Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Guns


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Guns Page: <<   < prev  22 23 24 [25] 26   next >   >>
[Poll]

Guns


There is too much regulation already.
  10% (28)
There should be far more stringent background checks.
  15% (39)
Reinstate the ban on assault guns.
  11% (29)
Make conceal and carry the law in all 50 states.
  10% (28)
Make gun classes mandatory.
  16% (42)
The only guns availible to the public should be hunting rifles.
  4% (12)
The 2nd amendment includes individuals owning firearms.
  21% (54)
The 2nd amendment does not include individuals, it's been distorted.
  3% (8)
I wish my country had gun laws similar to the US
  0% (1)
I don't want my country to have gun laws like the US
  6% (16)


Total Votes : 257
(last vote on : 2/2/2013 9:53:19 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Guns - 1/30/2013 9:54:52 PM   
Focus50


Posts: 3962
Joined: 12/28/2004
From: Newcastle, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I said it was illegal to hunt with a full auto rifle, if I implied that no one did, I was wrong to do so, the five instances I know in Texas over the last 25 years have resulted in prison time, forfeiture of guns, heavy fines.

Considering the number of hunters in Texas, that is a percent of a percent, very close to zero.

Now I agree, a civilian owning a full auto weapon is just nuts. I mean what are they going to use it for other than target shooting?

Now, as for a full ban of the AR rifle, considering the versatility of the gun, and the multiple configurations available, I am leaning more to a "intent of use" purchase restriction with a residence rider on the weapon. Some cities already have ordinances banning certain weapons within city limits, why not make it federal and mandatory?

Of course, there are add ons that make the rate of fire of the AR higher, not full auto, but close, I would suggest those be banned.

Collapsible stocks come in handy, and I have two rifles with that set up, but honestly I could live without them.

NFA permitted silencers or suppressors, what ever you wish to call them, I know of only one civilian application for one, but that advantage is negligible to be honest, so I have no clue as to why John Q Public needs one except for illegal use, add to that there are instructions on making them on the internet, so how many illegal suppressors are on the streets?

Laws need to be passed that put the teeth back into the ATF so they can enforce the laws already on the books.

Stricter background checks up to and including a psyche eval.

Mandatory storage regulations.

And I am still thinking


I live in a biggish city (pop 2-300,000) but on the fringe - lotsa bushland (crown land) north and west. There was a time (pre Port Arthur) where I'd kill an hour or two with some local shooting. I'd mostly look to shoot feral cats (including the odd pet that strayed - oops) but often hadta settle for ratbits (rabbits but orta be declared rats). So I'd simply sling my Ruger .22 semi-auto over my shoulder and wander down the end of my street and into the bush.

But I wouldn't do it now. Just the sound of a gunshot would likely have me explaining myself to the Police. Probably just waking down a residential street with a rifle would, too. Of course, all semi-autos are now banned (except, I think, to *licensed* professional hunters carrying out their occupation). So my beloved Ruger is long gone but I still wouldn't, anyway. Don't need the drama....

That's not to say cats are off the hook. Now I trap them and despatch them back home. For that, I have an old Brno .22 single shot. Ancient, low tech, but highly affective for the purpose. But there was still the matter of noise.

I was gonna make a silencer (blanket ban on them here, even pre Port Arthur) but a mate suggested different ammo. Winchester .22 long Z. Hell, makes less sound than my air rifle but 5 times (probably) the stopping power. At a range measured in inches, fixes 'em right up - one in the head; one in the heart. Not that freakin' cats seem to know when they're dead, what with all that kickin' and a jerkin' - must be where people got that "9 lives" bizzo....

Point is guns have a purpose but specific gun types don't. The blanket ban on all semi-autos (here) is going too far. It's because (IMO) that that's what Martin Bryant used at Port Arthur.

And another truth is that if full autos are legally available there, no matter what the special approvals or circumstances, then you can bet dollars to dirt there's also a black market for criminals to access them illegally.

I think even you're now conceding there's room for improvement with your gun laws and regulations as they stand? Maybe even the 2nd?

Focus.

_____________________________

Never underestimate the persuasive power of stupid people in large groups. <unknown>

Your food is for eating, not torturing. <my mum> (Errm, when I was a kid)

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 481
RE: Guns - 1/30/2013 10:14:28 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

You might change your mind about the fourth amendment.

fourth amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Nup; we've already got all that here, too.

There are no secret police kicking doors in, or spontaneous search and seizures, Jo Public is not required to have "his papers" on his person at all times; there is freedom of speech and you can publically declare the Prime Minister to be the embarrassing nitwit she clearly is.

Frankly, in comparison and esp since 9/11, the "land of the free" ain't so much the US anymore.... Think you've lost your crown... lol And hell, if there's even 1% truth in how Hollywood portrays the CIA and their dirty tricks or anything to do with national security.... Then there's Guantonamo....



quote:

As for Australia, it is not primitive or backwards, IMO, and the amount of developed land is small compared to the US, since the only undeveloped land are in national forests and other areas that are protected.

Well yeah, Oz is roughly the same area of what you call the "lower 48", if I'm understanding that to mean what I think (not incl Alaska or Hawaii?). But we only have about 1/15th your population.

While there are significant national parks (size & quantity), there's even more of what's called "crown land". IE, belongs to either state or federal goverment (the people) and can be leased for approved purposes or is generally held for future development (housing estates etc) or preservation, too.

And then there's "the Outback". That's for tourists and fanatics, IMO. Hell, there are those who choose to live in Alaska, too. lol Stupid tourists (the Outback), they have no concept of driving for 2-3 days without seeing another human being. You just can't seem to tell them to take *plenty* of water, just in case...!

Also explains (Outback) why some 90% of Australians live within about 200k's of the coast - Australia's "dead heart". It's not that dead but - great shooting - just BE equipped, like you're going to the moon (almost).

Focus.

If you have the same gaurentee there why did you declare the 4th to be outdated?

(in reply to Focus50)
Profile   Post #: 482
RE: Guns - 1/31/2013 12:15:14 AM   
imdoingitagain


Posts: 77
Joined: 4/7/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Semantics. I have never said anything indicated in your post.

Hyperbole, actually... There's a difference.


You are wrong again, actually.

Yes, I am wrong about the intention of my own post.
You know what I meant better than me...

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 483
RE: Guns - 1/31/2013 12:34:49 AM   
punisher440


Posts: 4122
Joined: 4/10/2011
Status: offline
quote:

The presumption there is that gun deaths are primarily due to criminal activity - they're not. In the USA, most handgun homicides are instances of civilians using guns as a mediating force in a dispute with other civilians. More than 50% are suicides.


Before you try trotting out this same old song and dance,you might try doing some research.Granted,this is from 2007 but I haven't found any fresher data.
1)In Baltimore, about 91% of murder victims this year had criminal records, up from 74% a decade ago, police reported.
2)Philadelphia police Capt. Ben Naish says the Baltimore numbers are "shocking." Philadelphia also has seen the number of victims with criminal pasts inch up — to 75% this year from 71% in 2005.
3)In Milwaukee, local leaders created the homicide commission after a spike in violence led to a 39% increase in murders in 2005. The group compiled statistics on victims' criminal histories for the first time and found that 77% of homicide victims in the past two years had an average of nearly 12 arrests.
4)In Newark, where three young friends with no apparent links to crime were executed Aug. 4, roughly 85% of victims killed in the first six months of this year had criminal records, on par with the percentage in 2005 but up from 81% last year, police statistics show.

David Kennedy, a professor at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says the rise in criminals killing criminals has escaped policymakers' attention.

"The notion that these (murders) are random bolts of lightning, which is the commonly held image, is not the reality," says Kennedy, who has examined the backgrounds of murder suspects and victims in multiple U.S. cities. "It happens, but it doesn't happen often."


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm

_____________________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-Y7MAASkg&feature=related

(in reply to TAFKAA)
Profile   Post #: 484
RE: Guns - 1/31/2013 1:39:29 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

http://www.aussielegal.com.au/informationoutline~nocache~1~SubTopicDetailsID~819.htm

According to people who are actually licensed to practice law in those parts, Australians have the same rights against unreasonable searches and seizures as Americans do under the 'irrelevant' 200 year old 4th amendment...

No xenophobia there at all, at all...






May I point out that Focus had no clue as to what the fourth amendment covered. And I tend not to research anything concerning laws in other countries when I make a statement concerning laws in their country, in fact, no one seems to check what anyone from any country is talking about with the exception of your doing it on this post.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 485
RE: Guns - 1/31/2013 2:01:02 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

I live in a biggish city (pop 2-300,000) but on the fringe - lotsa bushland (crown land) north and west. There was a time (pre Port Arthur) where I'd kill an hour or two with some local shooting. I'd mostly look to shoot feral cats (including the odd pet that strayed - oops) but often hadta settle for ratbits (rabbits but orta be declared rats). So I'd simply sling my Ruger .22 semi-auto over my shoulder and wander down the end of my street and into the bush.

But I wouldn't do it now. Just the sound of a gunshot would likely have me explaining myself to the Police. Probably just waking down a residential street with a rifle would, too. Of course, all semi-autos are now banned (except, I think, to *licensed* professional hunters carrying out their occupation). So my beloved Ruger is long gone but I still wouldn't, anyway. Don't need the drama....

That's not to say cats are off the hook. Now I trap them and despatch them back home. For that, I have an old Brno .22 single shot. Ancient, low tech, but highly affective for the purpose. But there was still the matter of noise.

I was gonna make a silencer (blanket ban on them here, even pre Port Arthur) but a mate suggested different ammo. Winchester .22 long Z. Hell, makes less sound than my air rifle but 5 times (probably) the stopping power. At a range measured in inches, fixes 'em right up - one in the head; one in the heart. Not that freakin' cats seem to know when they're dead, what with all that kickin' and a jerkin' - must be where people got that "9 lives" bizzo....

Point is guns have a purpose but specific gun types don't. The blanket ban on all semi-autos (here) is going too far. It's because (IMO) that that's what Martin Bryant used at Port Arthur.

And another truth is that if full autos are legally available there, no matter what the special approvals or circumstances, then you can bet dollars to dirt there's also a black market for criminals to access them illegally.

I think even you're now conceding there's room for improvement with your gun laws and regulations as they stand? Maybe even the 2nd?

Focus.



I can assure you there is a black market on full autos.

There is room for the improvement on gun laws without doing anything with the second amendment, the 2nd amendment is brought into the argument when you get the "Ban everything" anti gun people screaming for a complete ban of all firearms. It is the only thing preventing the complete blanket ban on every gun of any type from being banned. Two thirds of the states would have to ratify the elimination of the amendment, after a bill for its elimination were to go through congress and the president signs it.

The infamous NRA said today in a senate hearing that the ban is not necessary if the present laws were actually enforced, and he even said a better background check was needed since the present gun regulations are written so that someone with a history of serious mental illness are not permitted to own guns of any kind, yet there is no provision to have mental health professionals to actually report to anyone the possibility that a patient might be a danger to himself or others.

The Virginia tech shooter had a long time history of serious mental instability and emotional problems, yet because that information was never given to the proper authorities, he was able to purchase the semi automatic pistols he used to kill 32 people.

Oh, on the cat issue, we have a breed of cat here, wild I admit, that all that .22 would do is piss it off.

And it is my opinion, that you probably had no clue what the 4th amendment was, and I will let you in on a secret, the way the constitution is written, to make any drastic changes in law, it basically has to be amended. In and of itself, it covers the basic structure of the government, what powers the Federal government has and what power the states have, deals with interstate and international commerce, and sets the way Representatives are allocated to the states based on population, all of the free white citizens, and 3/5's of the slaves.

In other words, the document that we hold so sacred, is flawed in what it does not cover, until amended. Since its adoption, it has been amended 27 times, the first ten are called the bill of rights, and the rest of them deal with various issues the founding fathers either neglected to consider or never thought of.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Focus50)
Profile   Post #: 486
RE: Guns - 1/31/2013 3:16:52 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Semantics. I have never said anything indicated in your post.

Hyperbole, actually... There's a difference.


You are wrong again, actually.

Yes, I am wrong about the intention of my own post.
You know what I meant better than me...



Dont be such a crybaby, you were wrong about my correct use of Semantics.

I was wrong about my own post, You knew what I meant better than me.

See how that works ?

(in reply to imdoingitagain)
Profile   Post #: 487
RE: Guns - 1/31/2013 4:54:44 AM   
Focus50


Posts: 3962
Joined: 12/28/2004
From: Newcastle, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I am not the one that accused you of trying to write laws. Again, you're assuming the details of the average Aussie burglar are the same as the average American burglar. I'm not saying you're wrong (because I don't know), but I can't say you're right, either.

You're arguing the difference anyway - while conceding you don't know if there is one. Some might think you're just going out of your way to be difficult....


quote:

And, here I am, discussing this with you, accepting that there should be requirements on gun security, and only having an issue (which was my only original issue with requiring gun security) in what level of security is going to be required. Reasonable leaves too much space for abuse. You've already stated that the Aussie rules were knee-jerk and over the top. I'm not questioning that, but does the Aussie Government have a history of increasing regulation once it's in the books? The US does, and I even gave examples.

Then, you take Tazzy, who is a gun owner and a huntress. I assume you could consider her a "pro-gunner." She's all about requiring secure storage of firearms being required. So, right here, on this board, you have two people who are pro-gun, that are willing to talk about and support (if not push for) regulations that go further than background checks and gun classes.

Yeah, but you did get all hung up on "reasonable"....

I gave you an example of the Aussie requirements (secure gun storage). I called them "reasonable" because the new regulations (from Port Arthur) were pretty much how I store my guns, anyway.

At NO time did I present them as being what the US should adopt. I did not presume to make law there. I'm here discussing - I gave *examples*. "Reasonable" is not yours to define, either, so let it go. It's up to your law-makers to frame laws and a general public consensus will ultimately brand them reasonable or not, not the individual.

And probably all governments have a history building on whatever's begun. Hence we get the term, "remember the good ole days...."


quote:

It does not perpetuate shit, except the the misguided stereotype of an American gun owner. Of that 30k+ gun deaths, 2/3 are suicides. Without putting words into your mouth, are you more worried about the deaths, or the tool that caused the death? Is it better to have 20k+ knife suicides vs. 20k+ firearm suicides? Typically, people who commit suicide aren't driven so much by the tool, but by the situation that has put them into the frame of mind to commit suicide.

I presented a link in the other gun thread showing that in 2010 (I think) there were 231 gun deaths in Australia (population approx 23 mill) and 160ish were suicides. Your 2/3rds suicide rate amounts to about 20,000. That's about 125 times the rate here - do you have 125 times our population (about 2.8 bill)? Or is there a gun culture difference....

I do agree, suicide is not about the means (such as guns, for examp). But I have mentioned this numerous times - *opportunity* - the easier availablility of guns in the US. Bringing opportunity under some semblance of control with reasonable reforms would have an impact on suicide by gun, thus bringing the gun death rate down, and the flak with it. And no, I'm not implying you'll bring the suicide rate down too - the topic is guns, afterall.

You've got 15 times our population. Based on the Aussie figures, your suicide by gun rate should be closer to 2400, not 20,000. Yeah, different cultures blah blah - but they ain't THAT different.

Focus.

_____________________________

Never underestimate the persuasive power of stupid people in large groups. <unknown>

Your food is for eating, not torturing. <my mum> (Errm, when I was a kid)

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 488
RE: Guns - 1/31/2013 5:22:26 AM   
imdoingitagain


Posts: 77
Joined: 4/7/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Semantics. I have never said anything indicated in your post.

Hyperbole, actually... There's a difference.


You are wrong again, actually.

Yes, I am wrong about the intention of my own post.
You know what I meant better than me...



Dont be such a crybaby, you were wrong about my correct use of Semantics.

I was wrong about my own post, You knew what I meant better than me.

See how that works ?

Sigh. Whatever, buddy...

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 489
RE: Guns - 1/31/2013 5:33:13 AM   
lovmuffin


Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Actually, I argued against complete bans, Something I am steadfastly against. The problem is that, here, the bans on specific weapons really do not work.

I'm gonna take a slightly different tack in disagreeing with you here....

I think (even pre Port Arthur reforms) that some weapons simply don't belong in the public's hands, and have said as much a number of times.

Full autos (rifle or pistol) being one. So yeah, I'm in favour of blanket bans on specific weapon types. Btw, this particular ban was in force here decades before Port Arthur, anyway. If you wanna fire a full auto in Oz, you join one of the armed services or qualify for the Police Force's Tactical Response Group (TRG - like your SWAT).

Thing is, when I suggest that in gun topics, all I ever get is a whole bunch of "it's already illegal to own/possess full autos in the US - EXCEPT". Much like being "a little bit pregnant", there's no such thing! They're illegal to have, or they're not - which? If just one member of average Joe Public can navigate whatever forms and pass whatever background checks and pay whatever fees etc to legally obtain a working full auto no matter what vintage, then no, they're not illegal in the US.

So what's the problem with a blanket ban, here? You and BAMA apparently know *for a fact* that no-one in the entire United States would ever go hunting with one....

Again, I'm arguing from a perspective of reining in an out-of-control gun culture and not the frequency with which full autos contribute to homicides or crime etc. ie, you start *somewhere*. And no, I'm certainly NOT advocating the US adopt our gun laws, either. I'm talking "middle ground", too.

Focus.




The interesting thing about our legally owned fully automatic weapons is that since 1934 there has been only 2 known crimes committed with them. One was a professional assassination carried out by a rogue police officer. I don't see any middle ground here. And there is that phrase again the gun grabbers use "it's a good place to start" "start somewhere".


< Message edited by lovmuffin -- 1/31/2013 5:40:33 AM >

_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to Focus50)
Profile   Post #: 490
RE: Guns - 1/31/2013 6:22:44 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I am not the one that accused you of trying to write laws. Again, you're assuming the details of the average Aussie burglar are the same as the average American burglar. I'm not saying you're wrong (because I don't know), but I can't say you're right, either.

You're arguing the difference anyway - while conceding you don't know if there is one. Some might think you're just going out of your way to be difficult....


I'm not arguing the difference, just pointing out that there may be differences that you aren't allowing for.

quote:

quote:

And, here I am, discussing this with you, accepting that there should be requirements on gun security, and only having an issue (which was my only original issue with requiring gun security) in what level of security is going to be required. Reasonable leaves too much space for abuse. You've already stated that the Aussie rules were knee-jerk and over the top. I'm not questioning that, but does the Aussie Government have a history of increasing regulation once it's in the books? The US does, and I even gave examples.
Then, you take Tazzy, who is a gun owner and a huntress. I assume you could consider her a "pro-gunner." She's all about requiring secure storage of firearms being required. So, right here, on this board, you have two people who are pro-gun, that are willing to talk about and support (if not push for) regulations that go further than background checks and gun classes.

Yeah, but you did get all hung up on "reasonable"....
I gave you an example of the Aussie requirements (secure gun storage). I called them "reasonable" because the new regulations (from Port Arthur) were pretty much how I store my guns, anyway.
At NO time did I present them as being what the US should adopt. I did not presume to make law there. I'm here discussing - I gave *examples*. "Reasonable" is not yours to define, either, so let it go. It's up to your law-makers to frame laws and a general public consensus will ultimately brand them reasonable or not, not the individual.
And probably all governments have a history building on whatever's begun. Hence we get the term, "remember the good ole days...."


1. It won't be general public "consensus" that determines the definition of reasonable. It will be legislated to us according to who is in power at the time.
2. Leaving the details to be determined as "reasonable" does allow for changes in technology that improve gun security, but it also leaves it wide open for activists (there are elected activists here, as well as activist judges) to redefine "reasonable" in a manner not consistent with the viewpoints of the general public.

Paraphrasing a former afternoon drive local radio host, "it's not what is reasonable, it's who gets to decide what is reasonable" (the radio host was himself paraphrasing Tom Sowell, an American Economist, who said, "The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best"). And, that is the issue with me. I agree that reasonable measures to secure firearms should be required, but my only concern with that was how "reasonable" was defined.

quote:

quote:

It does not perpetuate shit, except the the misguided stereotype of an American gun owner. Of that 30k+ gun deaths, 2/3 are suicides. Without putting words into your mouth, are you more worried about the deaths, or the tool that caused the death? Is it better to have 20k+ knife suicides vs. 20k+ firearm suicides? Typically, people who commit suicide aren't driven so much by the tool, but by the situation that has put them into the frame of mind to commit suicide.

I presented a link in the other gun thread showing that in 2010 (I think) there were 231 gun deaths in Australia (population approx 23 mill) and 160ish were suicides. Your 2/3rds suicide rate amounts to about 20,000. That's about 125 times the rate here - do you have 125 times our population (about 2.8 bill)? Or is there a gun culture difference....
I do agree, suicide is not about the means (such as guns, for examp). But I have mentioned this numerous times - *opportunity* - the easier availablility of guns in the US. Bringing opportunity under some semblance of control with reasonable reforms would have an impact on suicide by gun, thus bringing the gun death rate down, and the flak with it. And no, I'm not implying you'll bring the suicide rate down too - the topic is guns, afterall.
You've got 15 times our population. Based on the Aussie figures, your suicide by gun rate should be closer to 2400, not 20,000. Yeah, different cultures blah blah - but they ain't THAT different.
Focus.


Your last comment about suicide is chilling, to me. It seems as if you are glossing over the loss of life not being reduced at the expense of reducing the suicide rate due to guns. As far as I'm concerned, the suicide rate overall is a much larger issue than the means by which the suicide is accomplished.

Do any average citizens in Australia legally own semi-automatics? If so, then you don't have a blanket ban on Semi's. Pre-Port Arthur, you'd go shooting for what reason? To gain food? No. You have admitted that Australia went too far with their knee jerk reaction to Port Arthur, regarding semi-automatics, and claimed that this was done because a semi-automatic was used. The ban that Sen. Feinstein brought forth apparently wouldn't have banned the most prevalent weapons used in mass shootings. This is the knee jerk reaction we are having over here, and the knee jerk reaction pro-gunners are trying to diminish.

Our main problem isn't the prevalence of guns. It's our consumptive lifestyles that leads people to do things illegally to get what they want, but can't get through legal means. We solve that shit, and an awful lot of these stats will drop precipitously.



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Focus50)
Profile   Post #: 491
RE: Guns - 1/31/2013 6:43:02 AM   
DomYngBlk


Posts: 3316
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline 		All I know is Mr. NRA looked like a moron yesterday in front of the whole country.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 492
RE: Guns - 1/31/2013 6:46:40 AM   
RacerJim


Posts: 1583
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		All I know is Mr. DomYngBlk can't handle the truth.

(in reply to DomYngBlk)
Profile   Post #: 493
RE: Guns - 1/31/2013 6:48:37 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Our main problem isn't the prevalence of guns. It's our consumptive lifestyles that leads people to do things illegally to get what they want, but can't get through legal means. We solve that shit, and an awful lot of these stats will drop precipitously.


Hell's bells, DS - you *are* going lefty these days!

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 494
RE: Guns - 1/31/2013 6:53:03 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:

Our main problem isn't the prevalence of guns. It's our consumptive lifestyles that leads people to do things illegally to get what they want, but can't get through legal means. We solve that shit, and an awful lot of these stats will drop precipitously.

Hell's bells, DS - you *are* going lefty these days!


I've been "reduce consumptive lifestyles" for quite some time, not just "these days."

I attribute that lifestyle to our poorer overall health statistics, too. Our health stats would improve greatly if we solved our lifestyle issues, regardless of health care system used.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 495
RE: Guns - 1/31/2013 7:32:48 AM   
Ronnie1986


Posts: 102
Joined: 1/15/2013
Status: offline 		http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzT6X3_Bg9o&feature=share

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 496
RE: Guns - 1/31/2013 7:56:29 AM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		Focus declared it bad, no matter what it was, in the context of the inferiority of a set of laws merely because they came from a foreign culture.

And I don't think I'll be apologizing for researching things before making claims about them.


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


May I point out that Focus had no clue as to what the fourth amendment covered. And I tend not to research anything concerning laws in other countries when I make a statement concerning laws in their country, in fact, no one seems to check what anyone from any country is talking about with the exception of your doing it on this post.



_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 497
RE: Guns - 1/31/2013 8:29:27 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

All I know is Mr. DomYngBlk can't handle the truth.


I think Mr. LaPierre, of the NRA puts on a good show....even better then a 3 ring circus.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/31/nra-leadership-members-divide-on-universal-background-checks/

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/30/1515911/senator-catches-nra-head-in-epic-flip-flop/

(in reply to RacerJim)
Profile   Post #: 498
RE: Guns - 1/31/2013 9:59:17 AM   
Winterapple


Posts: 1343
Joined: 8/19/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

All I know is Mr. NRA looked like a moron yesterday in front of the whole country.


A moron, a creep, completely cynical and utterly corrupt.
I think he repelled a lot of people. LaPierre's NRA is a lobby
for the gun manufacturers nothing else and more and more
are waking up to that fact and are sick of the clutch this lobby
has on cowards in the Congress.

_____________________________

A thousand dreams within me softly burn.
Rimbaud




(in reply to DomYngBlk)
Profile   Post #: 499
RE: Guns - 1/31/2013 10:42:26 AM   
YN


Posts: 699
Status: offline 		Interesting. Coming from a different cultural prospective, and from a different country that operates under the civil code -

Here, legal firearms are all registered, and there are several classes of licenses. Ammunition cannot be purchased or possessed save if one has the license for the appropriate firearm, and the amount of ammunition is specified also. Firearms are quite expensive relative to to incomes of most people, so few people buy them without some legitimate need, and the usual are .22 rifles or a shotgun. Ammunition is costly relative to incomes also.

The types of license are as follows -

Personal possession. If you are a rurale, a .22 rimfire or shotgun is easy to obtain the license for, (shooting snakes is the popular reason, there would not be one snake alive in all Costa Rica if every shotgun claimed for that purposed was so used just one time) a handgun of the non-military type can be possessed under two possible endorsements, for target or other personal or occupational use but not to be armed with the handgun, or for protection and carry (normally a .38 revolver or a small automatic pistol, military calibers and types are generally discouraged without special justification,) both require background investigations, the latter (being publicly armed) requires a specific course of training. It is possible to obtain centerfire rifles on a personal license if one can demonstrate their usage in either target shooting or that one needs them for their occupation. (Sport hunting is banned, save for Indians.)

A corporate license. This attaches the firearm to a vessel, business or property. This is how assault rifles, submachineguns military handguns, and such are normally licensed. For example some properties along the border with Nicaragua have heavy weapons licensed for use on the border bandits, and other incursions, security companies have licenses for their needs, coastal vessels have licenses for heavy military rifles for usage on pirates, farms and ranches have license for their needed firearms, pharmacies, banks, jewelers and such can have firearms licensed to their premises, etc.

A collector's or historical license. The specifications and types of firearms declared, along with the allowed amount and type of ammunition necessary.

The Interior Ministry handles all these matters.

To demonstrate, I have a .22 Ruger target pistol licensed to me, the ranch has a Savage combination gun of .22/20 bore, and a Italian 12 bore double shotgun licensed corporately, and the family has the Mauser 7.65 military rifle used during the revolution licensed as a historical firearm.

I have a .45 Colt automatic issued also, but it is the property of the people, and belongs to the Interior Ministry. Until recently I had a Walther 7.65 of the PPK type on personal license for occupational use (being already trained and authorized to be occupationally armed) but sold/transferred it to another person at the Interior Ministry for her plainclothes needs.

Our homicide rate is similar to that of the United States, however machetes are in fierce competition with firearms as the preferred murder weapons, and there will be no banning or registering those.

The large majority of illegal firearm killings (from direct experience about 9 in 10) here are done by one criminal upon his rival, often in relationship with the drug trade, the rest being in large parts crimes of passion and intoxication. The majority of the "cutlassing" (machete fighting) is either dueling or crimes of passion and intoxication. The criminals very rarely have obtained their firearms or ammunition in any legal manner, and usually are equipped with stolen or surplussed military weapons and ammunition, and it is certain no regulation or registration will affect or deter them.

I think the United States might be better served by inspecting and detailing those purchasing ammunition, then attempting to register the many firearms, for a firearm is useless without the ammunition.

If Canada or Mexico cannot succeed in registering and regulating their firearms, I doubt the United States can do so without great cost and similar poor results. The hundred year old Mauser we have is fully functional, (we have to make a separate application each time to purchase it's ammunition) but here ammunition, unless carefully stored is only functional for a decade at best, and often decays in a year or two, if not kept in sealed storage. The ammunition for the issued government pistols is replenished every six months, one takes the old and uses it for practice and qualification. The criminals are not versed in manufacturing ammunition, especially that ammunition needed for reliable functioning in semiautomatic and automatic weapons.

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 500
Page:   <<   < prev  22 23 24 [25] 26   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Guns Page: <<   < prev  22 23 24 [25] 26   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109