• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > US Gun laws are "License to murder"

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...1415161718...44
FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:
Non-Https Image Link


[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.

Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.

Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section

Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.

If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.

As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.

The entire thread started like this:

Taken from: New York Times on August 7th

Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.

Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them stand your ground laws.

Opponents call them shoot first laws.

The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.

In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the laws words, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side, Mr. LaPierre said. Good people make good decisions. Thats why theyre good people. If youre going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.

The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.

In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passengers feet and then into his body, killing him.

Cliff Morningstar, the dead mans uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. He had a radio, Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.

Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.

Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to retreat to the wall before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force, Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.

Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder, Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.

I was in T-shirt and shorts, Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allens door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.

I was no threat, Mr. Rosenbloom said. I had no weapon.

The men exchanged heated words. He closed the door and then opened the door, Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didnt even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.

Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.

I have a right, Mr. Allen said, to keep my house safe.


Taken from sbcoalition

Originally Posted By: sbcoalition

In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorados Make My Day Law. Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving, the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.

Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hills home.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller. She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jurys decision. She also said, At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.

Trust me, wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.

I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.

Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.

You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...

In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:

Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"


Pro-guns

National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition

(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)

Anti gun

Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network

(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)

Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts

Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study

Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."

Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents

USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete Topic

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Fire Tom, there is no hypocrisy in Sarah Brady buying a rifle for her son. The Bardy campaign is for preventing gun violence, not guns per se.



Thanks for the links on Class III weaponry. Did you know you can now get Subsonic- Silent Warrior- Tungsten Nytrilium Explosive Entry Rounds for your ArmaLite rifle? The only sound produced is, the hammer striking the firing pin, and projectile impact. Big hole on the other side. Sweeet!







Lurch, Ive had more time to read Don B. Kates Sacramento Rally Speech. To me, the case of military assault weapons for self defense is really a step into world of camouflage gear and the quasi military. Real soldier of fortune stuff.



These weapons were never designed for self defense. No, they were designed to be used by trained soldiers to kill people in war. There is no justifiable reason to bring assault weapons into a civilised country like the United States, especially not under the guise a self defense.



I know your think your heart is in the right place as a sheep dog trying to protect the community from wolves. Dave Grossman got most of it right. Except you dont need a weapon to be a sheep dog, because then you become a wolf. In reality we are all wolves. The opportunity is to transcend the wolf.



Got it ???





ubbidea


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Um first, I'm still here Tom...I just have no access on the weekends. Don't get too excited

Rosie is a huge hypocrite. She goes about saying all guns are evil and no one should have one. She put pressure on retail chains calling them killers for selling rifles and shotguns. I remember it from her show, and that is when I stopped listening to her. She just says things and never thinks. And then the pictures of her daughter...they were just playing dress up my ***. It is disgusting how she used her daughter as a prop for her half-cocked propaganda. Her daughter should never have ammunition on her ever. I don't care if you are progun or antigun. That's irresponsible and again hypocritical.

The dealers are not supposed to sell to you if you do not have legal residence in that state. Part of it is because each state has it's own laws and they don't want people scooting around the laws in their state. Also, background checks would be more difficult.

It's Cho not Chow, chow is a type of dog. If you can't get the name right...grrr. No he wasn't a criminal but he still should never have had the guns. He had mental health issues that should have barred him from the ownership of guns.

Fine, more than two percent of gun crimes were done by "assault" weapons. And not discounting the damage this still small percentage has cause, but why are you focusing so hard on these. By your own evidence, the problem is the handgun. Most crime around here is done by handguns, nothing fancy. I can't remember the last time they got an assault weapon off the regular criminal or when one was used even in a high profile crime. Even when they have them they don't use them around here. Assault style weapons are scarey and so they have you focus on that. Guns are frightening. It's a ploy to distract from the real problems and to turn people against all guns. Some guns are pretty.

I'll take your word that Lott is a bigot but how do we know that he falsified his information. Did I miss that? Was he the one that had a bookcase fall on his computer?


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Hi faith, I dont know the Rosie story. But as I said previously Sarah Brady and the Brady campaign are for preventing gun violence. They are not trying to ban guns for hunting, for example.



As the Brady Campaign, we work to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations, and public policies through grassroots activism, electing public officials who support gun laws, and increasing public awareness of gun violence.



Yes there has been a shift in focus during the discussion, and we seem to have moved from handguns to assault weapons. The NRA was successful in preventing the Federal government renewing Clintons ban on assault weapons. Do you think people should be allowed to bring AKs and Uzi style weapons in the community?



Military style assault weapons are scary, but its not a ploy to turn people against all guns. There is just no place in the community for AKs and Uzi style weapons. None! They are purpose built for war. I would suggest that the people who need assault weapons should be checked for mental health issues. Its people from this end of town that have been responsible for some of Australias biggest massacres, for example the Hoddle Street Massacre.



John Lott was the one that had a bookcase fall on his computer. He has been discredited for publishing fraudulent research results about the effectiveness of brandishing a gun to scare off criminals. The guns as used for protection theory went out the door with his lies.



In his Sacramento Rally Speech Don B. Kates says the anti gun lobby are bigots. He defines a bigot as someone who inaccurately, unjustly ascribes negative characteristics to a whole group of others they dislike. Then he goes on to shoot himself in the foot by making a number of bigoted statement about Asians, gays, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the media and women. He calls Linda Thompson a liar, a buffoon and demented. Not good when you are accusing others of bigotry


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:No I don't but if I have to focus on part of a problem, I would focus on the larger majority. People round here aren't shot with uzis, they are shot with handguns. They find these weapons in raids but I cannot remember the last time they were used.

Personally, I don't care for anyone in the limelight. The politicians really do nothing. I listen more to the mother who's son was shot on Sunday for trying to break up a fight that started about a long line in a clothing store. She said she didn't want any retaliation for his death. Enough young people have died over arguments. When she calls for peace, I think more listen.


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Okay, first of all I do appreciate a discussion that is diverse, so no - I haven't been too excited anyway.

Second of all I don't think that my focus really shifted exclusively to assault weapons. If you read the first post on this page, you find the Harvard studies result on "guns" in general.

I stick to my general approach on (hand)guns. "Assault weapons" (i.e. weapons designed for military operations and assassinations like AK47s and silencers) are no great deal for me, as I regard them completely inappropriate and in no way justified for private ownership. I tackled the topic in order to show how perverted the US gun laws are when it comes to "the right to bear arms".

Third of all I do feel a bit awkward to keep this discussion running at the very moment that the mother of a lovely person here struggles...

Therefore please excuse that I don't get too much into details and don't respond, as often as I would have something to say. I hold back my opinion(s) on the current terror alarm in the UK and other topics as well. I don't like to rival Clares thread, really.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:Do you really want to start banning things because you don't *need* to have them FireTom? Get past that it is a gun for a second and think about that long and hard. Do you want to be told you can't own that car because it *could* go too fast? You can't sit there and tell me that certain weapons have "no place in self defense," You guys barely know the first thing about firearms and self defense tactics. You don't see people walking down the street with an AK on their back. Those guns are more for fun and target shooting than anything else, they *are* sports guns. In fact there are many shooting groups that use these guns, including 3 gun shoots where you use a rifle shotgun and handgun to complete the course.

You're trying to regulate these things because you're scared of them, that is not a good enough reason.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Hi faith, true handguns are the big problem for the large majority today. However, the NRA is stripping back the laws that keeps the lid on military assault weapons. If they are successful then uzis will be a problem in the future.



As you say, enough young people have died over arguments. Id suggest part of the reason is because the only way they know how to settle a dispute is with a gun. And the ease of availability of guns means that people dont even try to settle disputes, they just reach for their gun.



The politicians might not appear to be doing anything, but theses are the people who are being targeted by the NRA to reduce gun controls. If I lived in a violent area Id be looking at the gun policies of the candidates standing for election.



I think this answers Stouts question about how frequently disputes settled with a guns.



Sorry Lurch, No Way is an AK or a UZI a sporting rifle. And letting them in because they are fun is not a valid reason. You want fun, go play paint ball! Military assault weapons were banned because they are designed for war. They would be suitable for people considering raising an army. What's going on?



I mean, America has introduced all these draconian these anti-terror laws, while at the same time its making military assault weapons more available. I bet its easier to buy a weapon than it is to buy a bag of ammonium fertiliser.



Lets see what Retired Lt. Col. Dave Grossman says:



 Written by:

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.



Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.





I like that As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. Its its all about self confidence and body language. You dont need a gun to walk tall. You dont need a gun to rescue anyone. Owning a gun doesnt make a person a warrior or a hero. No, it just makes them a liability.



 Written by:

Even highly-trained police officers lose control of their handguns; according to the FBI, 5 out of 41 law enforcement officers (12%) killed by gunfire in the line of duty in 1999 were killed by an adversary with the officer's own service weapon. And police officers know that the very sight of a gun can escalate a situation, so that instead of simply losing your wallet, you can lose your life. That's why almost every major law enforcement organization - including the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the International Association of Chiefs of Police - opposes the weakening of CCW laws (CCW Bardy)


EDITED_BY: Stone (1183521010)


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Please Lurch, let's not slip back into the tit-for-tat argument and let me assure you that I am not "scared" of guns. I do have my deepest respect for them. I do think that they "appeal to the darker side in men" - much as a BMW M5 "appeals to the faster side in men".

As a sidenote: Oh yes, I think that the cars industry in fact needs to be regulated. Why would you want to own a 500 horsepower car that runs 350 k's per hour, if in fact you can never ever drive it anywhere? Especially in the face of a global climate change?

So the transition IMO is valid.

What are we missing out on "self defence tactics" to oppose privately owned AK47s, UZIs and silencers?
What are we missing out on, when saying that one handgun for self defence would be enough to defend ones self?
Is there anything that you can come up with, that opposes the Medical School of Harvards' recent study - with equally fresh data? Or is it simply the fact that NRA and other organisations can't scientifically support their defence of the second amendment?

Faith herself is opposing gun regulation and still most of what she's saying would be supporting a handgun-ban (thanks for acting as a counter agent in this, Faith).

You are claiming that CCW and "flashed" handguns do prevent crime on a large scale. Why is there no official, or privately engaged study that proves this claim? If I were to carry a handgun and support CCW's and happen to be able to avoid a crime by merely flashing it - tell you I would report that, in order to let the ppl know that it works.

Fact is that it doesn't. Fact is that the tragedies greatly outweigh the benefits. Even LEO's are not 100% "safe" with guns.

Recently we had a LEO who shot another in the back, through the wall - accidentally, because he decided to unload his weapon at his desk and not in the security corner. It's headlines because here, in Germany there are hardly any accidents and only a few murders involving handguns - compared with the US. If dealing with a gun on a long term, chances are that one gets frivolous and the care taken gets diminished.

Please, is it your last argument that we're trying to regulate handguns, because we're personally "scared of them"? Have I spent all these days of researching the internet and disclosing evidence to you, just so you come up with this?

Trust me, I do not wish to beat you into submission, but open your consciousness to the apparent facts that IMHO are undeniable.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:Are you guys actually thinking about what you're saying? You're so caught up on them being guns that you aren't actually considering the results of what would happen if you truely got what you wanted?

Stone: First off an Uzi is not a rifle, use the correct terminology. You have no experience with these guns, and little to no understanding about them, nor the American shooting community or their sports. Don't tell me they don't have self defense applications, don't tell me they don't have sporting applications, because you're wrong. The VAST majority of weapons that are used in crimes are already possessed illegally. Why the hell aren't you fighting to, oh, I don't know, enforce the laws we already have? Instead you want to make more, that will be equally ineffective. Why not focus our efforts on removing those illegal guns, and stricter penalties for having illegal guns, rather than just making more guns illegal?

You quote Grossman, but obviously you don't know him very well. Or did you just miss the part where he says:

 Written by:

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...

"Baa."





Good God Tom, this is getting old. The fact is you *are* paranoid, and you *are* scared of guns. Both you and Stone have said that assault weapons scare you. Why? Why do they scare you more than any other semi-automatic rifle? Those rifles are usually less powerful than hunting rifles. You're worried about the magazine capacity? Why ban the gun then? The magazines are detachable, they are not a part of the gun. Ban the magazine, not the weapon.

The facts are, 'assault weapons' or long arms in general are not the weapon of choice for criminals, so I don't understand what exactly your problem is with them other than that they scare you.

"They don't have a place in the community"? What gives you the right to decide that?


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Back to the irrational and offensive way of argumentation, is it? Now my turn to claim that I am not even half way as *paranoid* and *scared* of guns as you are obsessed with them?

Again I have to ask you: If you feel the urge to quote me, please do so - but do it correctly. Where do you find me saying that "I am scared of (assault) weapons?"

Please stop quoting me incorrectly!
Please stop telling and repeating lies of the NRA (amongst them that assault weapons are not used in crimes).

Every time you come to the end of your arguments, every time you see yourself outnumbered by reasonable arguments and with your back to the wall, you start shooting. "From my dead cold hands only..." that seems to be the maxim.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, Im with Fire Tom,



 Written by:

Trust me, I do not wish to beat you into submission, but open your consciousness to the apparent facts that IMHO are undeniable.





Fire Tom and I are not trying to stuff you around or cause trouble (well no more trouble than usual). Its not about more gun laws. You dont even enforce the ones you have, and you repealed Clintons Federal assault weapons laws. No its about reducing violence and collateral damage. That said, the rest of this is going to be a serious discussion. You can choose not to read it.



[gloves on]

Does Gavin de Becker offer any insight into how America got it self in to its current world situation in the first place? If you knew the answer to that question, then you could stop shooting at phantoms. Thats the denial right there. Not facing how you got into you current world situation in the first place.



Lurch, as you say, I know nothing about self defense and killing people. But Im learning from retired Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. Some of his stuff is good. Ive been picking out the good bits. The bits we can lean from. I did miss the bit where he said you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. I think he was out to lunch that day. And hey, I totally dont get If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today.



Though, what I do get is how to train someone to kill! Perhaps make them a terrorist! Maybe you get an impressionable young recruit. You tell them a story that makes them feel strong, important like a man. Tell them they are different, special like a sheepdog. Make them think they are elite from the other 98 % of mankind, who are really only sheep. Tell them they are a sheepdog, a warrior, a hero.



Then as retired Lt. Col. Dave Grossman says the big day comes. Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens, said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.



You want to be there on that plane. Then bang!



You wake up and realize that it could have easily been any sheepdog up there on that plane. Any sheepdog that wished they could be warrior enough be the ones chosen to take that bombs onto that plane.



When you think about it, there is little difference between a sheepdog and a terrorist. After all, someone has to train the sheep dog. Better to learn to think for yourself.

[gloves off]



Lurch, this has been a serious discussion. I know your heart is in the right place. Its just you dont really a need gun to be a sheep dog to protect the community from wolves. You can be so much more without a gun. The opportunity is to transcend the wolf.



:Full Moon:


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Here's my response. I took notes.

It's a culture problem not a gun problem. Neither shooter or victim were at the original argument. The girlfriends called them in. Victim thought he would go calm things down. Shooter wanted to get even. The culture is to get your crew involved. It doesn't matter if it is guns, knives or fists. It has become such a problem, at a local high school, cellphones were banned because there were riots. Students would get in a fight and call family. The family would then beat, stab and shoot.

Politicians are full of it. They don't live in areas that need help. I would love our politicians to live on the Northside for a month. See how they feel then. Even evident from your links, Wisconsin doesn't need any more laws. We need enforcement of these laws. We have to stop the sale of drugs and weapons. We need enforcement and a change in attitude when dealing with conflict.

No, you don't need a gun for self-confidence. But it sure can come in handy in a rescue situation.

Did someone say we should weaken CCW laws? I missed it.

And excuse me, I don't oppose gun regulation. I do oppose the ridiculous arguments that have been put forth. Limiting ammunition will do nothing, for example. We have already said why many of these are not feasible and are kind of silly. What we do need is some sort of federal cohesiveness and enforcement of local laws.

The LEO is an idiot then or lazy and has no business handling a gun.

I think it is most of us on our side that say those who want more regulations are the one's with the least knowledge and the most fear. These are dangerous weapons that need to be treated with respect for the power that they hold, but you cannot let fear control you.

It's a chance to transcend the wolf? You transcend the wolf while he is holding a gun to your head, or a plane's passenger, tell them that. They'll slap you silly. There is evidence that people did try to stop the attacks. There are cell phone calls and recordings. And didn't one plane actually miss it's target.

Please remember that guns do not equal a wish to kill. Rather, a desire to live. We do think for ourselves. Just be happy like all the politicians trying to pile on more gun laws that you don't live our lives. And you can say from a safe distance one can transcend the wolf ubblol


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Faith I'm too tired and worn to even read past your hatred and insults. This is not the level of argument I want to remotely continue this thread on. You have any other opportunity to act out? Somewhere? I get that you're frustrated about the situation, maybe more than any of us, because it happens around you/ you're standing in the middle of it. The mind is a wondrous thing when it comes to cope with exceptional situations, therefore I don't blame you.

Maybe another day I will have the strength to cope with it.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:I have no hatred or insults. Sorry it was read in that manner

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:I didn't read it that way at all faith

#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:faith, I agree with nearly everything you say.

I dont think more laws are the solution. As you say its about attitude change. I would have thought there would have been an attitude change when the kids responsible for the Colorado school massacre used weapons like these: Intratec TEC-DC9, Hi-Point 995 Carbine and brought their ammo at Kmart. Apparently not. Virginia Tech, apparently not.

The reason I can say transcend the wolf from a safe distance is because Australians handed in their guns after the Port Arthur massacre. This was done as a gesture to prevent future gun violence.

Its true that Australia does not have the second amendment hanging around its neck. By that I mean, in many respects the right to bear arms seems little more than an advertising slogan used to sell guns. With no responsibility for the violence and death that guns cause in the community, other than to call it self defense.

There is no NRA style lobby group in Australia. Though, Id be concerned by the motives of a group, like the NRA, that tries to prevent safety locks on firearms and a ban on the importation of high capacity ammunition magazines. A group that opens the door and lets military assault weapons into the community.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:I don't think that the NRA wants military weapons in the community.

The NRA promotes the use of safeties too.

The high capacity ammunition mags I agree those should not be available

I was hoping that much of our anecdotes and evidence would show that we are showing responsiblity and that it is a select few that does not. If the laws were enforced, I think that there would be less of a problem. The man who was shot this weekend, that was not self-defense. The other person wanted to hurt someone.

edit:

It's just that so many people are responsible, even with illegal weapons. It's hard for me to say we should hand them all in. My best friend has a couple of handguns and a number of hunting weapons. I have no worries with him. Even the dealer that I knew that was shot a few weeks ago.

EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1183730361)


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted: Written by:

Please stop telling and repeating lies of the NRA (amongst them that assault weapons are not used in crimes).



Actually Tom, I didn't say assault weapons were not used by criminals, I said they were not commonly used. They aren't the "choice" weapons that you guys are making them out to be. Gary Kleck the criminologist has goes over 47 other studies in Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control and comes up with less than 2% of crimes using assault weapons. In Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 They conclude that "assault weapons are estimated to be involved in 1 to 7 percent of gun homicides"

Can you show me any sort of study that says assault weapons are used in any significant portion of crimes?

You keep talking about Grossman Stone, but you're completely missing what he stands for. Have you actually read his works or only what I've posted of his? I guess you also missed where he defines the difference between a sheepdog and a wolf

 Written by:

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.


Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."


Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.



Charles Perrow coined a term called 'system accidents' in the mid 80's. It's an accident that involves the "unanticipated interactions of multiple failures in complex systems" They can be either technological or organizational, usually both. It's commonly used to explain things like the Tree Mile Island accident, and other industrial scenarios, but I think it applies perfectly to the system that allowed Cho to kill so many people at Virginia Tech. Perrow concludes that "large accidents, though rare, are both inevitable and normal. The accidents are a characteristic of the system itself." Whats more, efforts to make those systems safer, made the systems more complex, and therefore more prone to accidents.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:faith, the NRA lobbied the States extensively to have Bill Clintons anti assault weapon legislation dropped. I have no problem with real hunting and sports rifles.



Lurch, try



Bureau of Justice Statistics, Selected Findings Guns uses in crime. Anyhow, it is not only about crime. Assault weapons are the massacre weapon of choice, like for the Colorado school massacre. Their use in other massacres are listed here: NRA myth #3 Assault weapons are rarely used in crime



Anyhow, you havent told us why you think military assault weapons are good for the community, how do the make life better for everyone? Are you raising an army?



Sorry you still think you are a sheep dog. One day you might discover you are a human being, with much more potential. Grossman trains people to kill people, thats his job. He calls people warriors to stroke their ego. It's called manipulation or brain washing if you like. Whether you are a wolf or a sheep dog just depends on which side of the fence you are sitting. To an Iraqi for example, you would be a wolf, especially if you were wearing camouflage fatigues and holding an M-16.



I find it disturbing that you still consider massacres like Colorado school massacre and the Virginia Tech massacre inevitable and normal. I agree the accidents are a characteristic of the system itself. And as said previously, massacres will remain inevitable and normal in America unless something is done to change this ridiculous attitude to guns, self-esteem and masculinity.



Owning a gun does not make you a warrior or a hero. Guns are not a substitute for courage. You dont need a gun to walk tall. You dont need a gun to rescue anyone. Its all about building self-confidence and self-esteem, and that show up in your body language by who you are being as a human being.



few edits, oops wink

EDITED_BY: Stone (1183873615)


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:Oh come on now Stone! The guns used in Columbine (I'm assuming thats what you're referring to in the 'Colorado school massacre' were obtained illegally. You want to ban illegal guns? Good, so do I.

 Written by:

The firepower of assault weapons makes them especially desired by violent criminals and especially lethal in their hands. Prior to the Act, although assault weapons constituted less than 1% of the guns in circulation,14 they were a far higher percentage of the guns used in crime. ATF's analysis of guns traced to crime showed that assault weapons "are preferred by criminals over law abiding citizens eight to one. ... Access to them shifts the balance of power to the lawless."15



Odd that I can't find the "Assault Weapons Profile" report supposedly written by the ATF anywhere online. Can you? I would love to see it. The firepower of an assault weapon makes them desirable? Their firepower is no different from any other gun. sub-guns use pistol ammunition. Once it's fired from the weapon that bullet is no different than one fired from any other weapon. So what is it about the Uzi that you don't like? They can be chambered in a couple different rounds but it's usually in 9mm, the same round that a good portion of the handguns on the planet use. You can't tell me it's any more "high powered" than any of those. Is it because of a high cap magazine? Because you can get high cap mag's for most guns out there. If it is, then why not ban the magazine not the whole gun? Do you actually have any valid reason to ban the gun? Or are you still going to the scared "they have no place!" argument? "Assault rifles" usually use 5.56mm or 7.62mm which are pretty weak compared to most hunting rounds. A .30-06 round will put out over twice the energy at the muzzle with a bullet 3x as heavy.

You really should read some of the results for the search in that first link you posted there Stone:

 Written by:

In the 1991 BJS Survey of State <**>Inmates, about
8% of the inmates reported that they had owned a
military-type weapon, such as an Uzi, AK-47,
AR-15, or M-16. Less than 1% said that they
carried such a weapon when they committed the
incident for which they were incarcerated. A
Virginia inmate survey conducted between November
1992 and May 1993 found similar results: About
10% of the adult inmates reported that they had
ever possessed an assault rifle, but none had
carried it at the scene of a crime.



I fully agree, owning a gun does not make you a hero. Guns are not a substitute for courage. Preparing yourself for the inherent possibility that something bad might happen makes you responsible however. Being in denial doesn't.

Massacres like Columbine and Virginia Tech are inevitable, as are terrorist attacks like 9/11. They are rare, and they are tragic, far from normal, but they are to be expected on some level. Things like this will always happen, they always have in the past, and they will continue to do so long past any of our lifetimes I'd suspect.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, to answer you question, so what is it that I dont like about UZIs?

The only reason to own an assault weapon is to kill someone.

The only reason kids can get UZIs and kill their classmates is because you and other sociopath's think assault weapons are fun. If you were really opposed to illegal guns then you wouldnt have supported the lifting of Clintons military assault weapon legislation.

Assault rifles might be considered pretty weak compared to most hunting rounds, but hey, its one shot with a hunting rifle. With an assault weapon is all about spraying bullets as you run for a defensive position. Assault weapons are for cowards, not heroes.

Massacres like Colorado and Virginia Tech are NOT inevitable, terrorist attacks like 9/11 are NOT normal. That they have happened in the past does NOT mean that they have to happen in the future. You keep creating them to so you can play out being a hero. Life is not a video game. They happen because you keep living in your past. Time to move on. Create a future without guns and the violence.

As Mae West once said: is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

Choose!


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:Open your mind a bit Stone, is the only reason to own a fast car to speed? What about people who own swords? Are those only to kill people too? Have you ever even shot a gun before? Who are you to judge me, and why are you equating me to a sociopath?

The Clinton ban was designed for political reasons, not for actual change. It did nothing to stop gun crimes. It bred hysteria in people such as yourself. You're still talking about Uzi's like they're special baby killer weapons. The ones that were effected by the ban were no different than 90% of the other pistols on the market. What makes an Uzi different? Please, I honestly want to know, because I don't see much of a difference. They fire the same ammunition, function the same way. The only real difference is cosmetic. It looks scary, and it has a notorious name, therefore it's bad? Is that your logic?

Hunting rifles are not single shot by any means, there are many extremely popular auto-loading long arms for hunting and sport. Semi-automatic shotguns are extremely popular among trap shooters and bird hunters for example. Where double barrel shotguns are simply not enough, and pump or lever guns are too slow to be completely effective. Hunting guns are only limited in the capacity they can carry at one time.

 Written by:

With an assault weapon is all about spraying bullets as you run for a defensive position. Assault weapons are for cowards, not heroes.



Huh? Apparently you've learned everything you know about firearms from Hollywood rolleyes

Violent acts in any society are inevitable. If you had read what I said, I agreed that they are NOT normal, they are rare, they are uncommon, but they are a part of the system that is human nature. It's chaos theory Stone, you can run the same equation thousands of times and come up with drastically different results every time. Eventually one of those is going to end in tragedy. It is a fact of nature, and not something that you can stop. You can only prepare in the hopes of being ready when the tragedy strikes. You wear your seatbelt do you not? There will always be car accidents no matter how safe you make the cars, or how well you train the drivers. Fender benders are common, 30 car pile ups are rare, but both happen. A fight in a school is common, a massacre is rare, but both happen. Even in Australia. Even without guns.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Nope, Lurch - the reasons for owning a BMW M5 are not exclusively to speed, but also to feel "strong". Many compare the need to own a big fast car with needing a penis elongation, or that men who need to own big fast cars do have a small penis or low self esteem. I personally am not signing for that, but maybe its true that people who need to have big fast cars, do in fact have "power issues" and similar might apply to gun ownership. No offence meant.



My reasons to put on a seatbelt (on-road):

(a) that annoying sound and

(b) the cop that stops me and gives me a fine if I don't.



Reason not to own a BMW M5: (global) economics. Reason to wear a helmet in Europe: laws.



What about people who own steak-knives in their kitchens? Well, they do chop meat. But what about people who own swords (as they are no "tools"), do own more than one good hunting knife, own arms in general? Maybe they too have "power issues" - maybe I do have a power issue by owning bow and arrow, two fire-swords and one real sword? Maybe - given that. But when was the last killing spree involving archery or a sword? Why do you have to compare cherries with watermelons?



Lurch IMO you are playing blindman's buff towards gun (ownership) and continue to ignore reasonable argument. We have put forward evidence that military style weapons were and are used in homicides and killing sprees (i.e. "crimes"). Why do you ignore them? I don't think you're a psycho- or sociopath. I'm sure nobody thinks about you this way. It's been said before: There is a conditioning, a ancestral programming, that blurs your vision.



However: Why does a hunter have to shoot 20 rounds of pellets into a flock of birds? Why is a singe action rifle not enough for hunting? I'm amazed that you have such a concept on hunting... IMHO

(a) hunters these days do not depend on their catch like they did in the past

(b) extended technology has provided them with great advantages over the game (guns and scopes)

(c) as far as I have experienced hunting, it's all about that single shot, the "kill"... Fact of the matter is: you don't need an AK47 to hunt down Bambi and Thumper, other than being an censored or completely retarded.



Why do you stick to your "right" to own military style weaponry, IF they are so disadvantaged against others?



What is the difference between a legal and an illegal obtained gun? Do you think the victim cares whether the bullet was blessed by the pope, or not? Why do you still don't regard the fact that second hand sales do NOT require background checks in most states and still stick to the point that the law is sufficient? A few reality checks and it becomes obvious that they are NOT. It's okay to ban large capacity mEgazines, but NOT okay to ban the gun?



Maybe it's the same reason why industrials don't see a problem with deforestation and global warming - it's not in their face. Maybe you would have to face a gun or a gun related accident to realize what the real problem is.



I genuinely hope not.



Maybe you just enjoy playing "devils advocate" - IMHO you're simply supporting laws that are "license to murder" and threaten society. To talk in loops: if I'd face a gun in Germany in a robbery - chances are very high that I will remain unharmed if I surrender my wallet (my guess that this applies to most scenarios of robberies worldwide).



And this is what I prepare myself for: peace - not war.

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1183927190)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, my mind is not open to gratuitous violence. The only reason to own a military assault weapon is to kill someone, and to me that is just plain anti social. If the only difference between military assault weapons and regular civilian assault weapons is cosmetic, then by the same token, you wont be needing military assault weapons.



Assault weapon are designed for and used in assault operations. The rapid rate of fire and spray-fired from the hip military assault weapons are not in the best interest of public safety. Perhaps you think Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapons should also be available to the public.



Hunting with an assault weapon is not hunting, its slaughter. Rapid fire assault weapons are not accurate enough for target shooting. If you need military assault weapons for self-defense then I can only assume you are training to become a commando.



Violent acts are not inevitable; they dont have to be part of society. You bring the violence into the community with you guns and call it self-defense. Now you are trying to justify that violence by calling it inevitable. Sure its inevitable, if you have 200 million guns in the community and no one accepting responsibility for gun control.



Why is all the legislation that tries to reducing gun violence for political reasons and not for increasing public safety? Why is everything to do with gun safety and reducing gun violence sabotaged by the NRA?



 Written by:

Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing 'post-ban' assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts. Impact on crime.





How about stepping out from behind your guns and joining the human race. You wont turn into a sheep if you leave your guns at home. How about America steps out from behind its missiles and becomes a force for global peace. What if President Bush apologized for invading Iraq?



What makes an Uzi or Intratec TEC-9 different? Its an assault weapon. It looks scary, and it has a notorious name, and like the AK, is the weapon of choice by mass murders and regular criminals alike. Check out the 10 NRA assault weapon myths.



 Written by:

The few available studies suggest that attacks with semiautomatics including AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms.



Most of the assault weapons used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles. Large capacity magazines (LCM) are used in crime much more often than and accounted for 14% to 26% of guns used in crime prior to the ban. Impact on crime.





 Written by:

In the 1980s, law enforcement reported that assault weapons were the "weapons of choice" for drug traffickers, gangs, terrorists, and paramilitary extremist groups. Limiting civilian access to such weapons lessens the need for law enforcement to carry assault weapons themselves in order to match the firepower capability that criminals with assault weapons would have (Brady)



If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:and to expand this a little further:



 Written by: Christopher Koper (who got funded by the Dept. of Justice)



Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs (Assault Weapons) declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage), based on data covering all or portions of the 1995-2003 post-ban period.

(...)

reducing criminal use of AWs and especially LCMs could have nontrivial effects on gunshot victimizations. The few available studies suggest that attacks with semiautomatics including AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with LCMs result in

more shots fired,

more persons hit, and

more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms.






IMO if a (gun) ban would result in reduction of only 5% of victimisation - this would mean in numbers:



 Written by: Brady campaign

In 2004, 29,569 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths 11,624 (39%) of those were murdered; 16,750 (57%) were suicides; 649 (2.2%) were accidents; and in 235 (.8%) the intent was unknown.





Lurch - do the math: 5% of 11.624 people are 581 people saved - meaning that 581 families do not have to mourn their members - not to speak about friends. 581 ppl - that is about 17 times the VT shooting...



My summary so far:



- according to recent Harvard studies:



-- Guns in Homes Strongly Associated with Higher Rates of Suicide

("We found that where there are more guns, there are more suicides," said Matthew Miller, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management at HSPH and lead author of the study.)



-- States With Higher Levels of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates

(In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher)

- according to the Brady campaign



-- Top ten NRA myths on Assault Weapons



-- Children and guns

(In 2004, 1,804 children and teenagers were murdered in gun homicides, 846 committed suicide with guns, and 143 died in unintentional shootings. A total of 2,852 young people were killed by firearms in the U.S., one every three hours.)



- The gun laws across the US are flawed and do not prevent gun ownership of criminals and felons



-- For example Virginia gun laws do not require background check on second hand sales.

- International US arms exports do leave children soldiers

-- For example in Sudan



That's just the facts as they occur to me and others opposing US gun laws and policies. It's not merely to enforce the existing laws, it's to set them up/ change them in a way in order to make them waterproof (example: second hand sales). It's not merely on AWs (assault weapons), it's on all handguns for civilian use.



George W Bush allowed the Clinton ban to expire and (instead of protecting the citizens of the US, he) protected the gun manufacturers against claims by the public (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005). Guess they would let him getting away doing the same for the tobacco industry?



Your turn... umm

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1185268063)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Thanks Fire Tom, I d been wondering why firearms manufacturers and dealers in the United States of America seemed immune from liable for crimes committed with their products. It makes you wonder who is really running the country.

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed by the U.S. Senate on July 29, 2005 by a vote of 65-31. On October 20, 2005 it was passed by the House of Representatives 283-144. It was signed into law on October 26, 2005 by President Bush and became Public Law 109-92.

The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions that they are directly responsible for.

A similar measure had been rejected by the Senate on March 2, 2004, after being combined with an extension to the assault weapons ban into a single piece of legislation.

The final bill passed only after an amendment was added which mandated safety locks on handguns and after the assault weapons ban renewal was prevented from being added onto the bill."


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:Oh wow, you guys will buy into anything an anti-gun group puts out wont you.

You're saying gun owners have penis envy now FireTom? Not everyone with a BMW speeds, not everyone buys them to compensate. Maybe some are buying them simply because they are nice cars? Look good, and drive nice?

I mean this in the most respectful way possible, but if you only wear your seatbelt to stop the alarm, and to keep the police from giving you a ticket you're an idiot. I sincerely hope you were being sarcastic, but if not, how dare you critique my life choices and lecture me about 'putting myself and my family at higher risk' when you are so reckless yourself.

There probably are some people who buy cars, and have guns as a form of compensation, but it's not very fair to typecast the entire culture because of the few. There have been a number of murders, even in recent years with swords and bow and arrows, why do you ignore them? wink

I'm not playing blindmans bluff, I'm not ignoring crimes that have happened, I'm saying that by in large, 'assault weapons' are not the guns that are the problem. You're getting so caught up in the hysteria that you're too headstrong to look at the information objectionably.

 Written by:

However: Why does a hunter have to shoot 20 rounds of pellets into a flock of birds? Why is a singe action rifle not enough for hunting? I'm amazed that you have such a concept on hunting... IMHO
(a) hunters these days do not depend on their catch like they did in the past
(b) extended technology has provided them with great advantages over the game (guns and scopes)
(c) as far as I have experienced hunting, it's all about that single shot, the "kill"... Fact of the matter is: you don't need an AK47 to hunt down Bambi and Thumper, other than being an or completely retarded.



I'm a bit confused by what you mean by 20 rounds of pellets? Do you mean 20 pellets? or 20 shots? First of all hunting shotguns are usually regulated to 3 shots (sometimes 4). Secondly depending on the type of game bird hunters usually use anywhere between #4 and #8 shot, which have between 130 and 400 individual pellets per shot. Shooting a bird with a single round is extremely difficult at best, near impossible for most people. Not only that but seeing as it's illegal, and unsportsmanlike to shoot a bird that isn't flying, shooting a rifle into the air is dangerous and reckless.

Capacity limitations don't apply to non-hunters (i.e. sport shooters, trap, clay, sporting clay, etc). Professionals have been sliding over to semi-auto shotguns for a reason, and it's not because they kill people better rolleyes

You guys are still talking about an AK47 like it is an auto-gun. The ones regulated by the bans were strictly semi-automatic. There simply isn't that much of a difference between them and any other semi-auto gun. You're right, hunting is all about the single shot kill. You have to remember that hunting rifles are abused just as much, if not more than military guns. They appeal to hunters due to their reliability and ruggedness. You have a problem with a collapsible stock? It makes the gun easier and lighter to pack in the woods. You're right, AK's aren't commonly used as a hunting weapon, they are loose, and sloppy guns, not very accurate, and don't take to having optics mounted on them. Many hunters do use "assault" weapons though. AR-15's are growing in popularity as a hunting gun from varmint to big game. So don't tell me their only purpose is to kill people.

This gun for example, is used as a highly specialized hunting rifle.. But it sure looks scary, we'd best ban it...


Non-Https Image Link


The list of "assault weapons" that are hunting weapons is probably a lot longer than either of you imagine.

Yes, if you face a robber in Germany with a gun chances are you'll come out unharmed. Same here. If however you face a murderer in Germany armed with a gun, you're screwed.




Stone:

 Written by:

Lurch, my mind is not open to gratuitous violence. The only reason to own a military assault weapon is to kill someone, and to me that is just plain anti social. If the only difference between military assault weapons and regular civilian assault weapons is cosmetic, then by the same token, you wont be needing military assault weapons.



That's simply not true, hopefully my above statements have made that apparent. But again, I ask how do cosmetic features make a gun more dangerous?

 Written by:

Assault weapon are designed for and used in assault operations. The rapid rate of fire and spray-fired from the hip military assault weapons are not in the best interest of public safety. Perhaps you think Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapons should also be available to the public.



First off you won't catch any properly trained soldiers 'shooting from the hip'. Secondly the military definition of an 'assault rifle' is very different from the civilian. You can't interchange the two, military assault rifles are fully automatic. They do have high rates of fire. Civilians do not. Their rate of fire is no different from countless other weapons out there. There is little difference in the "danger to the public" from a more traditional hunting rifle, and an 'assault rifle'

 Written by:


Violent acts are not inevitable; they dont have to be part of society.



Can you name a large community where no violence takes place? I sure can't. Irrational violence is a very human trait. It's not pretty, but it is definably human. You're going to have to accept that sooner or later.

 Written by:

Why is all the legislation that tries to reducing gun violence for political reasons and not for increasing public safety? Why is everything to do with gun safety and reducing gun violence sabotaged by the NRA?



The NRA is all about promoting responsible gun ownership and safety. Which is why they have over 60,000 safety instructors. They go against laws that are all flash and no content. If they wanted to do something about safety why not put more funding into the already starving law enforcement departments around the country? What makes more sense to you? Funding more police officers and stricter enforcement of laws, or making even more laws but still not having enough support to effectively enforce them?

 Written by:


Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing 'post-ban' assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts.



Thank you, that shows exactly how idiotic the ban was in the first place, the only thing seperating "assault weapons" from legal weapons were a couple minor cosmetic changes rolleyes

Back to FireTom:

 Written by:

Lurch - do the math: 5% of 11.624 people are 581 people saved - meaning that 581 families do not have to mourn their members - not to speak about friends. 581 ppl - that is about 17 times the VT shooting...



Now who's twisting numbers? Where did you pull 5% from? Or did you just arbitrarily pick a number?

 Written by:

reducing criminal use of AWs and especially LCMs could have nontrivial effects on gunshot victimizations. The few available studies suggest that attacks with semiautomatics including AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with LCMs result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms.




So really it's about the magazine capacity, not about the type of rifle.

 Written by:


- The gun laws across the US are flawed and do not prevent gun ownership of criminals and felons



The gun laws are not flawed. The laws are ALREADY THERE. Their enforcement has been hindered by people like you insisting on even more laws, and not insisting on enforcement of current laws. If we could just get those pesky criminals to stop breaking the laws then everything would be fine! ubbloco

 Written by: Stone

The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions that they are directly responsible for.



Ugh, Come on guys, don't you realize that bills and laws like these don't only apply to firearms? Should a car manufacturer be held responsible if someone robs a bank and uses their car as a get away? Or if they commit a hit and run? No. Should they be responsible if the car has a tendency to randomly explode because of a manufacturers defect? Of course! The same should apply to EVERYTHING, you can't pick and choose.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted: Written by: Lurch



You're saying gun owners have penis envy now FireTom? Not everyone with a BMW speeds, not everyone buys them to compensate. Maybe some are buying them simply because they are nice cars? Look good, and drive nice?



I mean this in the most respectful way possible, but if you only wear your seatbelt to stop the alarm, and to keep the police from giving you a ticket you're an idiot. I sincerely hope you were being sarcastic, but if not, how dare you critique my life choices and lecture me about 'putting myself and my family at higher risk' when you are so reckless yourself.





First of all Lurch I would highly appreciate it, if you refrain from directly insulting me and calling me names - in both: a dis- and a respectful way.... wink



By no means I have been sarcastic, stating my habits on seatbelts and helmets. It's my choice and the only life I am endangering by doing so is my own.



I have put it clearly forward in this thread: If a gun in your possession would exclusively endanger your own life - go ahead, shoot your brain out! But as guns are likely to endanger your friends and family and the society you live in, because some sick individuals have to take others before they go: ban guns!



Second of all



 Written by: myself

Many compare the need to own a big fast car with needing a penis elongation, or that men who need to own big fast cars do have a small penis or low self esteem.

I personally am not signing for that, but maybe its true that people who need to have big fast cars, do in fact have "power issues" and similar might apply to gun ownership.





(I put the important part in bold for you, so it's easier to comprehend...) wink



Third a "round" is a "round", a "pellet" is one of the small bullets inside that "round"... Excuse me, Sir - I'm trying my best to discuss with you in a language that is not my own. Kaum zu glauben. I wonder how the hunters in the "good ol'days" were hunting birds then, where they had no more than only two cartridges in the rifle. Certainly a grenade is even more efficient than bait and tackle - a silencer would allow the retarded hunter to shoot more often at his target, still they remain banned.



BTW if you face a murderer/ determined criminal who is pointing a gun at you, chances are you are screwed even if you have a gun. Most pro gunners are ready to admit this.



It's not merely on "violence" occurring in "large" (btw what is this?) communities, but "KILLING (Sprees)" and "(Mass) MURDERS". Which are by far more easy to commit with guns than with bows and swords. You want to say wink wink wink that this ain't true?



Laws in the US ARE flawed: For example VIRGINIA LAWS DO NOT REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS ON SECOND HAND SALES! rolleyes

ChoW would have had EASY access to guns ANY which way.



If Mrs. Brady buys a hunting rifle, it's immediately a "sniper gun". If ppl want to ban certain "high velocity rifles" they immediately retard into "sports/ hunting rifles"... you discredit your own (bad) arguments.



The recent Harvard studies seem to still remain unchallenged. And they do put forth some significant numbers, you seem to be unable to turn around...



And at this point I'm through discussing with ppl who call me an idiot and my prepositions outright "silly".



Breathe, Tom meditate Read your signature...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:*munches on a warm Nutella-creamcheese-waffle*



kiss peace wink

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1184015511)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, Im not buying anything, Im on a mission wink

All Fire Tom and I are suggesting is you open your consciousness to the facts that are undeniable. Gun violence is destroying your country, and a fair portion of the know world as well.

The anti gun groups put up convincing arguments to prove that assault weapons and concealed hand guns bring violence to the community. They have the research to back up what they say. Kleck and Lott are yesterdays news. Try reading the current fact sheets at Brady, the Harvard Medical School or the Bureau of Justice Statistics, before you criticize them.

You ask us to keep an open mind, but all you come up with is Oh wow, you guys will buy into anything an anti-gun group puts out wont you. Or its anti-gun propaganda made up by the media. Ive taken the time to read the pro gun stuff, and I even agree with some of what retired Lt. Col. Dave Grossman says, especially the bit where he says: "As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be".

I agree. Irrational violence is a very human trait. It's not pretty, but it is definably human. You're going to have to accept that sooner or later. Lurch, irrational violence is associated with the primitive part of the brain. As human beings we have a very complex brain. With training people learn to control their primitive brain and evolve to the next level, without violence.

 Written by:

The prefrontal cortex then monitors what the basal ganglia have learned. Its slower, more deliberate learning mechanisms allow it to gather a more judicious "big picture" of what is going on by taking into account more history and thereby exert executive control over behavior, Miller said.



You choose violence. Thats your choice. Though, we all have the potential to evolve, its written about in all the Holy Books. Mahatma Gandhi, the greatest leader of all time, drove the British from India with non-violence. I think pre 1960s Bhutan would have been a peaceful place to live.

I thought the military AKs were made non-military be changing them to semi auto. I suspect that this type of modification would be reversible. If the differences are only cosmetic then why didnt the NRA support Clintons legislation? You also havent told us about the command raids? And exactly what are fire fight tactics?

I like Bill Clinton, I thought he did a remarkable job as President. Especially his role in the Camp David talks. Dont you think its really up to your elected Government, and not the NRA, to decide which legalization is all flash and no content?

From an outsiders point of view its really does seem like the NRA is running America. The NRA seems to be more concerned with selling guns than anyones safety; cosmetic or otherwise. I cant help thinking if they have over 60,000 safety instructors, then its so they can sell more guns.

I didnt agree with Fire Tom to start with about global gun sales and how America is selling assault weapons to children, but I do now.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Page: 1...1415161718...44

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [gun law* quot license murder quot] we found the following similar topics.
1. Learn > POI > Partner Poi > Partner Poi Suicides (aka Murder Suicide) *help/resource murder suicide   ...
2. Forums > US Gun laws are &quot;License to murder&quot; [1 reply]
3. Forums > weird laws [8 replies]
4. Forums > the NEW smoking laws [103 replies]
5. Forums > Know the score as regards the law?? [10 replies]

     Show more..