Gun Control Spin

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Sunday, November 25, 2007 19:08
VIEWED: 6740
PAGE 1 of 1

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 1:48 AM

Hello True Believers,

Ugh. The newspapers are at it again. I just read an article called "Cops find themselves in arms race with criminals" on CNN. Knee-jerk alarmism at its worst. I'll quote you the parts that bother me first, and then I'll attach the whole story. Election year is coming up, Democrats are coming back into power, and here comes the gun control articles. This one will precede many others, and the topic is 'assault weapons.'

"Across the country, at least 62 police officers have been gunned down this year"

That's horrible. Now, how many of those 62 officers were gunned down by 'assault weapons?' Strange that the article doesn't say, since this statistic is meant to support the article's premise that the police are out-gunned, and that proliferation of 'assault weapons' are the reason why so many officers have lost their lives.

""We're having more than one officer shot and killed a week. It's just outrageous that officers are being targeted," he said. "It's something I think all Americans should be outraged about." He lays the blame squarely on lawmakers who allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004."

I am indeed outraged that so many officers are being killed in the line of duty. It is very troubling. However, I'm not sure what this has to do with the lapse of the The Assault Weapons ban... a ban which banned no assault weapons. Since the article declines to tell me how many officers of the 62 were killed by 'assault weapons', it's hard to say.

"Designed to be fired from the hip, assault rifles such as the AK-47 can spray at a rate of up to 600 rounds a minute in full automatic mode. It is the weapon of choice for guerillas and gangsters."

Designed to be fired from the hip? You can shoot any rifle from the hip, but it's hardly optimal to do so. I know of no military (including the Russian military) that recommends shooting your rifle from the hip. The US army played with the idea briefly about 5 or 6 decades ago, but discarded it as a bad idea. An AK-47 would have abysmal accuracy when fired from the hip. Further, it's not convenient to fire from the hip when inside a vehicle. (Which is how the weapon might be most ably used by criminals: In a drive-by.) Finally, fully automatic AK-47's are still illegal. (This is the weapon that shoots 600 rounds a minute, not the civilian semi-automatic version.) There is no need for an 'Assault Weapons Ban' on that weapon. The only way to own an automatic weapon legally is to pay a 200 dollar fee to the Federal government and subject yourself to a weeks-long detailed background investigation. I don't think gangsters are doing this. Most law-abiding citizens who might qualify to do this don't bother. It's a big hassle and usually an unnecessary expense, especially when semi-automatic versions of the weapons are available. Criminals don't bother to do this either, but for different reasons. As criminals, they freely ignore the law and acquire illegal weapons anyway. If the Assault Weapons Ban was to be re-enacted, it merely means the criminals would be forced to ignore two laws instead of one.

""The streets of South Florida are being flooded by AK-47s and assault weapons from old Soviet bloc countries. It's driven the price down, making the availability greater," said Chief Timoney."

I'm sure there are lots of inexpensive AK-47's in Florida. However, the commonly available AK-47 is not an assault weapon. It is a civilian semiautomatic rifle. I'd not be surprised to learn that some are being converted to fully-automatic via illegal modifications. You can do this to ANY semiautomatic weapon. That includes any pistol that was never designed for automatic fire. It is always illegal to do so, unless you have a special permit from the Feds. I doubt criminals are getting these permits.

"Chief Timoney says he started noticing an increase since the federal assault weapon ban lapsed in 2004. Since then, he says homicides in the city of Miami involving assault weapons

RUE

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 2:29 AM

The fatal shooting in September of a Miami-Dade police officer by a man using an assault weapon put all South Florida police departments on edge. Several other officers were wounded by the gunfire.

Assault weapons have been used to kill eight people and wound 25 here over the last two years. Authorities estimate there are about 160 gangs who boast around 7000 members.

"They don't have .38s anymore. They have AK-47s. ...They have automatic weapons now," said Sgt. Pfeil.

"It's a little bit embarrassing that we're engaged in this, but what is the alternative?" said Miami police Chief John Timoney. He said gangs, in particular, are getting their hands on high-powered weapons with apparent ease.

"The streets of South Florida are being flooded by AK-47s and assault weapons from old Soviet bloc countries. It's driven the price down, making the availability greater," said Chief Timoney.

The Miami police department evidence room has seized AK-47s, AR-15s and an assortment of other automatic and semiautomatic weapons piled on shelves from floor to ceiling.

Chief Timoney says he started noticing an increase since the federal assault weapon ban lapsed in 2004. Since then, he says homicides in the city of Miami involving assault weapons have been up -- 18 percent last year and 20 percent this year.

The Miami Police Department said 15 of its 79 homicides last year involved assault weapons, up from the year before. So far this year, 12 of 60 killings have involved the high-powered arms.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 6:07 AM

Too many people crowding my planet anyhow, the way I see it Rue. They're just doing Mother Nature's work since technology has allowed us to trump her power.

If nothing else, this news would make any rational person desire the ability to arm themselves even more.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 7:38 AM

Like the paper said.
Arms.

"What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression."
-Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley, 1898

That bein said, I wouldn't really recommend an AK for home defense, not that it wouldn't do a damned effective job, mind you - but rather in that it would overpenetrate, not to mention as anyone who has ever discharged a firearm indoors in an emergency can tell you, it's a rather, erm... stunning experience.

I have no issue with folks carrying anything they please, so long as that right is universal.

And as long as they are enforcing this type of law, the police should be bound by it, just the same as us citizens are.

If they wanna bitch about it, throw the same bullshit excuses back in their face they throw in ours - see how long such stupidity lasts when their own self defense is hindered by it.

History has a word to describe unarmed people, do you know what it is ?

Victims.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CITIZEN

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 8:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Like the paper said.
Arms.

"What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression."
-Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley, 1898

A term that includes anything from a dagger to a thermo-nuclear device.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 11:12 AM

Exactly, and in my opinion, as it should be.

It was the intent of our founders for the citizens to completely outgun any government forces up to and including the military, to act as a necessary check and balance against tyranny.

So what to do they do ?

(UnConstitutionally) Outlaw almost anything more than popguns, and arm up SWAT with body armor, assault rifles, and APCs.

Hear that buzzing sound ? - that's Patrick Henry spinning in his grave.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 3:11 PM

To be honest...

If I thought the government would legislate controls to civilian armament that were reasonable, and then STOP, I'd support them.

Unfortunately, the gun control advocates aren't interested in reasonable limitations. They are, by self admission, interested in banning firearms outright. They have proudly proclaimed each new gun law as a stepping stone to disarmament.

How can a reasonable man agree with reasonable controls when he knows that each reasonable control is simply a step closer to the unreasonable monopoly of the government and criminal population over all weapons?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CITIZEN

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 5:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Exactly, and in my opinion, as it should be.

It was the intent of our founders for the citizens to completely outgun any government forces up to and including the military, to act as a necessary check and balance against tyranny.
-Frem

Depends how you look at it. The term "Bear arms" at the time meant "serve in the military", not "own weapons". An arguably correct definition of the 2nd Amendment was allowing anyone to join the Militia, and keeping that Militia from being subject to control of the Federal government.

To be honest the casual disregard for the danger of weapons I've seen or heard of from some American gun owners, I wouldn't want them to have weapons that could cause the sort of destruction as a pound of Semtex, let alone anything more powerful.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

STORYMARK

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 5:15 PM

Too many people hide their love for guns behind a claim of self-defense, when really, the guns just get them hard.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

GEEZER

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 5:31 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Quote:
Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

After they get all the "assualt" rifles, guess they'll be coming after the "arsenal" in my kitchen. I've also got some rather pointy screwdrivers in the shop, along with hammers and handsaws. And the splitting maul I use to chop firewood...oh, dear.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 5:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Quote:
Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

After they get all the "assualt" rifles, guess they'll be coming after the "arsenal" in my kitchen. I've also got some rather pointy screwdrivers in the shop, along with hammers and handsaws. And the splitting maul I use to chop firewood...oh, dear.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

How many nuclear bombs do you have geezer? (I mean while we're using the slippery slope fallacy).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RIGHTEOUS9

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 5:56 PM

I'm really torn on the issue of gun control.

I simply do not want crazy people to has access to weaponry that have such final and dramatic results, they can change the course of a couple dozen lives in seconds.

On the other hand, I'd like to support the second amendment as written(and while I grant that it's open for interpretation, the most liberal interpretation is safest),

and in this case as in many, I believe the problem is less with the guns and more with our inability to adress the root of the issue, like poor education and little government assistance for troubled citizens, a generally poor support structure that is the byproduct of our society which cultivates so much alienation, etc.

but in the meantime what is the solution? Heh, as if we were on our way to some greater enlightenment. But given our current condition, and given the imbalanced ability of one man to destroy so much so quickly, I don't have a problem with the spirit of laws that regulate gun access based upon determined sanity, and maybe psychological evaluations...

which of course leads back to the other dangerous prospect that I think has been brought up before....who gets to decide sanity? Can such a process be used as a method of selective control over citizens more likely to be unruly? Maybe they could have a criteria within the test that says if applicant is unhappy with current administration, he is a risk to the community...etc. I'm being a little Hyperbolic sure, but I"m not sure by how much.

The only thing I can suggest, given my current understanding, is that we as citizens give support to our politicians to regulate guns based on the determined sanity of the applicants, but at the same time, we scrutinize diligently the criteria, the hiring process, and the science behind the decisions being made...so that we don't allow our representatives to disenfranchise our fellow citizens unduly. Of course our inability to pay attention is one of those other root problems at the heart of our American crisis.

Some middle ground has to be found on this one...both extremes are well...for once, extreme.

RUE

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 6:08 PM

"and the science behind the decisions being made"

FACT-based legislation ???? Oh dear me that's asking way too much.

***************************************************************
That would be like asking for treatment for drug offenders rather than jail, or legalizing marijuana, or mental health screening for convicted perps, or review of taser use, or police car cams ...

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 6:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
"Bear arms" at the time meant "serve in the military", not "own weapons". An arguably correct definition of the 2nd Amendment was allowing anyone to join the Militia, and keeping that Militia from being subject to control of the Federal government.

Seems to me that, historically, at that time, the Minutemen were still in everyone's memory, as was the fact that the new nation was still a frontier society, mostly. To have served in the militia would have meant keeping your gun in your home, and grabbing it and comin'a'runnin' when there was a problem.
That's what the Founding Fathers had experienced, and what they meant.
Times have changed, the situation has changed, maybe the Amendment needs to be changed, but that's what they meant.

RUE

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 6:55 PM

The FF were practical. They really tried to predict how any situation would play out, and forestall potential problems. There is such a thing as being so dogmatic over the particulars that you lose the intent, something I suspect the FF would not be happy to see.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CITIZEN

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 7:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Seems to me that, historically, at that time, the Minutemen were still in everyone's memory, as was the fact that the new nation was still a frontier society, mostly. To have served in the militia would have meant keeping your gun in your home, and grabbing it and comin'a'runnin' when there was a problem.
That's what the Founding Fathers had experienced, and what they meant.
Times have changed, the situation has changed, maybe the Amendment needs to be changed, but that's what they meant.

That situation isn't anaglous to what there is now though.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

HERO

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

Seems to me that, historically, at that time, the Minutemen were still in everyone's memory, as was the fact that the new nation was still a frontier society, mostly. To have served in the militia would have meant keeping your gun in your home, and grabbing it and comin'a'runnin' when there was a problem.
That's what the Founding Fathers had experienced, and what they meant.
Times have changed, the situation has changed, maybe the Amendment needs to be changed, but that's what they meant.

Shay's Rebellion was a more immediate concern then the legacy of the minutemen.

Yet despite the obvious threat to the State by armed citizens with a grievance, they chose to adopt the protection anyway trusting that a just government would have nothing to fear from its people.

H

GEEZER

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 7:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
How many nuclear bombs do you have geezer? (I mean while we're using the slippery slope fallacy).

None, so far. I haven't found a use for one yet and they're sorta expensive to keep around 'just in case'.

I have found that while cooking I do tend to use a 10" chef's knife or utility knife quite a bit more than a short paring knife. Screwdrivers, saws, hammers, etc. come in handy from time to time as well. My rifle has filled my freezer with all-natural wild game, saving me the cost and risk of hormone-'enhanced' beef. They're all tools to me - ones that I need - and I get the best I can afford.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 7:43 PM

Righteous, I believe the best course of action is industry self-regulation - given current liability issues cause by sue-happy folk who are scared witless of a mere tool, it's in their own best interest to limit that liability by demanding some evidence of competence prior to sale.

Seriously, it's a simple, logical solution to many of the problems, have a list of inexpensive basic courses in firearm use and safety that meet the approval of said manufacturer and/or gun store, and require the certification from one of them as a condition of the sale, as is within the right of the businesses involved.

And perhaps offer a discount if one can provide a cert from a more involved/advanced training course, since those folk would have an even lower liability issue, you see.

Honestly, if you were going to buy a powerful tool that could harm or even kill you or someone else if mishandled - wouldn't you make sure you knew what the hell you were doing before you tried to use it ?

That also would keep the Governments filthy paws off the issue, cause they've proven, by the stepping stone analogy above, that they cannot br trusted with it.

Just to make sure no ambiguity exsists in my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, I read it as thus, in modern interpretation and phrasing.

"The right of all people to own and carry with them, weapons - is inviolate and shall not in any way be hindered."

And for the "it'll never happen here!" folks, it did happen here, during Katrina - what is to say that such would not happen in case of a fire, flood, power outage or similar disaster in your town someday ?

Even so, I think people attach too much emotion and projected issues to what is a mere tool, an object without will or motivating force of it's own.

I keep a fire extinguisher, first aid kit, and a pistol handy, all for the exact same reason, to handle a situation while waiting for the professionals to get there and assist.

No one (yet) wants to ban the first aid kit, or the fire extinguisher... so from that viewpoint it's just damned silly, isn't it ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 7:53 PM

Out of curiosity Geeze, and yer not at all obligated to answer if you don't wanna...

What's yer preferred protein collection unit ?

One of my buddies has a right nice Tikka which for it's price impressed me quite a bit, and a couple of the shotgunners have some real nice kit.

I don't hunt per se, being hopeless with a rifle, but for a cut of the bagged game, I'll scout and find ya something to shoot, IF the folks involved meet my standards of basic safety and competency.

Of course that means they gotta actually keep up, and most of us are gettin a little too old and wheezy for that kinda thing anymore, not to mention being dubious of the safety standards of the younger crowd these days.

Tree stands and bait blocks are for lazy bums, lol.

-F

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 8:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
That situation isn't anaglous to what there is now though.

And this is the problem that I have with the people who insist on the literal Second Amendment interpretation. It was written in a time when there was no standing army, wilderness outside almost everyones door and weapons that took quite a while to fire. The only way for someone to kill lots of people in short order would be to load themselves down with dozens of guns making themselves quite conspicuous. In the modern day the killing capacity of weapons (be they semi-auto, bolt action or even break action) is MUCH greater then it was 200 years ago, and the need for guns has decreased.

It is my opinion that if the FF knew the way weapon development would go they would not have made such a broad, sweeping statement. It is also my opinion that if the lawmakers did not feel that they could interpret the Second Amendment in a fashion that lets them reasonably restrict weapons then they would have passed a revised version by now.

That being said I do agree that current gun laws are made by people who don't understand weapons and have goals that are not constitutional. Reasonable gun control is good, the gun control desired by the average gun control advocate is not.

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 8:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Righteous, I believe the best course of action is industry self-regulation - given current liability issues cause by sue-happy folk who are scared witless of a mere tool, it's in their own best interest to limit that liability by demanding some evidence of competence prior to sale.

Gun shows, private transfers, stolen weapons.

Quote:
Seriously, it's a simple, logical solution to many of the problems, have a list of inexpensive basic courses in firearm use and safety that meet the approval of said manufacturer and/or gun store, and require the certification from one of them as a condition of the sale, as is within the right of the businesses involved.

And perhaps offer a discount if one can provide a cert from a more involved/advanced training course, since those folk would have an even lower liability issue, you see.

Honestly, if you were going to buy a powerful tool that could harm or even kill you or someone else if mishandled - wouldn't you make sure you knew what the hell you were doing before you tried to use it ?

Generally speaking the problem is not the people who accidentally shoot someone so much as the people who intentionally shoot someone. In the latter case competence isn't a good thing

RIGHTEOUS9

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 8:10 PM

That's an interesting approach frem, and one that deserves a folllow-up question. If you think that the industry will regulate itself if pushed by litigation, then are you for placing some blame at the foot of firearms distributors when the person they sold a gun to goes into a school and executes a classroom of children?

I'm not sure exactly how much that flies in the face of my sense of the liberetarian "Personal responsibility" stance,

but I don't think you can hold to your premise without promoting the right and even the need to go after the companies for damages done by their product.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 8:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
None, so far. I haven't found a use for one yet and they're sorta expensive to keep around 'just in case'.

I have found that while cooking I do tend to use a 10" chef's knife or utility knife quite a bit more than a short paring knife. Screwdrivers, saws, hammers, etc. come in handy from time to time as well. My rifle has filled my freezer with all-natural wild game, saving me the cost and risk of hormone-'enhanced' beef. They're all tools to me - ones that I need - and I get the best I can afford.

I think you missed my point. I meant that a ban on guns doesn't mean a ban on kitchen knifes.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 10:44 PM

I think the gun 'industry' (however you want to parse it) should be held liable for gun deaths. It's their product after all. Once they have a few big lawsuits they'll be more careful about not losing too much money. In practice though what you will need are minimum standards and an impartial arbiter of fault. You wouldn't want the (self-insured) industry deciding on whether or not to pay a claim or how much is reasonable prevention.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 11:34 PM

The car industry should be held liable for car accidents as well.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 11:39 PM

How about the fast food industry for fatal heart attacks.

RUE

Thursday, November 8, 2007 12:03 AM

Too late - it's been done.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Thursday, November 8, 2007 12:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
How about the fast food industry for fatal heart attacks.

Done all the time

http://www.healthcastle.com/trans_fat_burgerking.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2070417&page=1

GEEZER

Thursday, November 8, 2007 12:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Out of curiosity Geeze, and yer not at all obligated to answer if you don't wanna...

What's yer preferred protein collection unit ?

Savage Model 16 in .300 Winchester Short Magnum with a Nikon 4.5x14 scope. Should work on everything from pronghorn to elk, although I haven't had a chance at elk yet. With a laser rangefinder, computer-generated drop tables, and a bit of practice, I'm comfortable out to about 600yds.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Thursday, November 8, 2007 12:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I think you missed my point. I meant that a ban on guns doesn't mean a ban on kitchen knifes.

No. You missed my point. Banning tools because a small precentage of the population misuses them isn't a logical response. Further, it has a disproportinate impact on the majority who use them properly and responsably, and almost no impact on those who willfully misuse them.

Lots of people use the internet to distribute or obtain kiddie porn. Terrorist and racist organizations use it to communicate and plan attacks. Others use it to perpetrate scams and identity thefts. Should we ban the internet, or work to identify and stop those who misuse it?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Thursday, November 8, 2007 12:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think the gun 'industry' (however you want to parse it) should be held liable for gun deaths.

Don't forget the long, pointy kitchen knife 'industry'. And the movies Saw I thru IV should let you know the real impetus behind the power tool 'industry'. How about chainsaws?

God forbid an individual should actually be held responsible for their conduct.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Thursday, November 8, 2007 12:56 AM

Any 'industry', even the gun industry, will always want to expand its market. Kinda like the alcohol and tobacco industries did for many decades advertizing to children and even selling to them under the counter (the AT in ATF ). Between rampant and irresponsible sales and a ban there is middle ground where the gun industry IS responsible.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, November 8, 2007 1:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
How about the fast food industry for fatal heart attacks.

Done all the time

http://www.healthcastle.com/trans_fat_burgerking.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2070417&page=1

Thanks for the links, although that wasn't my point.
I believe Geezer said it best but let me add my 2 cents. Why accept personal responsibility for your actions when you can blame someone else. That just don't sit right with me for some reason. If you want to smoke and drink and eat fatty foods all day so be it. Just don't come crying to me when they cut the wall out of your house to take you to the hospital for chemo followed by a liver transplant.

RUE

Thursday, November 8, 2007 1:14 AM

It's not so simple. Let's say you have NO regulation on gun sales. Some grade-school kid brings his paper route money and buys an AK-47 and guns down the school (stay with me).

WHO is responsible ?

1) The kid is not of legal (or mental) age to exert that kind of responsibility.

2) The parents would traditionally be though of as 'accountable' but as anyone knows, even if you have an idea your kid might be unstable you can't keep them chained up in the house - even if you try. And there's no law against the kid getting a gun of any type.

3) The gun seller should have exercised better judgment - I mean really, selling an AK-47 to a young kid is just inviting trouble - but in the society YOU propose, they have NO responsibility.

And in real life, they ARE part of the equation, they DO have some responsibility.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 8, 2007 1:35 AM

Yanno, I find it passing strange:

The dollar is sinking like a stone (only faster), we've turned into a debtor nation and lost a lot of manufacturing, the world is overpopulated like crazy, the Bush government has us in a quagmire and thinks it's OK to snoop on anybody without a warrant, and toss people into prison w/o a writ ... and you're talking about using GUNS to solve your problems?????

Bad schools? GET A GUN!
Corporate tyranny? GET A GUN!
Type II diabetes? GET A GUN!

"Arms" are not the end-all and be-all solution that y'all seem to think. They're not even terribly effective for self-defense, unless you're well-practiced (which most of us aren't). I don't particularly want the army and police to have a monopoly on "arms", but unless you guys can get together and organize you'll just be another loony-tune with a gun.

Sheesh.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, November 8, 2007 3:44 AM

Hmm...

I'm not sure we advocate having guns for any of those reasons.

Bad Schools? Administer proper funding, or enable people to pay for the private school of their choosing.

Corporate Tyranny? I'm not sure what specifically you mean. Enron? I bet there's a lot of people who WISH guns were the solution to that debacle. I remember people saying the Execs should be lined up and shot.

Type II Diabetes? Diet and Exercise, then pills, then insulin.

Target shooting? Get a Gun!

Personal Defense? Get a Gun!

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

GEEZER

Thursday, November 8, 2007 4:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It's not so simple. Let's say you have NO regulation on gun sales.

Let's say that's not reasonable under most anyone's world-view.
There is already regulation of gun sales based on age and prior criminal record. Even Fremd the anarchist supports some sort of proficiency qualification, and I'd suspect that most folk understand that parents have some responsibility to supervise their children.

Quote:
Some grade-school kid brings his paper route money and buys an AK-47 and guns down the school (stay with me).

Can't stay with you, since this isn't possible based on current law, or the generally accepted concept that parents are responsible for their children's behavior.

Quote:
WHO is responsible ?

1) The kid is not of legal (or mental) age to exert that kind of responsibility.

True. But since the kid can't buy an AK-47 under current law, it's a moot point. If the parents buy one for the kid,and he/she wastes the school, it's pretty much the fanily's fault.

Quote:
2) The parents would traditionally be though of as 'accountable' but as anyone knows, even if you have an idea your kid might be unstable you can't keep them chained up in the house - even if you try. And there's no law against the kid getting a gun of any type.

Sorry, but there is law against the kid buying an AK-47, just as there is a law against the kid driving a car at 14. You're proposing a completely spurious scenario which has nothing to do with a total gun ban.

Quote:
3) The gun seller should have exercised better judgment - I mean really, selling an AK-47 to a young kid is just inviting trouble - but in the society YOU propose, they have NO responsibility.

Nope. You're the one proposing that parents and others have no responsability. I'm just opposing a flatout ban.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Thursday, November 8, 2007 4:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yanno, I find it passing strange:

The dollar is sinking like a stone (only faster), we've turned into a debtor nation and lost a lot of manufacturing, the world is overpopulated like crazy, the Bush government has us in a quagmire and thinks it's OK to snoop on anybody without a warrant, and toss people into prison w/o a writ ... and you're talking about using GUNS to solve your problems?????

I'm talking about using guns to shoot holes in paper from far distances and to get my family meat that's not full of chemicals.

As long as I buy American, the dollar still buys pretty much the same amount of stuff. Overpopulation will solve itself in unfortunate ways. The Bush government will be gone in 14 months and we'll see if the Dems will be less quagmiry.

Let's not react to short-term events with decisions that'll impact us forever.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 8, 2007 4:33 AM

I hope your gun aim is better than your logical aim. Unless you guys organize you're just a fart in am empty pair of pants. Otherwise, you're just a nut with a gun. Easily picked off. But somehow the just owning a gun seems to be important?

A gun is just a symbol. It's not a real answer to much of anything. If you could organize well enough the beat an army, you could organize well enough to beat someone politically. The point is to organize. But y'all are so wedded to individualism that you'll hang onto an outmoded symbol to prop up your dysfunctional ideology.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 8, 2007 4:34 AM

Quote:
As long as I buy American

Yeah good luck on that.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Thursday, November 8, 2007 4:48 AM

Geezer

Some people here believe the 'gun industry' bears NO responsibility. It's ALL personal and individual.

So what I concocted was a hypothetical (I assume you know what that means), used to try and figure out where responsibility might be cultural, legal, or personal.

And indeed, the 'gun industry' does bear some responsibility in the whole question of gun control.

"meat that's not full of chemicals"
Wanted to point out the problem with wasting disease.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, November 8, 2007 5:01 AM

" If you think that the industry will regulate itself if pushed by litigation, then are you for placing some blame at the foot of firearms distributors when the person they sold a gun to goes into a school and executes a classroom of children?"

Nope.

I am saying it would give the manufacturer and the shop legal defense against the idiotic and commonly held "It's all the guns fault" maniacs - by showing that THEY made a good-faith effort to not sell to obvious lunatics.

I am sayin it would be a better solution than government intervention, is all, cause my opinion of the folks who'd sue a weapon manufacturer for misuse of the device, well...

It would be winded, profane and about as offensive to those people as I could possibly make it, but i'm too lazy to type it all out at the moment.

In all honesty, it's not a bad idea in and for it's own sake.

As for the lunacy I see expressed here...

A huge part of the problem rests with the profound stupidity of folk believing words on paper will stop an established criminal from obtaining and possessing a firearm - I don't know what kind of bizarre mental contortions are required to believe that shite... but I know for sure that I do not subscribe to them.

There's always gonna BE crooks with firearms, it's GONNA happen, ain't no preventin it, ain't no stoppin it - and up against some gangbanger who's gonna have to pull his nine out of them baggy pants to shoot me with it, I rather think a bullet would answer the problem more effectively than politely asking him to hold his water while I call 911 and wait for the cops to arrive.

And sure, the possibility exists even for someone who is armed, of being outgunned or outnumbered, same as if you weren't, and in such a case they better hit me with the first one right between the eyes, cause imma take em with me otherwise.

Look, there's no guarantee of personal safety in a free society, it just can't happen, it's not even possible, ok - so all *I* am asking, all that I desire, is the right to have an effective argument at hand when that ugly reality everyone seems to be denying, rears it's head in my path.

And what you are saying to that, collectively, is that you do not trust me to defend myself, that I should hand that simple, basic, unalienable right over to the state, which has proven time and time again to be a damned piss-poor caretaker of such things.

It's an insult beyond measure, and if you wanna play that game with me, let's go quid pro quo on it, theoretically, ok ?

I'll hand over the piece, YOU hand over your drivers license and car keys.
You don't trust me to defend myself, I won't trust you to drive a car.

And while you're busy suing colt arms, I'll be busy suing ford, and we can all snark at each other as the state shovels us into little rubber rooms between our corporate service and we're all nice and safe...

It's insane, and I am done discussing it - we're not gonna agree, there doesn't seem to be one speck of common ground to meet on, besides the fact that I view with intense suspicion and downright hostility anyone who would want me rendered helpless by their edict.

Wouldn't you ?

-Frem

BTW - That's a nice piece, Geeze it's got potency, versatility and more range than one would expect, thanks for the reply.

RUE

Thursday, November 8, 2007 5:08 AM

Coming from different places, we agree on the fact that the gun industry needs to be proactive and forgo a small amount of profit to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal, the irresponsible, the inept, and the insane.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ANTHONYT

Thursday, November 8, 2007 6:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Coming from different places, we agree on the fact that the gun industry needs to be proactive and forgo a small amount of profit to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal, the irresponsible, the inept, and the insane.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

I'm with you there, Rue. Unfortunately, that's the beginning of what gun control advocates wish to accomplish. It is not the end. Equally unfortunate, it can be the means to that end.

If everyone would agree to my right to keep and bear arms, I could agree with reasonable controls over that right.

SignyM, I think I remember reading a post from you where you suggest that gun owners get organized. I assure you, the need to organize has been recognized, and caused us to band together in organizations. Some of the organizations we embrace fully, some hesitantly. They are a means to political power, the power to protect our rights.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Thursday, November 8, 2007 6:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Coming from different places, we agree on the fact that the gun industry needs to be proactive and forgo a small amount of profit to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal, the irresponsible, the inept, and the insane.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

I'm with you there, Rue. Unfortunately, that's the beginning of what gun control advocates wish to accomplish. It is not the end. Equally unfortunate, it can be the means to that end.

If everyone would agree to my right to keep and bear arms, I could agree with reasonable controls over that right.

SignyM, I think I remember reading a post from you where you suggest that gun owners get organized. I assure you, the need to organize has been recognized, and caused us to band together in organizations. Some of the organizations we embrace fully, some hesitantly. They are a means to political power, the power to protect our rights.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 8, 2007 7:23 AM

Quote:
SignyM, I think I remember reading a post from you where you suggest that gun owners get organized. I assure you, the need to organize has been recognized, and caused us to band together in organizations.

Such as....?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

JARHEAD

Thursday, November 8, 2007 8:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

3) The gun seller should have exercised better judgment - I mean really, selling an AK-47 to a young kid is just inviting trouble - but in the society YOU propose, they have NO responsibility.

(Please understand I have not begun to take the time to read all of these posts, so if I cover a few already covered points, etc. I appologize in advance.)

Also understand that the details are everything in this article... The Miami police are blaming the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban on the flood of illegal AK-47s? Not illegal to own(if they were made prior to 1986 and in the registered within the grace period in compliance with the NFA amendment of that year), I mean illegal to IMPORT.

If those are full auto AK's "hitting the streets", the argument that legitimate gun dealers that cross their "T"s, dot their "I"s, endure regular inspection from the BATFE and what is in effect a basic forfeiture of their Fourth Amendment rights, If you are saying that these people are in any way responsible for the deaths of some officers, then you really to get schooled on firearms laws in the US.

Long story short - the American firearms industry has nothing to do with AK-47's - for that you are going to need to look to China, Russia, Romania, and whoever it is that has figured out how to SMUGGLE them into Florida. I( say smuggle, because Customs won't allow their import, and FEDERAL FRAKIN LAW won't allow their sale. Regan signed that law into effect for Pete's sake.

The assault weapons ban did not cover the automatic AK-47s. It had no effect on this, whatsoever.

And I just realized that this is Miami we're talking about. Oh gee, assault weapon crime in major entry city for cocaine traffickers. To quote Gilbert Gottfried, I might have a heart attack and die of NOT-SURPRISE.

I’m never serious. Serious means something bad is about to happen.

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature

JARHEAD

Thursday, November 8, 2007 8:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think the gun 'industry' (however you want to parse it) should be held liable for gun deaths. It's their product after all. Once they have a few big lawsuits they'll be more careful about not losing too much money. In practice though what you will need are minimum standards and an impartial arbiter of fault. You wouldn't want the (self-insured) industry deciding on whether or not to pay a claim or how much is reasonable prevention.

Should we start holding the car industry responsible for people using a car a a murder weapon? Why not, it's their product, they should have checked a bit more thoroughly before they sold the car to someone.

How about the chemical industry? People are poisoned every year, and if they didn't make household cleansers, if would be much tougher, have to start using paint or maybe breaking old mercury thermometers. It's their product, so we should hold them accountable.

You know we should go after the makers of five gallon buckets like paint comes in - you know how many toddlers drown every year in those?

No, really, I can totally see where you're coming from. A few lawsuits and we can save the world.

Or just maybe we can look at this from a common sense perspective - the person that pulled the trigger is responsible for pulling the trigger. The fat kid should stop guzzling 64OZ big gulps. Drunk drivers are responsible for hitting the road plastered. Cigarette smokers are the ones that held the cancer stick to their own lips and amazingly got cancer. In short the reason that we only hold the individual responsible is because THEY ARE THE ONES THAT DID IT.

I’m never serious. Serious means something bad is about to happen.

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature

ARCLIGHT

Thursday, November 8, 2007 12:55 PM

"...If you could organize well enough the beat an army, you could organize well enough to beat someone politically."

What makes you think we're not organized enough to beat someone politically? Remember the 2000 Presidental election? It's beginning to look like WE may have to steal another one.

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 8, 2007 1:10 PM

Who is "we"? The NRA?

If so, that's just a narrow, symbolic involvement for your freedom. I hope it's a little more borad-based group that gets to the fundamentals.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Thursday, November 8, 2007 1:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
A gun is just a symbol.

To you, apparently. To me, it's a tool.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Thursday, November 8, 2007 1:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer

Some people here believe the 'gun industry' bears NO responsibility. It's ALL personal and individual.

Not me. But I do think that the individual bears a greater proportion of the responsibility, particularly if they intentionally use a firearm (or any tool, for that matter) in an unsafe or illegal manner.

Manufacturers should be held liable if their products don't perform to spec, or if they're dangerous to users or bystanders when used properly.

Quote:
"meat that's not full of chemicals"
Wanted to point out the problem with wasting disease.

Not an issue in the areas I hunt, or in the pronghorn antelope, the game I prefer. Also pretty easy to identify, and not communicable to humans.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Thursday, November 8, 2007 1:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Coming from different places, we agree on the fact that the gun industry needs to be proactive and forgo a small amount of profit to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal, the irresponsible, the inept, and the insane.

Hmmm. I agree that we should try "...to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal, the irresponsible, the inept, and the insane." I'm not so sure that the firearms 'industry', as in manufacturers, is the proper group on which to place this responsibility.

Laws and processes are already in place to prohibit sale of firearms to criminals and the adjudged insane. This is accomplished by background checks made by individual gun dealers through a federal program.

I'm trying to figure out how you could proactively identify 'the irresponsible' prior to a gun sale any more than you could before a car sale.

'Inept' could be taken care of by Fremd's requirement of a certificate of proficiency prior to sale. Most States which issue carry permits already have such a requirement.

Even with all of this in place the real problem - people obtaining guns through illegal means to commit illegal acts - will continue.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, November 8, 2007 2:34 PM

"The point is to organize."

SOMEONE has to point this out, since no one else dares lest they be viewed as a proto-suspect already.

After watching what happened at Waco, staring down the barrel of the Patriot Act, and now HR1955...

Anyone who was doing such a thing damned sure would not discuss it publicly, not THESE days, hell no - cause these idiotic and unconstitutional laws make even political organising outright illegal, read them carefully if you do not believe me.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Not that it matters much, with the greater part of our fellow citizens diggin us in deeper, cheering all the way - frankly the one satisfaction imma have when things go to hell in a handbasket is watching them sink first, and small comfort it is, knowing they've chained ME to that boat anchor too.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 8, 2007 5:16 PM

Quote:
A gun is just a symbol.- Signy

To you, apparently. To me, it's a tool-Geezer

Well, regular hunters are an exception to my comment. But most people who wax poetic about the right to bear arms are often less-than-practical about how they might actually do any good. The only way to conceivably fight the "gummint" with guns is to have an organized militia with hundreds of thousands of members.

Quote:
Anyone who was doing such a thing damned sure would not discuss it publicly, not THESE days, hell no

I agree. You COULD be declared an illegal enemy combatant and clapped in jail forever for just discussing such a thing (conspiracy to commit terrorism or some such). I was just curious if Anthony T was referring to Ron Paul, the NRA or a third group. I think I have my answer.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CITIZEN

Thursday, November 8, 2007 6:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
No. You missed my point. Banning tools because a small precentage of the population misuses them isn't a logical response. Further, it has a disproportinate impact on the majority who use them properly and responsably, and almost no impact on those who willfully misuse them.

Whatever, to suggest that banning guns will cause every tool to be banned is still a fundementally flawed argument, as it is a slippery slope fallacy. Beyond that I haven't said whether guns should be outright banned or not, so why you're getting all on at me I have no idea.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Lots of people use the internet to distribute or obtain kiddie porn. Terrorist and racist organizations use it to communicate and plan attacks. Others use it to perpetrate scams and identity thefts. Should we ban the internet, or work to identify and stop those who misuse it?

But child pornography sites are illegal, so this is a really bad analogy. Comparing guns to kitchen knives isn't great either, a gun is designed to kill people, a knife is designed to cut up food. Theres a big difference between a tool that *could* be used for a purpose, and a tool that is *designed* for that purpose.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RIGHTEOUS9

Thursday, November 8, 2007 6:48 PM

I wish you weren't done discussing it frem...

and I at least have hardly come to a solid conclusion on this...working through this discussion is how I'm gaining a better understanding of the issue and the perspectives involved.

That said,

my problem with your throw-away solution is that it isn't entirely genuine, I don't think. You suggest that the industry will regulate itself because of the looney's or ambulance chasers that are sue happy over the manufacturers, but in an ideal government and legal system you would see such litigation thrown out of court as frivolous,

leaving you with a self-regulating industry that has no reason to self-regulate.

why in that circumstance would gun retailers bother to screen who they let have a gun? It's money in their pocket after all...and we all know corporations don't have a conscience...they aren't actually people...

...........................

as to your driver's license argument....people who are deemed unstable don't get to drive, people who are blind don't get to drive, people with too many tickets don't get to drive. It is regulated...somebody decides that based on some criteria of competence that the american people, by proxy, agree upon.

............................

I'm not looking to take all risk out of life in favor of safety. But I see no sanity in having an entirely unregulated system that is likely to infringe upon peoples rights to life and liberty in a cascadingly dramatic fashion.

............................

I don't know if anybody on the board has suggested that there should be no way to legally obtain a gun, for the purpose of self-defense, hunting...collection..etc, though I might have missed it.

The discussion has been about regulation and liability, mostly. I want some sort of screening process is all, though it occurs to me that it wouldn't be a bad thing if gun owners were a little liable for the weapon they own. I'm just throwing that out there, because I see some problems with the idea, but personal responsibiliy for the registered weapons people have taken into their homes maybe could be done. You can't entirely blame somebody if their gun gets stolen, but if it got stolen or misplaced 3 days ago and wasn't reported, I think that might be something we could insist a gun-owner be on top of. This is just me thinking out loud though.
............................

I do share your concerns...I see a very real reason why the second amerndment could be important to hold up high, given that we live in an ever tenuous democracy, and I see legitimate reasons for carrying a gun for self defense(I think even Kucinich must agree on this one...he did carry one himself after getting death threats)

and I saw the confiscation of firearms during katrina as a blatant assault on the second amendment, especially given the circumstances(when has there been more of an absence of a well regulated militia?)

And I see a real danger, as I talked about in my other post, in not watching closely the agencies that would regulate gun control(the criteria should never be allowed to be a secret)

............................

And quite possibly its not the big issue of the day. I'm not sure what the ratio fo gun owners to gun-deaths is in this country, though we certainly have the highest gun related deaths of all devoloped countries, but it's probably lower than the ratio of car owners to car related deaths...etc.

On the flip side of the coin, self-defense is always touted as a reason to need your own weapon to defend yourself, and while cases do arise, and it isn't the government's business to tell you you can't defend yourself or your person with a weapon when truly threatened, I would say this is a little bit of a boogie man also, at least for most of us, (some communities excluded). And the reality is there are far more accidental shootings than self-defense related shootings.

.............

anyway, seems like I could write a few more paragraphs contradicting myself right and left...I'm still not sure

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 8, 2007 7:02 PM

AFA actual "gun control" is concerned (as opposed to gun registration, which is an entirely different thing), obviously you don't want to sell a gun to a minor, or to a criminal with a history of violence. The only problem I have with the "background check" process is the same problem I have with the "no fly" list, voter registration rolls, driving records, sex-offender lists, credit rating, grocery-store "club" cards, and ALL databases:

1) They need to be known to the person on the DB
2) Said person must have an opportunity to review and correct information at least once a year
3) The criteria for being on... or getting off... the list must be known and uniform.

AFA liabillity: It belongs to the registered owner, except in the case of an illegal sale in which case it belongs with the seller. If a gun is stolen or sold it must be reported otherwise- just like with cars- the person holding the last registration is "IT".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RIGHTEOUS9

Thursday, November 8, 2007 7:08 PM

agreed with that, I almost added a couple of those points but post was getting long

CITIZEN

Thursday, November 8, 2007 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
AFA liabillity: It belongs to the registered owner, except in the case of an illegal sale in which case it belongs with the seller. If a gun is stolen or sold it must be reported otherwise- just like with cars- the person holding the last registration is "IT".

Over here each car has a log book, which includes details of all it's previous owners and a form to send back to the DVLA on change of ownership. Perhaps gun ownership could have a similar thing?

At the very least someone could make a fortune making "gun logbook covers" and "gun and logbook storage boxes".

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KIRKULES

Friday, November 23, 2007 8:37 PM

Looks like the Supremes might rule on some of the issues brought up in this thread. If there recent decisions are any indication of how they will rule in this case, it will probably be a very narrow ruling only applying to DC. Then both sides will declare victory an the debate will continue.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22797253-1702,00.html

"Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, KU"

RUE

Friday, November 23, 2007 11:55 PM

"Comparing guns to kitchen knives isn't great either, a gun is designed to kill people, a knife is designed to cut up food. Theres a big difference between a tool that *could* be used for a purpose, and a tool that is *designed* for that purpose."

Looks at large steak on plate. Pulls out gun. blam! blam! blam! ... blam! ... blam!

Sits down with fork to carefully eat meat bits scattered all over the table.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Saturday, November 24, 2007 12:07 AM

While looking up the source of the quote attributed to Franklin I came across an interesting discussion. The colonists at the time were reported as being attacked by 'Indians' (whom they had displaced, but that's another story). Apparently the Pennsylvania governor (a British authority) was claiming the legislature (elected by colonists) was preventing him from disbursing guns to the local militias. Meanwhile the legislature had no money to purchase said firearms, and there was a lot of debate over whether the colonists should gets guns and defend themselves.

The issue of 'militias' was quite an active one at the time. It gave me a little insight into how the phrase "a well regulated militia." Looking further I came across this - "Cornell, a leading constitutional historian, shows that the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia."

Assuming that the purpose of bearing arms is to be able to form 'well regulated militias', things like hunting, target shooting and even self-defense aren't constitutionally sound reasons for bearing arms.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

KIRKULES

Saturday, November 24, 2007 1:43 AM

Quote:
excerpt from New York Times

A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: May 6, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html

There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.

The argument about whether the Second Amendment is a collective right or individual right will probably go on even if the courts make a ruling on this issue. Even though as suggested in the article above most Constitutional scholars including some liberal anti-gun ones agree that it is an individual right. I think it's inclusion in the Bill of Rights(all individual rights)is conclusive for me.

"Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, KU"

RUE

Saturday, November 24, 2007 1:59 AM

Quote:
The individual rights view is far from universally accepted. “The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion supports the near-unanimous view of the federal courts that the constitutional right to be armed is linked to an organized militia,” said Dennis A. Henigan, director of the legal action project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “The exceptions attract attention precisely because they are so rare and unexpected.”

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

LEADB

Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Looks at large steak on plate. Pulls out gun. blam! blam! blam! ... blam! ... blam!

Sits down with fork to carefully eat meat bits scattered all over the table.

**Mental note. When inviting Rue over for dinner, be sure not to use the good china.

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA

Saturday, November 24, 2007 7:50 AM

Well, I am all for the banning of guns which have no possible practical purpose other than killing people ((Heavy Machine guns, Grenade Launchers, All manner of Vulcan Cannon, et al.)) for just that reason.

However, I believe that Citizen had the right idea for all firearms not falling into this category. Also, the idea of making one take a class beforehand is a good idea.

Holding the manufacturer liable for anything other than a manufacturing issue is nonsense. Holding the seller liable to some degree when there is reason to believe that selling to the person in question was a bad idea or simply failing to check up on them makes sense.

Ultimately, I think one possible solution that we've not considered is the Swiss Solution. Give everyone an assault rifle to keep at home, and train them on it. After a brief initial period of increased violence , I suspect we will have a serious drop in gun violence, as no one would be stupid enough to try and invade someone's home or attack them otherwise knowing full-well that there is at least one, probably more, assault rifle in there and that someone there knows very well how to use it. Remember, Machiavelli himself said - "The Swiss, Absolutely Free, Absolutely Well Armed."

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

CITIZEN

Saturday, November 24, 2007 12:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
Ultimately, I think one possible solution that we've not considered is the Swiss Solution. Give everyone an assault rifle to keep at home, and train them on it. After a brief initial period of increased violence , I suspect we will have a serious drop in gun violence, as no one would be stupid enough to try and invade someone's home or attack them otherwise knowing full-well that there is at least one, probably more, assault rifle in there and that someone there knows very well how to use it. Remember, Machiavelli himself said - "The Swiss, Absolutely Free, Absolutely Well Armed."

The other possibility is that any potential home invader would realise that they can't break in without an armament of their own...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

LEADB

Saturday, November 24, 2007 12:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
...
Ultimately, I think one possible solution that we've not considered is the Swiss Solution. Give everyone an assault rifle to keep at home, and train them on it. After a brief initial period of increased violence , I suspect we will have a serious drop in gun violence, as no one would be stupid enough to try and invade someone's home or attack them otherwise knowing full-well that there is at least one, probably more, assault rifle in there and that someone there knows very well how to use it. Remember, Machiavelli himself said - "The Swiss, Absolutely Free, Absolutely Well Armed."

It's been mentioned in various RWED threads before; and its an idea I could get behind. Likely need to make some provision for the absolute pacifists (Quakers, et al) being permitted an exception.

KIRKULES

Saturday, November 24, 2007 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:

Ultimately, I think one possible solution that we've not considered is the Swiss Solution. Give everyone an assault rifle to keep at home, and train them on it. After a brief initial period of increased violence , I suspect we will have a serious drop in gun violence, as no one would be stupid enough to try and invade someone's home or attack them otherwise knowing full-well that there is at least one, probably more, assault rifle in there and that someone there knows very well how to use it.

This is exactly the intent of the "militia" clause in the Second Amendment. It gives individuals, neighborhoods, communities and States the right to bear arms for self defence, but also implies that there is some responsibility to do so.

"Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, KU"

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, November 24, 2007 4:45 PM

Guess no one remembers the tale of two cities.

It's been done, you see.

Two towns - one banned guns, one made them mandatory.

At the time, the mainstream papers screamed a fit about how it would lead to horrific violence and make the place into the wild west, gunfights on every corner, panic in the streets yadda, yadda...

And then, when that *didn't* happen, it was like the place never even existed, cause it did not fit the view (of which no real evidence can seem to be found) that legal gun ownership of ordinary citizens leads to crime and chaos.

You have to go deep into the alternative media (admittedly not all of which is quality journalism) to hear even a peep about it.

And here we are, ever so much later...

"In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

This was not what some predicted."

Very little research on this topic ever gets done, even less by anything even remotely resembling a non-partisan source, so all one can do is observe for themself and make their own decision.

You can earnestly believe that words on paper will keep criminals from having or using guns.

Or you can choose not to believe that and level the playing field a bit.

A great part of it is the utter vilification of self-defense, something the police as a whole despise, because if folk start defending themselves, they might start wondering why we have them, and especially wonder why they're allowed to lord over us like a privledged elite...

Sure, they have their uses, but the idea of them protecting you, when they have no legal responsibility to protect any specific individual, plus a minimum response time of avg over 18 minutes under the best of circumstances - is a bit ridiculous.

As the old joke goes...
"Why do you carry a gun ?"

"Cause a whole cop's too heavy."

Same reason you have a fire extinguisher, or a first aid kit - to do what you can while awaiting the cavalry.

As political as police forces have become, do you really think they'll go for measures that would lead to a need for less police, smaller budgets and less toys ?

Or, look at it this way - automobiles are dangerous, and individual automobile use is wasteful, unnecessary and irresponsible, you should just give up your car and use public transportation, right ?

You can trust the Gov to run it efficiently, and get you where you need to be on time and safely, right ?

In the end, it's your choice what to believe, and it's your choice what to do.
And I believe in trusting you, fellow person, enough to make that decision.

All I ask is the same courtesy in return.

-Frem

LINKS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia
http://archive.newsmax.com

KIRKULES

Saturday, November 24, 2007 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Guess no one remembers the tale of two cities.

A great part of it is the utter vilification of self-defense, something the police as a whole despise, because if folk start defending themselves, they might start wondering why we have them, and especially wonder why they're allowed to lord over us like a privledged elite...

I'm sure many of you have seen this video.

When it comes to self-defense rocker Ted Nugent states my position much better than I could.

"Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, KU"

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA

Saturday, November 24, 2007 7:07 PM

Citizen, I agree with your analysis in theory, however, in the two instances I can find ((Granted, I won't be publishing this study in L'Année Sociologique any time soon)) the evidence seems to support the opposite.

I think that this is an issue best studied by sociologists and historians in a scientific and unbiased manner. That way we can base our legislation on scientific data rather than truthiness ((Which is a generally difficult thing to do in our increasingly partisan world, especially in an election year.))

Can we agree, however, based upon the evidence we have that it seems to point to the "Swiss-Solution" as I so dub it? The Scientist in me would like to see more evidence gathered, granted, but in its absence I'd have to conclude that this seems to work the best, but I refuse to make any hard and fast decisions without more evidence. ((Was that suitably 'cover my ass' enough ?))

I love that this forum seems to be a haven for intellectuals in addition to Browncoats. Y'all are an interesting bunch.

Edit: Just so you know, I meant I wouldn't be publishing this in L'Année Sociologique because it doesn't yet meet the standards for scientific research, not because this journal has been defunct since 1942.

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

CITIZEN

Saturday, November 24, 2007 9:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
Can we agree, however, based upon the evidence we have that it seems to point to the "Swiss-Solution" as I so dub it? The Scientist in me would like to see more evidence gathered, granted, but in its absence I'd have to conclude that this seems to work the best, but I refuse to make any hard and fast decisions without more evidence. ((Was that suitably 'cover my ass' enough ?))

I think America's problems with gun crime, are more to do with the attitude of many Americans to guns, rather than how those guns are distributed.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA

Sunday, November 25, 2007 7:08 PM

I'll agree to that. Both sides of the argument are becoming so polarized that they cannot possibly see the logic of the other side ((which both sides do have)).

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card