The Gun Control Debate.......Anybody else seeing this trend?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

01-20-2013, 05:18 PM
SPFDRum

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Your rationalization is priceless. Claiming it was an accepted practice is a ludicrous argument when taken in the context of the writings of the Founders claiming that ALL men were created equal. They proceeded to exclude entire groups of people from those beliefs in their personal lives and periods when many of them were the chief executive.

What is your point? I pointed out that as reprehensible as it was, our Founding Fathers did not even consider them people. They where property, with about the same rights as a horse. Hence the reason they where not included in "All men created equal".
Whether you think it's ludicrous or not, facts are facts.
01-20-2013, 09:35 PM
Bones42

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

I get what you are saying, but all this for amounts to what, an issue that has the same statistical probability of the average individual being struck by lightning. Not to mention it fails to address the numerous state and federal laws broken to even get to the point of actually perpetuating the end result.
Let me make this perfectly clear, I am in no way discounting or ignoring those individuals who have been affected in a way I will never know by these horrible tragedies. But if you want an honest discussion with relevant results, then you must include the hard data and statistics. Not the media hype or talking head politicians trying to get their name in print in time for the next election. An "assault rifle" ban is a perfect example of an uneducated reaction. First, the media and politicians keep bastardizing the definition of an "assault rifle" for nothing more than the purpose of fear mongering. Then add the fact that less than 350 people where killed by ALL rifles, including the media's version of an assault rifle. Not to diminish the hurt of the families of those killed by a rifle, but is 350 people an epidemic? More babies are killed by their mother a year truth be told. At the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System reported an estimated 1,740 child fatalities — meaning when a child dies from an injury caused by abuse or neglect — in 2008. That's an epidemic.
So until you remove the emotion and grandstanding and include actual data and facts, you won't have any type of solution.
Here is some relevant and provable facts:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1221062

So basically what you are saying is that since it hasn't happened often enough for you, nothing should be done? No prevention from future events? No better efforts to stop them ahead of time?

As for the child deaths, I can't speak for your area. I do know that around me there has been lots of educational programs, lots of family services, lots of media time spent on child care.

I hope I'm misunderstanding your point on weapons.
01-20-2013, 09:51 PM
FyredUp

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

So basically what you are saying is that since it hasn't happened often enough for you, nothing should be done? No prevention from future events? No better efforts to stop them ahead of time?

As for the child deaths, I can't speak for your area. I do know that around me there has been lots of educational programs, lots of family services, lots of media time spent on child care.

I hope I'm misunderstanding your point on weapons.

You are missing the intent of his post entirely. The point is banning a type of firearm, or normal capacity magazines beyond 10 rounds, and keeping them out of the hands of LAW ABIDING citizens will not do a damn thing to prevent another Sandy Hook type incident. The issue is criminals and their disregard for any laws and the lack of sufficient punishment for gun crimes, and the mentally ill and the abysmal mental health care system in this country. Work on those 2 issues and you may actually see a decline in gun violence. Disarming people that do not violate guns laws and disregarding those that do is a recipe for disaster.
01-20-2013, 09:52 PM
SPFDRum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

So basically what you are saying is that since it hasn't happened often enough for you, nothing should be done? No prevention from future events? No better efforts to stop them ahead of time?

As for the child deaths, I can't speak for your area. I do know that around me there has been lots of educational programs, lots of family services, lots of media time spent on child care.

I hope I'm misunderstanding your point on weapons.

Are you grandstanding or are you showing ignorance of the numerous posts I have authored outlining and addressing every one of these points you have just asked?
01-20-2013, 11:23 PM
FireMedic049

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

I get what you are saying, but all this for amounts to what, an issue that has the same statistical probability of the average individual being struck by lightning.

Are you referring specifically to mass shooting events?

Quote:

Not to mention it fails to address the numerous state and federal laws broken to even get to the point of actually perpetuating the end result.

If I'm following you correctly, the breaking of laws in the shooter's preparation for a mass shooting event was addressed in my post and should be part of the overall discussion on "gun control". As I stated, anybody in the chain of events that facilitated the illegal possession of a firearm should be strongly prosecuted and punished with real consequences that hopefully would discourage others from doing the same in the future. The mere fact that some may resort to illegal routes to obtain the needed weapons really isn't a reason to not impose sensible regulations that could at least make it more difficult to get those weapons and possibly deter other people's efforts.

Quote:

Let me make this perfectly clear, I am in no way discounting or ignoring those individuals who have been affected in a way I will never know by these horrible tragedies. But if you want an honest discussion with relevant results, then you must include the hard data and statistics. Not the media hype or talking head politicians trying to get their name in print in time for the next election. An "assault rifle" ban is a perfect example of an uneducated reaction. First, the media and politicians keep bastardizing the definition of an "assault rifle" for nothing more than the purpose of fear mongering. Then add the fact that less than 350 people where killed by ALL rifles, including the media's version of an assault rifle. Not to diminish the hurt of the families of those killed by a rifle, but is 350 people an epidemic?

So until you remove the emotion and grandstanding and include actual data and facts, you won't have any type of solution.

I'm not sure what you mean by an assault rifle ban being an "uneducated reaction". Are you referring to not knowing the technical definition of what an "assault rifle" is? Are you referring to the "non-epidemic"? Something else?

I agree that any discussion has to include all relevant information and statistics. If emotion and grandstanding are to not be part of the discussion, then I think the issue of "gun control" has to be considered on it's own merits. This would include understanding that the 2nd Amendment doesn't provide the right to own any specific type of firearm and not trying to compare the number of gun deaths to deaths by any other cause in order to insinuate that gun violence isn't that big of a deal (comparatively). This would also include answering tough questions like, is it appropriate for a civilian to own and possess military style weapons even if they aren't being used for mass shootings in epidemic proportion? Does a civilian have a legitimate need for high capacity magazines?
01-21-2013, 12:23 AM
FireMedic049

Quote:

Originally Posted by FyredUp

You are missing the intent of his post entirely. The point is banning a type of firearm, or normal capacity magazines beyond 10 rounds, and keeping them out of the hands of LAW ABIDING citizens will not do a damn thing to prevent another Sandy Hook type incident. The issue is criminals and their disregard for any laws and the lack of sufficient punishment for gun crimes, and the mentally ill and the abysmal mental health care system in this country. Work on those 2 issues and you may actually see a decline in gun violence. Disarming people that do not violate guns laws and disregarding those that do is a recipe for disaster.

I absolutely agree that shouldn't be the course of action and I don't believe it is what's being discussed.

The fact is this is a multifaceted problem which will require a multifaceted approach to achieve any sort of "success". "Fixing" the shortcomings of our criminal justice system has to be a priority. "Fixing" the mental health system has to be a priority. While doing both of these things will probably provide positive results, the job would be incomplete and we can do better.

There's one part of the equation that has to be addressed also and that is the access to the weapons used in these tragic incidents. While a ban would in all likelihood not be able to guarantee there are no more of these incidents, I don't believe that it would be entirely fruitless either.

It's been reported that there was a significant spike in sales of the weapons that could be on that "ban list" in the wake of Sandy Hook. It wasn't the first time this happened. If a ban had already been in place, then that spike in sales of those specific weapons would not have taken place as it did.

If a ban were to be put in place for weapons like the AR-15 and high capacity magazines, then it would reasonably follow that gun dealers would no longer be selling them to the public (at least legally). If the gun dealers aren't selling the product, then the manufacturers would stop production of the product.

The more of these weapons that we put on the streets, the more we increase the ability for them to fall into the wrong hands thru black market sales and straw purchases.

Will it make a huge difference? I don't know for sure, but it has to be part of any serious discussion.
01-21-2013, 01:51 AM
FyredUp

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireMedic049

I absolutely agree that shouldn't be the course of action and I don't believe it is what's being discussed.

The fact is this is a multifaceted problem which will require a multifaceted approach to achieve any sort of "success". "Fixing" the shortcomings of our criminal justice system has to be a priority. "Fixing" the mental health system has to be a priority. While doing both of these things will probably provide positive results, the job would be incomplete and we can do better.

There's one part of the equation that has to be addressed also and that is the access to the weapons used in these tragic incidents. While a ban would in all likelihood not be able to guarantee there are no more of these incidents, I don't believe that it would be entirely fruitless either.

The problem with your thought process here is there are MILLIONS of these erroneously name assault rifles in the hands of private citizens. To go along with those rifles are double or maybe even triple digit millions of the standard capacity 30 round magazines for those rifles out there already. The good part is those are the LEGALLY owned by law abiding citizens firearms and magazines.

It's been reported that there was a significant spike in sales of the weapons that could be on that "ban list" in the wake of Sandy Hook. It wasn't the first time this happened. If a ban had already been in place, then that spike in sales of those specific weapons would not have taken place as it did.

That is a ridiculous premise. Of course if they were already banned the sales of them wouldn't go up. More essential is the fact that there is no logical reason to ban them in the first place. Law abiding citizens didn't use them to break laws and the criminals don't buy them at gun stores anyways.

If a ban were to be put in place for weapons like the AR-15 and high capacity magazines, then it would reasonably follow that gun dealers would no longer be selling them to the public (at least legally). If the gun dealers aren't selling the product, then the manufacturers would stop production of the product.

Okay let's look at some terminology, a 30 round magazine is a standard size magazine for those rifles, it is not a high capacity magazine. Secondly, the gun manufacturers will find a market and if not to police and military here they will sell them abroad if need be. Unless you are advocating bankrupting American companies for no logical reason.

The more of these weapons that we put on the streets, the more we increase the ability for them to fall into the wrong hands thru black market sales and straw purchases.

The truth is the black market deals in ILLEGAL frearms. Either smuggled into the country, or stolen, but not legally purchased firearms. It is virtually impossible to stop straw purchases.

Will it make a huge difference? I don't know for sure, but it has to be part of any serious discussion.

Why? Your plan does nothing to address the issues of criminals not following the law and inadequate punishment and the massive failure of the mental health care system in this country.

The assumption that limiting law abiding citizens the legal right to own a specific firearm will stop gun crime is simply delusional.
01-21-2013, 07:11 AM
scfire86

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

What is your point? I pointed out that as reprehensible as it was, our Founding Fathers did not even consider them people. They where property, with about the same rights as a horse. Hence the reason they where not included in "All men created equal".
Whether you think it's ludicrous or not, facts are facts.

Thanks. I understood that point.

My point is how it relates to guns. Gun advocates wrap themselves in the platitudes of what the Founders wrote. While not realizing or ignoring how they applied the 2nd Amendment much differently than those writings.

I doubt many gun advocates would embrace the Founders if they were running for office today based upon that application of policy.
01-21-2013, 07:15 AM
scfire86

Quote:

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Okay let's look at some terminology, a 30 round magazine is a standard size magazine for those rifles, it is not a high capacity magazine.

The M-16 (the military version of the AR-15) was originally issued with a 20 round magazine. The magazine is not crucial to the operation of the weapon itself. The action will function just as well with a 10 round or five round magazine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FyredUp

The problem with your thought process here is there are MILLIONS of these erroneously name assault rifles in the hands of private citizens. To go along with those rifles are double or maybe even triple digit millions of the standard capacity 30 round magazines for those rifles out there already. The good part is those are the LEGALLY owned by law abiding citizens firearms and magazines.

I'm sure a definition of assault rifle will emerge that will make both sides unhappy.
01-21-2013, 07:32 AM
SPFDRum

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireMedic049

Are you referring specifically to mass shooting events?
Yes, as that is gist of the post I was responding too.
If I'm following you correctly, the breaking of laws in the shooter's preparation for a mass shooting event was addressed in my post and should be part of the overall discussion on "gun control". As I stated, anybody in the chain of events that facilitated the illegal possession of a firearm should be strongly prosecuted and punished with real consequences that hopefully would discourage others from doing the same in the future. The mere fact that some may resort to illegal routes to obtain the needed weapons really isn't a reason to not impose sensible regulations that could at least make it more difficult to get those weapons and possibly deter other people's efforts.

I'm not sure what you mean by an assault rifle ban being an "uneducated reaction". Are you referring to not knowing the technical definition of what an "assault rifle" is? Are you referring to the "non-epidemic"? Something else?
The technical definition. The media and politicians have bastardized it to to the point that any semi-automatic firearm is suspect. How can you have an honest discussion of the facts when an the media, politicians, and the anti-gun crowd won't even use the proper terminology? We both know its for one reason and one reason only, fear mongering.
I agree that any discussion has to include all relevant information and statistics. If emotion and grandstanding are to not be part of the discussion, then I think the issue of "gun control" has to be considered on it's own merits. This would include understanding that the 2nd Amendment doesn't provide the right to own any specific type of firearm and not trying to compare the number of gun deaths to deaths by any other cause in order to insinuate that gun violence isn't that big of a deal (comparatively).
The 2nd also does not deny me the right to own certain firearms. Even fully automatic ones if I care to go through all the steps to own one. But when the anti-gun crowd starts to throw in tanks, grenade launchers, nukes, how can you even have an intelligent discussion on "gun control" or the 2nd Amendment?
I didn't say gun violence isn't a big deal, those are your words. I stated that the media is blowing violence out of proportion to the actual numbers. I believe that the money and energy spent trying to reenact a failed "assault weapons" ban when your are statistically more apt to get struck by lightning, while completely ignoring the laws already broken and our failed mental health system, especially as it pertains to background checks is, absolutely asinine.
This would also include answering tough questions like, is it appropriate for a civilian to own and possess military style weapons even if they aren't being used for mass shootings in epidemic proportion? Does a civilian have a legitimate need for high capacity magazines?
Military style? I can take a Fod Pinto and buy enough plastic and make it look like a Porsch, I can take a Ruger 10-22, buy enough plastic and make it look like an M-4, but honestly, have I changed the basic performance of either one?
As far as high capacity magazines, they have proven to be a non-factor statistically, but emotionally they have taken on a life of their own. Again, what is the anti-gun crowd basing their argument on, the emotion.
Legitimate need for high capacity magazines, why not? It's Legal and the law abiding gun enthusiast isn't using them for illegitimate purposes.

Take the emotion and the media spin out of the equation; we have tried bans, we have tried gun exclusion zones, we have put cute little signs up that say these premises ban guns, all have failed. Yet states with conceal carry laws have seen a dramatic drop in violent crime including gun crime, yet any of that fails to be mentioned. Honest debate, I'm still waiting.
01-21-2013, 07:45 AM
scfire86

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

Take the emotion and the media spin out of the equation; we have tried bans, we have tried gun exclusion zones, we have put cute little signs up that say these premises ban guns, all have failed. Yet states with conceal carry laws have seen a dramatic drop in violent crime including gun crime, yet any of that fails to be mentioned. Honest debate, I'm still waiting.

Crime has dropped in states that have very strict CCW laws as well.
01-21-2013, 08:43 AM
SPFDRum

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Crime has dropped in states that have very strict CCW laws as well.

So the question that screams an answer is; with the increase of conceal/carry and a corresponding increase of guns in public, why isn't gun crime through the roof? Could it just be that law abiding gun owners are just that, law abiding?
01-21-2013, 10:03 AM
scfire86

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

So the question that screams an answer is; with the increase of conceal/carry and a corresponding increase of guns in public, why isn't gun crime through the roof? Could it just be that law abiding gun owners are just that, law abiding?

This post is a non-sequitir to your original point.
01-21-2013, 10:36 AM
SPFDRum

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

This post is a non-sequitur to your original point.

What's illogical about it, its fact.
How did Chicago fair with some of the strictest, if not the strictest gun control laws in the nation?
All the more proof of the fact it is not the gun, style of the gun, or capacity of the magazine. But irrefutable proof that it is the criminal element using it as just another tool for evil.
So tell me again how various gun bans and magazine restrictions are going to help?
01-21-2013, 12:29 PM
BSFD9302

Why is there a discussion about what went on over 300 years ago? Yes we need to look into the past. We need to look to determine what we as a society did wrong. Our ancestors were dead wrong to have slaves. PERIOD, END STORY!!!! We learned from it and changed it. (and frankly are still learning from it)

Now, using the Black Panthers as a talking point is not appropriate in talking about gun control. First, did anyone try and take them away from them? No but they did try to tell them they couldn't have them. If it would have been a mob of hundreds of anger white people with firearms would they have been harassed? Of course they would have. Any group would still have that same issue today. On the point of where was the NRA, well they did not become the organization we know as the NRA until 1989-1990. Yes they have been a group since the early 1870's but at that time it was to better our Militias(Military) as marksmen. They slowly evolved into the NRA of today and prior to say the early 80's didn't have any clout to do anything. Would they have? Hard to say but probably not, but again that is past and we have learned from the past. Would they today, absolutely.

I really do not believe it is a republican, democrat, conservative, liberal thing. The politician see it as a reelection tool.

I respect everyone's opinions on this matter. If you do not believe someone should own firearms then don't own firearms. I look at it differently. I look at the countries that do not allow citizens to own firearms and the histories they have. (I will not go into details it can be looked up).

It is amazing how this one sentence....

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

is causing so much turmoil. It looks pretty clear to me.

And come on, does anyone really think that firearms are the biggest problem we have in this country? Of course it isn't but it is an easy target.

All this debate, due to the tragedies, has done is cause firearms sales to sky rocket. I went to try and buy a Sig a week ago and the gun shop was completely sold out. He would not even let me order one because there where already so many prepaid orders he did not even have a clue when one would become available. I will not buy one used unless its someone I know. I prefer to know where the gun has been and what it has done.
01-21-2013, 12:39 PM
scfire86

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

What's illogical about it, its fact.
How did Chicago fair with some of the strictest, if not the strictest gun control laws in the nation?
All the more proof of the fact it is not the gun, style of the gun, or capacity of the magazine. But irrefutable proof that it is the criminal element using it as just another tool for evil.
So tell me again how various gun bans and magazine restrictions are going to help?

This has already been discussed on the thread regarding the Sandy Hook shooting. Feel free to reread it.
01-21-2013, 12:44 PM
scfire86

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSFD9302

Why is there a discussion about what went on over 300 years ago? Yes we need to look into the past. We need to look to determine what we as a society did wrong. Our ancestors were dead wrong to have slaves. PERIOD, END STORY!!!! We learned from it and changed it. (and frankly are still learning from it)

Not the point. The point was regarding what the Founders believed versus how they governed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSFD9302

Now, using the Black Panthers as a talking point is not appropriate in talking about gun control. First, did anyone try and take them away from them? No but they did try to tell them they couldn't have them. If it would have been a mob of hundreds of anger white people with firearms would they have been harassed? Of course they would have. Any group would still have that same issue today. On the point of where was the NRA, well they did not become the organization we know as the NRA until 1989-1990. Yes they have been a group since the early 1870's but at that time it was to better our Militias(Military) as marksmen. They slowly evolved into the NRA of today and prior to say the early 80's didn't have any clout to do anything. Would they have? Hard to say but probably not, but again that is past and we have learned from the past. Would they today, absolutely.

After the Black Panthers display there were laws passed to prohibit what they did. They were signed into law by Ronald Reagan. The future president made it clear he believed military style weapons had no place in civilian hands. The reason the reaction is relevant is because there were different reactions when white groups did the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSFD9302

It is amazing how this one sentence....

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

is causing so much turmoil. It looks pretty clear to me.

Agreed. However, the SCOTUS had determined it is not an absolute. One isn't allowed to own RPG's or live artillery shells.
01-21-2013, 12:52 PM
FyredUp

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Crime has dropped in states that have very strict CCW laws as well.

Sure has, like in Illinois where Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and no CCW, the murder rate for 2012 is over 500 and 435 of them were with firearms. The murder rate for 2011 with firearms was 377.
01-21-2013, 12:57 PM
FyredUp

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

The M-16 (the military version of the AR-15) was originally issued with a 20 round magazine. The magazine is not crucial to the operation of the weapon itself. The action will function just as well with a 10 round or five round magazine.

Good luck finding a military issued 20 rounder today. They were fairly quickly, by military standards anyways, superceded with 30 round magazines.

Of course they will function with a 5 or 10 round magazine. ever wonder why the police or military don't carry 5 or 10 round magazines any longer? That is one of the very same reasons why law abiding gun owners should be able to have a 30 round magazine.

I'm sure a definition of assault rifle will emerge that will make both sides unhappy.

Why not use the definition set forth by the firearms industry? Oh yeah, because that doesn't fit the hysterical, emotional, tug at the heart strings of anti-gunners needs.

Try again, you aren't fairing too well here either.
01-21-2013, 12:58 PM
FyredUp

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

This post is a non-sequitir to your original point.

You just prefer to not answer questions that disprove your anti-gun speaking points. Nice diversion with your "oh so superior attitude" that once again proves your true agenda.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page