, and a nutcase slaughtered many more on an island. Gun laws aren't the silver bullet. No pun intended. no, but the Japanese seem to have done something right. "Friday's horrific shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater has been a reminder that America's gun control laws are the loosest in the developed world and its rate of gun-related homicide is the highest. Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's." and "In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11..."
Correlation doesn't equal cause... The Japanese have a different culture.
Lets look at another culture, where they are pretty lax on gun laws -- The Czeck Republic.
Can get all kinds of guns, even assualt rifles... And, get this, any citizen can carry concealed without requiring a special permit, like here in the US.
Very low crime rates, and gun fatalities.
Also note that it Czeck Republic is among the most secular societies in the world... Point being, looking at the gun deaths per country and correlating them to their religiosity (like Yemen, that you cited) does show a trend.
But then again, correlation doesn;t always equal cause, right? 
Note - I am not anti-gun law... In fact, I support many forms of it. I am merely pointing out that it alone is NOT the silver bullet (as I said before)... Our problems appear to be more cultural that just the availability of guns. We have "gun nuts", who romanticize guns, and even start gun porn threads.
(This post was edited by rrrADAM on Jul 25, 2012, 4:30 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Jul 25, 2012, 4:32 AM
Post #20 of 107
(1258 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
curt wrote: pinktricam wrote: Signed, a gun owner that sees the larger picture. You also see Jesus on a regular basis. Delusional people like you should not have guns. Curt
Such ironing.
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Jul 25, 2012, 9:32 AM
Post #21 of 107
(1229 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1703
|
carabiner96 wrote: 2nd amendment says folks can have guns, but if the founding fathers knew that we'd be applying that rule to modern mass-murdering technology, they'd be rolling in their grave and saying 'Those dumb f*cks!' I'm fine with single shot long barrel guns for hunting, and small hand guns/pistols for the 'self defense' nuts. Anything remotely semi or auto belongs exclusively to police and armed forces, maybe they can be hosted at shooting ranges but they can't leave the premises. Firearms over a certain caliber or power have no business being owned by the general populace. Signed, a gun owner.
I'm curious why people make this argument RE the founding fathers. The second amendment was intended to give the citizens the ability to defend themselves against the government. Why shouldn't we have access to the same fire power then? Do we need to go back to a militia system? I know some still exist.
I'm not a gun owner, but the argument is interesting to me.
I happen to agree with Adam and PTC. The problems are more related (though not entirely) to culture and enforcement of laws rather with the laws themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 25, 2012, 11:06 AM
Post #22 of 107
(1216 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9676
|
boymeetsrock wrote: carabiner96 wrote: 2nd amendment says folks can have guns, but if the founding fathers knew that we'd be applying that rule to modern mass-murdering technology, they'd be rolling in their grave and saying 'Those dumb f*cks!' I'm fine with single shot long barrel guns for hunting, and small hand guns/pistols for the 'self defense' nuts. Anything remotely semi or auto belongs exclusively to police and armed forces, maybe they can be hosted at shooting ranges but they can't leave the premises. Firearms over a certain caliber or power have no business being owned by the general populace. Signed, a gun owner. I'm curious why people make this argument RE the founding fathers. The second amendment was intended to give the citizens the ability to defend themselves against the government. Why shouldn't we have access to the same fire power then? Do we need to go back to a militia system? I know some still exist. I'm not a gun owner, but the argument is interesting to me. I happen to agree with Adam and PTC. The problems are more related (though not entirely) to culture and enforcement of laws rather with the laws themselves.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I think you've got it backwards. I believe the writers of the constitution were against having a standing army (like we have today). Rather, they intended for the protection of the state to be handled by militias organized when the need arose. So the protection of gun rights was actually meant to be for the "military" only, in what they intended the military to be.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Jul 25, 2012, 1:20 PM
Post #23 of 107
(1194 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1703
|
I did a little digging. Seems like we're both right to an extent. You're probably more right than me, but why should that stop me.
You are correct that there was distrust of standing armies and that the founders preferred militias instead. Part of the founders concerns were that the federal gov't might use a standing army against it's own citizens as had been done in Europe for so many decades. That is (specifically?) why they preferred state militias.
The National Guard has largely the taken over the role of the militia (every state has one?), but some militias still exist.
So, I guess I still disagree with Biner's statement that the founding fathers would be rolling over. If we're supposed to defend ourselves from tyranny, why shouldn't we be as well armed as the (potential) tyrants?
|
|
|
|
|
veganclimber
Jul 25, 2012, 1:55 PM
Post #24 of 107
(1184 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2773
|
boymeetsrock wrote: So, I guess I still disagree with Biner's statement that the founding fathers would be rolling over. If we're supposed to defend ourselves from tyranny, why shouldn't we be as well armed as the (potential) tyrants?
I don't know. They have a lot of stuff that probably shouldn't be available to the general public. Things like tanks, flame throwers, grenades, explosives, nuclear weapons, . . .
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Jul 25, 2012, 7:46 PM
Post #25 of 107
(1165 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
veganclimber wrote: boymeetsrock wrote: So, I guess I still disagree with Biner's statement that the founding fathers would be rolling over. If we're supposed to defend ourselves from tyranny, why shouldn't we be as well armed as the (potential) tyrants? I don't know. They have a lot of stuff that probably shouldn't be available to the general public. Things like tanks, flame throwers, grenades, explosives, nuclear weapons, . . .
I was just thinking we should start another drinking game. Every time someone uses the term "assualt rifle" you have to take a drink. It could be whatever you're drinking at the moment, but you have to drink.
Go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
