Gun violence the cost of Freedom to Bear Arms?

[irishScott]

The vast majority of guns in Mexico originate in the US because of restrictive gun laws there. Remember F&F? You have your smuggling scenario backwards.

Actually the vast majority of illegal guns in Mexico are stolen from central and south American militaries by the cartels. Last I checked we don't manufacture fully automatic AKs and RPGs in the US, at least not in any sufficient quantities.

My point is that gun prohibition or similar legislation would be as ineffective as the war on drugs. Can't produce drugs in the US? They get illegally imported through Mexico. You think drugs and people can come over the border but guns somehow can't? Law abiding citizens would abide by prohibition. Criminals would just spur demand for black market imports, never-mind the massive domestic illegal black market that such severe restrictions would create.

 

[Victorian Gray]

It's definitely a breakdown in society. I grew up in the 50's. My generation had greater access to guns and knives than any generation since. Range safety was taught in public hs. Almost all boys carried pocket knives. No one ever went on a killing spree.

America is no longer a melting pot. We are a loose collection of disparate peoples in an isolationist society. We don't know our neighbors. We don't want to know our neighbors. We all want to be left alone. Kids want their parents to leave them alone. We create ever larger schools with permanent police forces because parents don't want to take responsibility. These huge schools encourage isolationism. The cycle repeats.

Kids are by definition, immature. Without parents and society even talking about, let alone enforcing, moral and ethical standards, society will continue to disintegrate. We will have more horrific stories of kids killing kids.

Regarding how wonderful the 50's were:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#1950s

 

[Victorian Gray]

Hope you got that shot from a Google image search because the site that it's from is some pretty nasty 'white power' shit.

And anyone who believes that personal gun ownership would have stopped that from happening is living in a fantasy land.

 

[MongGrel]

I'm gonna maybe sit to the sidelines with Fern on this one and watch the rest of it.

Even if he might not approve and I'll hide behind him a bit.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Wow, if you ever needed proof that gun control advocates are the ultimate ignorant uneducated simpletons...

What year was that and off of what statistics? According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports handgun homicides numbered 6,371 in 2012.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

The date is in the picture, 2006

hmm. on second thought that might be some kind of copyright or organization founding date.

 

[irishScott]

Hope you got that shot from a Google image search because the site that it's from is some pretty nasty 'white power' shit.

And anyone who believes that personal gun ownership would have stopped that from happening is living in a fantasy land.

It might have helped. There were 523,000 Jews living in Germany prior to WWII. Imagine if 10% of them had been armed and somewhat coordinated. Could have changed history.

 

[irishScott]

The date is in the picture, 2006

hmm. on second thought that might be some kind of copyright or organization founding date.

It's a zip code. There's another 0 in there you missed.

The full line reads: "810 18th Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20006"

 

[Victorian Gray]

It might have helped. There were 523,000 Jews living in Germany prior to WWII. Imagine if 10% of them had been armed and somewhat coordinated. Could have changed history.

Those pictured apparently are from the Soviet Gulags (under Stalin) and not German Jews. But I don't for a minute believe that several thousand Jews with pistols and rifles would have done much more than piss off the Germans and possibly sped up the German attempts to exterminate them.

Note: the above is not related to any personal stance on civilian gun ownership but simply an historical assessment.

 

[Victorian Gray]

It's a zip code. There's another 0 in there you missed.

The full line reads: "810 18th Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20006"

<Sigh>Aging eyes.<Sigh> Thanks.

 

[irishScott]

Those pictured apparently are from the Soviet Gulags (under Stalin) and not German Jews. But I don't for a minute believe that several thousand Jews with pistols and rifles would have done much more than piss off the Germans and possibly sped up the German attempts to exterminate them.

Note: the above is not related to any personal stance on civilian gun ownership but simply an historical assessment.

If the Jews hadn't gone as quietly they might have gotten more attention and produced more action. I agree even armed they couldn't have outright stopped the Nazis, but they could have at least served as a bigger speed bump. Hitler worked his way up to genocide, he didn't just unleash the military on the Jews the instant he came to power. The right obstacle while he was still consolidating his power could have made a big difference.

Plus the Jews seem to have taken to a completely armed and trained populace with much relish since WWII. So clearly they see some merit in the concept.

 

[TerryMathews]

Those pictured apparently are from the Soviet Gulags (under Stalin) and not German Jews. But I don't for a minute believe that several thousand Jews with pistols and rifles would have done much more than piss off the Germans and possibly sped up the German attempts to exterminate them.

Note: the above is not related to any personal stance on civilian gun ownership but simply an historical assessment.

I disagree. The Germans were often unprepared for Jewish resistance. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually the vast majority of illegal guns in Mexico are stolen from central and south American militaries by the cartels. Last I checked we don't manufacture fully automatic AKs and RPGs in the US, at least not in any sufficient quantities.

Hogwash. The vast majority of guns in Mexico are not the weapons you describe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling_of_firearms_into_Mexico

My point is that gun prohibition or similar legislation would be as ineffective as the war on drugs. Can't produce drugs in the US? They get illegally imported through Mexico. You think drugs and people can come over the border but guns somehow can't? Law abiding citizens would abide by prohibition. Criminals would just spur demand for black market imports, never-mind the massive domestic illegal black market that such severe restrictions would create.

I'm not arguing for gun control, OK? Certainly not in some confiscatory fashion.

I'm arguing against the paranoid fetishist headset so prevalent whenever the subject comes up. Nobody is going to take your guns, even though all too many own them for delusional reasons. Get over yourselves.

 

[piasabird]

Judges are a big factor in gun violators being punished with light sentences or with probation! If we are serious about gun crime, all gun crimes would get max penalties or a death sentence.

 

[irishScott]

Hogwash. The vast majority of guns in Mexico are not the weapons you describe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling_of_firearms_into_Mexico



I'm not arguing for gun control, OK? Certainly not in some confiscatory fashion.

I'm arguing against the paranoid fetishist headset so prevalent whenever the subject comes up. Nobody is going to take your guns, even though all too many own them for delusional reasons. Get over yourselves.

Wait, so you argue that preventing me from buying a certain type of rifle under any circumstance, a rifle that I could currently legally buy, isn't "taking away my guns"?

You'd argue that New York City sending letters threatening confiscation to legally registered gun owners, over rifles (even bolt-action .22s) and shotguns that hold more than 5 rounds, isn't taking away their guns?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/nypd-targets-owners-multi-clip-shotguns-rifles/

You'd call Governor Cuomo stating on the air that "confiscation could be an option" concerning AR-15s, "not taking away my guns"?

And as for the slippery slope, the NRA rejects universal background checks on the grounds that they lead to registration, right? Well guess what a lot of states that had said background checks passed or tried to pass last year... registration!

Then there's the New Jersey law that states that as soon as the first smart gun is sold, every gun sold in New Jersey must use that technology. So blocking out 99.99999% of the gun market isn't "taking away anyone's guns"?

Then there's California, which tried and came within a hair's breadth of succeeding at baning all Semiautomatic rifles that accept magazines. Is that not taking away people's guns?

California again, requiring micro-stamping technology that isn't proven to work and would require serious re-design/retoolin on the part of major gun manufactures, effectively locking out most of the gun market, isn't "taking away peoples' guns?"

I wish the whole slippery slope and confiscation thing was in tin foil hat land. I really do. Unfortunately the gun control advocates are apparently on a mission to make that conspiracy theory a reality, and you can't deny it with a straight face. At this point gun control advocates might as well be punching us in the face and saying on the 10th punch "hey, we're not trying to beat you up! We only want to punch you two more times!"

The entire American gun control movement is so inane it defies belief. Their "logic", willful ignorance and blatant political manipulation is right up there with climate change deniers. I don't agree with everything NRA, but at least they get most things right. In fact I'd bet the NRA has prevented more deaths through their century and a half of gun training and safety courses than any gun control legislation in the history of the United States.

 

[piasabird]

At least it is hard to hide a long rifle or a long shotgun. I could support outlawing all handguns with short barrels or that fit in a pocket easily. Hiding a handgun has nothing to do with a militia or the right to bear arms.

 

[irishScott]

At least it is hard to hide a long rifle or a long shotgun. I could support outlawing all handguns with short barrels or that fit in a pocket easily. Hiding a handgun has nothing to do with a militia or the right to bear arms.

No it has to do with self defense, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly held is protected by the 2nd amendment.

In any case, you're not thinking this through. Even large handguns are easily concealed under a jacket. What do you think the secret service uses? Subcompact .380s?

 

[schmuckley]

Don't blame the guns, blame the society. Our country has decided that we need to stop teaching children right from wrong, not hold them accountable for their actions (or inactions), not ever make them responsible for anything. Ever.

Add to that parents who are so busy trying to beat the Jones', or simply make ends meet (and that's IF they're even part of their child's life), and we have created a permissive society, that tells children that they deserve everything they want, and can never do any wrong.

Then reality hits. Life intrudes, and shows them that mommy & daddy were full of shit. But since they never learned to deal with adversity, they have no idea what to do, and lose their minds. Add the bonus of so many kids being labeled "ADHD", and doped up throughout school, and you're cookin' with gas, now, baby!

Being a child of the 60's and 70's, I can tell you that we had plenty of guns and ammunition available to us. Hell, plenty of kids in my neighborhood had .22 rifles that they grew up with, and access to more powerful firearms at home, in dad's gun cabinet.....that I guarantee, you knew where the key was located (I did!). But we also had morals we were taught, and rules we were expected to live by......and, most importantly, we had punishments that we knew we would get, if we broke those rules. We actually had repercussions for our actions, that we knew would be enforced. That's sorely lacking in child rearing, these days, and it shows.

Most importantly, we had parents that we knew loved us, and supported us. They wouldn't necessarily cover for us, if we screwed up.....but they would make sure we learned the hard lessons we needed to learn, then make sure that we knew we were still loved. That kind of parenting is a rock that kids can build their lives on, and become normal, healthy, productive members of society. Unfortunately, if we look at most of these nut jobs that decide to make everyone suffer for their misery, we find out they're from dysfunctional homes, and lacked even basic parenting as they grew up.....and then we shake our heads, and wonder how they got so screwed up in the head.

Sorry to say, but it's not the guns. It's the society that is to blame.

Well said! And that's how it is.
No discipline nowadays.
No morals.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wait, so you argue that preventing me from buying a certain type of rifle under any circumstance, a rifle that I could currently legally buy, isn't "taking away my guns"?

Never said that. You're playing the paranoid fool, anyway. I'm sure there was much the same sort of raving back in the 30's when the FFA was passed.

"Taking away your guns" is not the same as restricting what can be purchased, something that I haven't advocated anyway. Take your strawman somewhere else.

 

[Zaap]

It's a zip code. There's another 0 in there you missed.

The full line reads: "810 18th Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20006"

The stats are from 1980. In other words, anti-gun nuts resorting to 34 year old outdated info.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Regarding how wonderful the 50's were:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#1950s

Your point?
I never said the 50's were wonderful. I said with regards to guns, the 50's were better. We had more access to guns and even including accidental shootings there were still only a third as many shootings as in the last 10 years. I have no wish to return to the 50's but, our current society is broken and more laws and regulations will not fix it.

 

[irishScott]

Never said that. You're playing the paranoid fool, anyway. I'm sure there was much the same sort of raving back in the 30's when the FFA was passed.

"Taking away your guns" is not the same as restricting what can be purchased, something that I haven't advocated anyway. Take your strawman somewhere else.

Yes, quoting confirmed facts is paranoia. You do realize I'm quoting a state Governor talking about confiscation and actual, physical letters that threaten confiscation right? Never mind the other stuff, that's actually a threat that law enforcement will come and literally "take your guns" if you live in New York City and don't comply by a certain deadline.

As for "taking" vs "banning", it is the same in effect if not in implementation. What's the difference between confiscating every gun of a certain type in America, and banning any more guns of that same type from being sold in America? The latter takes longer.

However my posts might or might not sound in your head, I'm quoting verified facts. You're acting like they don't exist, without even attempting to disprove them, comparing apples to eggplants (current gun control initiatives vs the 1930s NFA) and then call me a fool. Keep that up, I'm sure your wisdom will fill every corner of the world with such solid backing. Or you could admit you have no relevant knowledge of this issue. Or you could keep making a fool out of yourself. Or none of the above. It's 12:10 and I'm gun-control-debated out at this point. Good night!

 

[Jhhnn]

Your point?
I never said the 50's were wonderful. I said with regards to guns, the 50's were better. We had more access to guns and even including accidental shootings there were still only a third as many shootings as in the last 10 years. I have no wish to return to the 50's but, our current society is broken and more laws and regulations will not fix it.

The population nearly doubling might have something to do with the numbers, as might the raving gun culture fetishism...

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, quoting confirmed facts is paranoia. You do realize I'm quoting a state Governor talking about confiscation and actual, physical letters that threaten confiscation right? Never mind the other stuff, that's actually a threat that law enforcement will come and literally "take your guns" if you live in New York City and don't comply by a certain deadline.

As for "taking" vs "banning", it is the same in effect if not in implementation. What's the difference between confiscating every gun in America, and banning any more guns from being sold in America? The latter takes longer.

However my posts might or might not sound in your head, I'm quoting verified facts. You're acting like they don't exist, without even attempting to disprove them, comparing apples to eggplants (current gun control initiatives vs the 1930s NFA) and then call me a fool. Keep that up, I'm sure your wisdom will fill every corner of the world with such solid backing.

You are extrapolating from facts in the usual paranoid gun nut fashion.

Will what Cuomo offers pass Constitutional muster in light of recent rulings?

Obviously not, so Pfffttt.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Well said! And that's how it is.
No discipline nowadays.
No morals.

Folks have been saying that pretty much since folks could 'say' anything.

Have a history lesson on me and the BBC:

http://www.historyextra.com/feature/what-can-we-learn-history-youth-culture-and-crime

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

The population nearly doubling might have something to do with the numbers, as might the raving gun culture fetishism...

Oh please spare me. I've lived in both time periods, have you? If there ever existed a "raving gun culture fetishism," it was in the 50's not now. So, what else have you got to explain the threefold increase in school shootings? And what do you think a solution is? I've said what I think it is.