Like Tree82Likes

Thread: If the demographic fits, hope they don't acquit

  1. #426
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Fyredup. This is an example of the dilemma that faces gun rights activists.

    Almost every case of an individual involved in a mass shooting has the criminal being a responsible gun owner. Right up until the time they weren't.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  2. #427
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Fyredup. This is an example of the dilemma that faces gun rights activists.

    Almost every case of an individual involved in a mass shooting has the criminal being a responsible gun owner. Right up until the time they weren't.
    Nonsense and you know it.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  3. #428
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Nonsense and you know it.
    It's true. There was little or nothing that would have indicated that Jared Lee Loughner, Adam Lanza, James Eagan Holmes, or Seung-Hui Cho should have been denied access to firearms prior to them going on a shooting rampage.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  4. #429
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    There was a friggin mountain's worth of info indicating that Lanza should NOT have access to a gun. It was ignored by the people who should have known and acted on it.

    Don't know about the others mentioned but I suspect the warning signs were plentiful to people close to them.

  5. #430
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    There was a friggin mountain's worth of info indicating that Lanza should NOT have access to a gun. It was ignored by the people who should have known and acted on it.

    Don't know about the others mentioned but I suspect the warning signs were plentiful to people close to them.
    Are you willing to deny an individual access to firearms because they're acting funny?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #431
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Are you willing to deny an individual access to firearms because they're acting funny?
    This guy was WAY beyond "acting funny".

    But to answer your question. I would have no problem with restricted access to firearms for some individuals. We put restrictions on all kinds of things in this country. Where we drive. How fast we drive. Who gets to drive. Who gets to own a car. How and when we use our parks and public lands. Where and how we build our homes. Medical decisions concerning our children. Where, when and how we conduct our trades and businesses. Who is allowed to conduct certain businesses or trades and who is not (based on licensing laws). Whether or not to insure our cars and homes and businesses. And to what extent we must insure them. Not to mention medical insurance now. What products we can and cannot buy. How to manufacture products. In some cases how much we can or cannot charge for those products.

    I could go on all night long. I live in a town that until recently required a permit to cut down a tree on your own property. Even a sick, dying, dangerous tree. We all put up with ALL KINDS OF RESTRICTIONS on a daily basis. Yet some insist that psychopaths should have unhindered access to automatic weapons. Why is this the issue people get all riled up over?

  7. #432
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Are you willing to deny an individual access to firearms because they're acting funny?
    "Acting funny" is what Jim Carrey does. Several of these individuals had known, documented mental health issues.

    Using mental health fitness to gauge one's ability to purchase a firearm begins a great debate on the release of personal information, and that's one of the issues that even the NRA stuggles with coming up with an answer for.

    Until the US, as a whole, begins to better address mental illness problems, we'll continue to have issues like this. However, statistically, I'll take my chance of being killed in a mass shooting at the mall rather than use flawed reasoning to futher restrict gun rights in the US.
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  8. #433
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    I doubt any of what the both of you support would ever get past the NRA or other gun nuts.

    Both groups view any review of gun policy as a tyrannical government getting ready to oppress the masses.
    Last edited by scfire86; 02-04-2014 at 10:45 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #434
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187 View Post
    "Acting funny" is what Jim Carrey does. Several of these individuals had known, documented mental health issues.

    Using mental health fitness to gauge one's ability to purchase a firearm begins a great debate on the release of personal information, and that's one of the issues that even the NRA stuggles with coming up with an answer for.

    Until the US, as a whole, begins to better address mental illness problems, we'll continue to have issues like this. However, statistically, I'll take my chance of being killed in a mass shooting at the mall rather than use flawed reasoning to futher restrict gun rights in the US.
    So as long as the statistics say it will most likely be someone else, or someone else's kid that gets shot, you're OK with it?

    Really just trying to make a point here. I don't really want a government that takes away rights from responsible adult citizens. But that responsible adult part is where we get hung up, isn't it? We have speed limits and traffic signals and all kinds of mandatory safety regulations in our vehicles. How many responsible adults need to have a law that tells them not to drive 70 MPH past a school at dismissal time? Probably not many. We need the laws for the other segment of the population.

  10. #435
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,274

    Default

    First of all let's define some terms, because without understand the subject matter it is impossible to carry on a logic debate.

    automatic weapon: Once loaded will continue to fire until the trigger is released or the ammunition is used up

    Semi-automatic weapon: Once loaded will fire with each pull of the trigger

    Automatic weapons are STRICTLY controlled, and licensed, and are not your "go down to the local sporting goods store and buy a machine gun" type of deal that too many wrongly believe they are. The federal laws regarding automatic weapons include special licensing, special permits, and a $200 tax fee paid to the feds, also an extensive background check. Locally your sheriff or police chief has to sign off before you can buy one. There may be more local and state rules to follow depending on loction.

    The major issue with some semi-auomatic weapons is their appearance more than anything. Some look exactly like military assault rifles. That is really the only comparison. An AR-15 and an M-16 may look alike but the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle while the M-16 is a select fire, meaning it can fire full auto or 3 round burst (depending on the model), and semi-automatic.

    The problem is, and always will be the abysmal diagnosis, and treatment, of the mentally ill in this country and the failure to punish criminals for the use of any weapon, including a gun, in the commission of a crime.

    I have been a firearm owner for over 37 years and I have never broken any laws with my guns. Yet almost every year some new firearms law comes out and affects me in some adverse way. Yet gun crime continues. Not because of me and my firearm usage, but because of poor enforcement of current laws on those criminals that use firearms in commission of crimes. I am for mandatory, non-pleabargainable, sentencing for the use of a gun in a crime, whether the gun was used or not. Merely possessing a gun in the commission of a crime would demand a 10 year sentence. Make a statement and stop making hollow speeches and even hollower laws.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  11. #436
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    The problem is, and always will be the abysmal diagnosis, and treatment, of the mentally ill in this country and the failure to punish criminals for the use of any weapon, including a gun, in the commission of a crime.
    Totally agree with you on this point. Yet the NRA won't even allow discussion of something like universal background checks that might prevent criminals or the diagnosed mentally ill from getting firearms.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  12. #437
    Forum Member
    CaptOldTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,273

    Default

    When the girl scouts knock on our door, we just say "No Thank You". Then we shut the door. Simple as that. Same goes for the Jehovah Witness's who come knocking.
    Stay Safe and Well Out There....

    Always remembering 9-11-2001 and 343+ Brothers

  13. #438
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Totally agree with you on this point. Yet the NRA won't even allow discussion of something like universal background checks that might prevent criminals or the diagnosed mentally ill from getting firearms.
    So as a liberal you would have no issues supporting significant mandatory sentencing for the use of guns in the commission of a crime?

    Isn't our current (liberal) attorney general trying to do away with mandated sentencing?
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  14. #439
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    So as a liberal you would have no issues supporting significant mandatory sentencing for the use of guns in the commission of a crime?

    Isn't our current (liberal) attorney general trying to do away with mandated sentencing?
    Sentencing should be the prerogative of the judicial authority where the crime is committed.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  15. #440
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Totally agree with you on this point. Yet the NRA won't even allow discussion of something like universal background checks that might prevent criminals or the diagnosed mentally ill from getting firearms.
    The problem is, you and so many others are talking out both sides of your mouth. At one point you note many would never raise an eyebrow or be denied access if checked, next you're saying we shouldn't oppose universal checks. I personally have no issue with universal checks on their own, but in the case the current anti-gun movement I think it's just a stepping stone toward total restrictions, which is the only thing that would solve the issues you continue to bring up. And even that would never work. Criminals will always have the upper hand as they don't bother with our pesky laws.

    More could be done toward preventing some of these crimes, but given the strong rhetoric from the anti-gun movement, those of us who might be considered moderates are forced to side with the fringe to ensure our rights are not taken in a step by step process.

    The same divide and conquer, step by step process is being successfully used to legal marijuana across the country. First it was just medical weed ("no we swear that's all we're looking to do, help those who need the pain or appetite relief"), now two states have legalized recreation use and there's more to come.
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 02-04-2014 at 05:58 PM. Reason: keyboard caused spellig errors

  16. #441
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Sentencing should be the prerogative of the judicial authority where the crime is committed.
    And thus while crying for background checks universally you refuse to support universal penalties for gun related crime. Hypocrisy at its best.

    If sentencing should be at the control of the judiciary in the locality of the crime then gun laws should also be at the control of local government and the feds should mind their own damn business.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  17. #442
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    The problem is, you and so many others are talking out both sides of your mouth. At one point you note many would never raise an eyebrow or be denied access if checked, next you're saying we shouldn't oppose universal checks. I personally have no issue with universal checks on their own, but in the case the current anti-gun movement I think it's just a stepping stone toward total restrictions, which is the only thing that would solve the issues you continue to bring up. And even that would never work. Criminals will always have the upper hand as they don't bother with our pesky laws.

    More could be done toward preventing some of these crimes, but given the strong rhetoric from the anti-gun movement, those of us who might be considered moderates are forced to side with the fringe to ensure our rights are not taken in a step by step process.

    The same divide and conquer, step by step process is being successfully used to legal marijuana across the country. First it was just medical weed ("no we swear that's all we're looking to do, help those who need the pain or appetite relief"), now two states have legalized recreation use and there's more to come.
    Thanks for proving my point.

    Earlier I stated:

    I doubt any of what the both of you support would ever get past the NRA or other gun nuts.

    Both groups view any review of gun policy as a tyrannical government getting ready to oppress the masses.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  18. #443
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    But gun laws ARE at the control of local government. It's not working out so well in some places. It's too easy to move guns from one locality to another. New York City has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. So guns are brought in from other states. Plenty of gund for criminals here. Federal laws concerning gun trafficking might make a big difference.
    I don't deny that locking up career violent criminals would also help immensely. It's hard to use a gun in the commission of a crime when you're locked up. Sentences should start at 10 years and rise from there. Prisons should be like "Sherriff Joe" was running down in Arizona. Not to overly punish the inmates but to save on cost for the rest of us.

  19. #444
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,675

    Default

    The simple fact is that guns laws are generally working out.

    The VAST majority of legal gun owners will never use their weapons to commit a crime or go on a mass killing spree. The VAST majority of gun owners use their weapons in legal and responsible ways.

    Criminals will always be able to access weapons, regardless of gun laws. There will always be guns available to them. To punish those who legally acquire weapons and legally use weapons, which is exactly what the left wants to do, is simply unconstitutional.

    The constitution grants us the right to carry guns. Period.

    There will always be a small percentage that use anything irresponsibly or illegally. There are a small percentage of drivers that drive recklessly or drunk and kill folks every single day, yet I see no mass push from the left to ban cars.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 02-05-2014 at 10:28 AM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  20. #445
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    To punish those who legally acquire weapons and legally use weapons, which is exactly what the left wants to do, is simply unconstitutional.
    How is requiring universal background checks a punishment to those who legally use firearms?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  21. #446
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The simple fact is that guns laws are generally working out.

    The VAST majority of legal gun owners will never use their weapons to commit a crime or go on a mass killing spree. The VAST majority of gun owners use their weapons in legal and responsible ways.

    Criminals will always be able to access weapons, regardless of gun laws. There will always be guns available to them. To punish those who legally acquire weapons and legally use weapons, which is exactly what the left wants to do, is simply unconstitutional.

    The constitution grants us the right to carry guns. Period.

    There will always be a small percentage that use anything irresponsibly or illegally. There are a small percentage of drivers that drive recklessly or drunk and kill folks every single day, yet I see no mass push from the left to ban cars.
    I see several problems with this post:

    1) Gun laws may be working out where you live. In way too many places they are not. You may need to open your eyes a little more.

    2) As you pointed out, the vast majority of gun and car owners use them responsibly. Why do responsible drivers not object to speed limits, seat belt laws, licensing requirements, annual equipment inspections, registration requirements, etc? No, there is no push from the left to ban cars. Nor is there a push from the right to march on Washington to protest the above restrictions. Why is there no rhetoric about prying car keys out of your cold dead hands?

    3) As scfire86 pointed out, licensing, registration, background checks, mandatory safety classes, etc are not really punishments. They would just be government mandated conditions under which you could own a gun. Just like the government mandated conditions under which you can drive a car. Or do a ton of other stuff. I guess I should remind you that guns are one of the few, if not only things, that are designed, built and sold for the singular purpose of killing living things. I am aware that many people target shoot, but was that really the reason they bought the gun in the first place?

  22. #447
    Forum Member
    HuntPA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northwest PA
    Posts
    509

    Default

    There is no constitutional right to drive a car - argument is totally irrelevant as to ownership and placing restrictions on ownership.

    On that thought though, you do not have to register a vehicle and the government does not keep a record of every car you own (unless you use them on public roads). If you purchase a vehicle to display, use as a farm implement, or use only on private lands, you do not need to register the vehicle. Why do they need a registry of every gun? If your car is stolen, it is up to you to report it including proof of ownership. The same could be done with firearms. There is no reason for a registry other than to have the ability to "recover" weapons from those the government deems unfit to own them.

    As to gun laws not working, is it the laws that are flawed, or is it that they are not enforced?

  23. #448
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    I guess I should remind you that guns are one of the few, if not only things, that are designed, built and sold for the singular purpose of killing living things. I am aware that many people target shoot, but was that really the reason they bought the gun in the first place?
    So the crux of this issue for you and others is that guns are made to kill and since they serve no other purpose should be treated as serving no useful purpose?

    Guns used to kill animals for food, serve a purpose do they not? Or is killing cows with air actuated bolt guns somehow different? While I prefer to go to the store for 99% of my meals, that is not the case with everybody.

    Guns used to kill a person in the act of committing a violent crime is a useful purpose is it not? Or should we take the guns away from the police? How do you justify this to those persons who have stopped a rape or other violent crime with a firearm? Too bad?

    The problem is that universal checks won't stop most criminals, maybe a handful that start legal and become violent and use their legally owned firearm. In and of itself, I have no issue, personally I'd register my guns, I know if I ever use them I'll be justified in my mind (hopefully at least 12 others too). The problem is that when the universal checks are shown to not have done jack squat, the next step will be greater restriction ( magazine limits, action types, etc, etc).

    I'm 100% for preventing mass shootings, but in the end, unless we have zero firearms in circulation, this is a Utopian dream, and if we cannot guarantee our citizens a country free of people willing and able to do them bodily harm, then we must allow those who are legally competent to utilize firearms for the protection of their families ans selves.

    God created man, firearms made them equal. One of the two of these are fact.

  24. #449
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    There is no constitutional right to drive a car - argument is totally irrelevant as to ownership and placing restrictions on ownership.
    There is nothing being proposed that restricts responsible ownership. I have a Constitutional right to Free Speech. Yet I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Mandatory background checks do not infringe upon one's right to bear arms. I believe responsible gun owners would be leading the charge on background checks to ensure those who might use them irresponsibly would be prohibited from gaining access.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    There is no reason for a registry other than to have the ability to "recover" weapons from those the government deems unfit to own them.
    Or to know who owned them last if that weapon is used illegally.
    Last edited by scfire86; 02-05-2014 at 03:32 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  25. #450
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    The problem is that universal checks won't stop most criminals, maybe a handful that start legal and become violent and use their legally owned firearm.
    If that logic is followed to the extreme we should do away with laws that make murder illegal. After all, that hasn't prevented murder from occurring.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. PG soon.....we hope!?
    By arhaney in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-23-2007, 11:39 AM
  2. Not Exactly Fire Related, But It Fits.
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-28-2004, 11:48 AM
  3. Might there be hope?!!
    By BC79er_OLDDELETE in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-09-2004, 12:04 PM
  4. Any Hope?
    By Kiernan in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-26-2003, 09:48 PM
  5. Hope for the best?
    By Bones42 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-15-2003, 09:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register