Like Tree82Likes

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

  1. #726
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    The only conjecture is will they take mine or someone else's. There is a track record of illegal raids and confiscation of firearms already.
    That track record you speak of is pretty short. Especially when you compare it to the track record of gun crime.

  2. #727
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Yet the data that I posted from of all places, liberal mouthpiece NBC, clearly indicates that gun violence has significantly decreased?

    In fact, gun murders have dropped 39% since 1993.

    How could that be?
    Maybe gun violence has DECREASED because gun control laws have INCREASED!

  3. #728
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    Apparently some people will only accept laws that work 100% of the time. Otherwise they don't want to bother with pesky laws.

    But only when it comes to gun control! In every other area of life they are perfectly fine with laws that don't work 100%. Some people steal. Some commit sexual assault or rape. Some people sell drugs. No law stops 100% of these crimes. Yet no one proposes throwing all the laws that prohibit those things off the books. I challenge any member of this forum to go tell their wives, daughters, mothers, etc that laws against rape aren't working so we should just give up. There were laws on the books against rape. New laws were passed that allowed for DNA testing and DNA databases. The attempt was made to strenfthen the existing laws. This is a reasonable action to take. Why should it be any different for gun control laws?
    The problem is that in this case, the laws that you wish to enact will have the greatest impact not on those acquiring and using guns illegally, but those that are acquiring and using guns legally and responsibly.

    The data says that most criminals acquire guns illegally - not from dealers - or borrow them from friends and relatives who have acquired them legally or simply stole weapons. The simple question is how will a universal background check change that. The answer is simple .... It won't. The data shows that.

    The history of mass shootings shows that.

    That's the problem.

    I guess most of see that solving the gun problem needs to address the real issues which is enforcement of existing law, maximum or mandatory sentencing for crimes using guns and controlling illegal gun transactions.

    Since most of the gun violence is committed by criminals, let's target the criminals, not those using guns legally and responsibly.

    That just makes sense to me.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  4. #729
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The problem is that in this case, the laws that you wish to enact will have the greatest impact not on those acquiring and using guns illegally, but those that are acquiring and using guns legally and responsibly.
    Universal background checks won't stop people acquiring and using guns legally. Nor will mandatory waiting periods.
    Last edited by scfire86; 02-11-2014 at 11:39 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #730
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Many guns purchased are pistols, meant to be carried by the owner. These are carried for "defense". Question...when you are being taught to fire a pistol as defense...are you taught to shoot to wound or shoot to kill?

    Call it defense all you want....that gun's purpose is to kill the attacker.
    This is true to the extent of that gun's use, but it's not to kill it's to defend from being killed or having serious bodily harm inflicted. The fact is that you should never go to a gun unless the threat is so high that you truly fear for life or limb, hence you shoot to kill. The part so few people recognize is that it's not easy to shoot anything accurately enough when you're under such duress as fear for your life, that you could shoot someone in the hand and disarm them, no matter how many re-runs of the A-Team you watch.

    The military has tons of recent data formed on actual combat experience regarding the fight or flight response. One of the prevailing notes from this is that even with combat experience, there are few soldiers who can control and react on que to the fight or flight response. Only those with significant combat experience such as those members of the spec ops arena were able to teach themselves how to react or desensitize enough that F or F doesn't kick in. To that end America's favorites SEAL Team 6 only will accept SEALs with proven combat experience, there training only is not enough. We can only assume Delta has similar vetting. Point being, talking about shoot to kill vs. shoot to wound or anything else is pointless. Just having a gun and being proficient may not be enough, but the chances of surviving a violent encounter are better than without one.

  6. #731
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Granted....we are talking hypothetical on these two incidents....

    If the guy in the movie theatre that was shot because of his texting had a gun....there would probably be more people dead/hurt than just him.

    If the 4 kids in the vehicle with loud music had guns...there would probably be more people dead/hurt than just the 1.


    How is that "working"?

    Seems to me that more people having more guns would have been a worse outcome.
    The only answer to your issue then is total disarmament, as both these cases would not have been prevented by universal checks or magazine capacity restrictions. It' s these types of arguments that lead even the moderates of "our side" to believe that there will be no stopping until no one has guns except the police and government (not for tyrannical purposes, but by virtue of some realistic thought on the behalf of liberals).

  7. #732
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    To that end America's favorites SEAL Team 6 only will accept SEALs with proven combat experience, there training only is not enough. We can only assume Delta has similar vetting. Point being, talking about shoot to kill vs. shoot to wound or anything else is pointless. Just having a gun and being proficient may not be enough, but the chances of surviving a violent encounter are better than without one.
    Drawing from anecdotes by returning veterans from Vietnam. Most of them told me they only realized they had killed someone after the firefight was over and they were surveying the dead. Most weren't sure if they had fired the actual bullet that killed their adversary because they were busy ducking themselves and not laying down accurate fire.

    The movie technique of aiming from behind a concealed position exposing one's head was rarely used according to them.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #733
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Yet other countries don't seem to have the problem of mass shootings like we do in the US.
    So you're willing to give up more freedoms to combat the firearms violence killings? Few countries prevent their governments from keeping tabs on them. Guilt by association is pretty much commonplace amongst all other nations (yes the "free" ones). Big Brother is much more of a reality in most other countries. We on the other hand refuse to even treat illegal aliens as if they're violating any laws, we actually reward them with rights that we have to pay for! While that isssue isn't as simple as that, it is analogous to how we view freedom as Americans.

  9. #734
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Drawing from anecdotes by returning veterans from Vietnam. Most of them told me they only realized they had killed someone after the firefight was over and they were surveying the dead. Most weren't sure if they had fired the actual bullet that killed their adversary because they were busy ducking themselves and not laying down accurate fire.

    The movie technique of aiming from behind a concealed position exposing one's head was rarely used according to them.
    Exactly. The FBI's stats on police involved shooting show that trained officers with standardized interval re-qualifications only hit 25% of what they shoot at in an actual combat situation. This is due to how our brain and subsequently body reacts. Oddly enough, mass murders and those intent on killing have not displayed the same reactions when they carry out their act, either through detachment or lack of fear. Most end it on their own before they arrive at a point where they'd be fighting for their life. In these cases, we cannot be sure they'd even have a F or F reaction if they'd planned to die anyway? T

    The take away here is that it's not like the movies and by limiting magazine capacities or types of actions allowed, you put the law abiding citizens at a greater disadvantage than those who already have the advantage of knowing what is going to happen and when. No none of this would be affected by Universal background checks on their own.

  10. #735
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The problem is that in this case, the laws that you wish to enact will have the greatest impact not on those acquiring and using guns illegally, but those that are acquiring and using guns legally and responsibly.

    The data says that most criminals acquire guns illegally - not from dealers - or borrow them from friends and relatives who have acquired them legally or simply stole weapons. The simple question is how will a universal background check change that. The answer is simple .... It won't. The data shows that.

    The history of mass shootings shows that.

    That's the problem.

    I guess most of see that solving the gun problem needs to address the real issues which is enforcement of existing law, maximum or mandatory sentencing for crimes using guns and controlling illegal gun transactions.

    Since most of the gun violence is committed by criminals, let's target the criminals, not those using guns legally and responsibly.

    That just makes sense to me.
    Please explain how new laws, or more effective versions of existing laws, with the goal of reducing criminal use of guns would qualify as "targeting" responsible gun owners?

  11. #736
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    Please explain how new laws, or more effective versions of existing laws, with the goal of reducing criminal use of guns would qualify as "targeting" responsible gun owners?
    Additional paperwork. Additional questions. Additional waiting times.And possibly additional fees.

    And additional weapons that may not be available.

    The fact is still you are putting the burden on responsible citizens to prove that they "qualify" to own a weapon through additional times, fees and weapon/magazine restrictions when they are not the issue.

    Go after the problem, which is not legally acquired weapons.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  12. #737
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Additional paperwork. Additional questions. Additional waiting times.And possibly additional fees.

    And additional weapons that may not be available.

    The fact is still you are putting the burden on responsible citizens to prove that they "qualify" to own a weapon through additional times, fees and weapon/magazine restrictions when they are not the issue.

    Go after the problem, which is not legally acquired weapons.
    Yes, there are additional burdens on the responsible citizens. The "burdens" you listed are pretty much identical to those we put on car owners, boat owners, dog owners, business owners, etc. Where is the outrage over government infringement in those areas? Are we all being "targeted" in those areas? Some have called gun regulations punishment. Are we all being punished when we register our cars or get a license to conduct our businesses?
    You posted yourself that gun violence is down over the last 20 years. 20 years ago you would probably have fought against stricter gun control laws. Yet they were passed anyway. What happened? You said yourself that those laws were effective in reducing gun violence. This all happened, for the most part, without responsible gun owners losing their weapons or being denied the chance to purchase new ones. So doesn't it logically follow that we could further enact laws-aimed at criminal use or sale of guns-which would further reduce gun vilence without restricting responsible gun owners?

  13. #738
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    So you're willing to give up more freedoms to combat the firearms violence killings?
    What freedoms are being given up?

    Hmmm....free speech...no.
    right to bear arms...no.
    Search and seizure....no.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #739
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Additional paperwork. Additional questions. Additional waiting times.And possibly additional fees.

    Go after the problem, which is not legally acquired weapons.
    I have to go through all of that and I still managed to acquire about dozen firearms.

    Not that big a deal unless you can't read or write.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  15. #740
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    Please explain how new laws, or more effective versions of existing laws, with the goal of reducing criminal use of guns would qualify as "targeting" responsible gun owners?
    Seriously? Maybe because it's a known fact that criminals don't follow the laws we have now! What in your obtuse train of thought makes you think they will follow any news ones?
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  16. #741
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    What freedoms are being given up?

    Hmmm....free speech...no.
    right to bear arms...no.
    Search and seizure....no.
    My reply was in regard to comparing the US to other countries. Their success is not solely based on their firearms laws and restrictions. Life in these other countries is not the same as here. There's no way to compare apples to apples without looking at the overall process. Illegal firearms interdiction is successful where other "freedoms" we enjoy are not observed. The same is true of the 'war on drugs'. It's much easier to combat crime where you have unfettered access to peoples activities, conversations and associations. Here these rights can only be "violated" with probable cause, vs. stumbling across a crime by using the "six degrees of separation" methods.

  17. #742
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Where are mass stabbings all the rage. I'll take my chances with a nutcase trying to stab a dozen people over a nutcase with a semi-auto or automatic rifle and 30 rd magazine any day.
    Lets start easy with China: 2010-2012 25 dead 115 injured, schools. Norway: stabbing on a bus. Osaka: school. Akihabara, Japan: mall. Etajima: fish plant. Hell, the US is littered with examples.
    The others are mostly terrorist attacks. That's a different issue.
    But to discount them is just asking for trouble.


    It's already been discussed on how many of those weapons get to areas with strict gun laws. They typically get there from areas with lax or no gun laws.
    Again, current laws being broken. Yet you offer no solution to that.
    Last edited by SPFDRum; 02-11-2014 at 01:59 PM.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  18. #743
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    Please explain how new laws, or more effective versions of existing laws, with the goal of reducing criminal use of guns would qualify as "targeting" responsible gun owners?
    Targetting is a poor choice of word in this case. These laws can be viewed as having a negative impact on law abiding citizens by forcing them to jump through more hoops. Again, requiring background checks for all sales isn't a big deal for most, but it makes it far more onerous to sell or transfer a firearm. Is it worth it? I doubt we all agree on many sides and levels of this debate. On it's own, I find it acceptable, as a "first step" I see it as the slippery slope. With some legal assurances against confiscation and limits placed on legal firearms owners, I'm on board. Problem is your state (NY) has already jumped into the confiscation (magazines >10 rounds) realm proving that it is a likely step, not just a tyrannical conspiracy theory.
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 02-11-2014 at 01:56 PM. Reason: keyboard caused misspelled words

  19. #744
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The purpose is to defend yourself, and yes, that often means taking a shot that will kill, not disable your attacker.

    Sop the option is not to allow citizen's to carry guns and instead have them be injured or killed by the criminal?

    Is that really your argument?
    No, my arguement is...enough is not being done.

    Stricter checking, stricter enforcement. Good steps in my opinion.

    I also believe people don't need to be carrying their guns everywhere they go.

    Am I the "all knowing" that has the answers? Nope. Just participating in a discussion.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  20. #745
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    How is what working? Your augments are swiftly falling into ludicrous. Taken on just face value, neither of these where a mass shooting. As of now, they are nothing more then murder committed by a gun. The very same exact thing that happens day in and day out in cities with the strictest gun laws on the books. So if you want to at least pretend to make a sensible argument, try with comparing apples to apples.
    Wasn't talking about mass shooting.

    And is it so wrong to figure/discuss ways to reduce murders by gun?

    As you say, murders happen day in and day out. Should we just accept that?
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  21. #746
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    Yes, there are additional burdens on the responsible citizens. The "burdens" you listed are pretty much identical to those we put on car owners, boat owners, dog owners, business owners, etc. Where is the outrage over government infringement in those areas? Are we all being "targeted" in those areas? Some have called gun regulations punishment. Are we all being punished when we register our cars or get a license to conduct our businesses?
    You posted yourself that gun violence is down over the last 20 years. 20 years ago you would probably have fought against stricter gun control laws. Yet they were passed anyway. What happened? You said yourself that those laws were effective in reducing gun violence. This all happened, for the most part, without responsible gun owners losing their weapons or being denied the chance to purchase new ones. So doesn't it logically follow that we could further enact laws-aimed at criminal use or sale of guns-which would further reduce gun vilence without restricting responsible gun owners?
    Your idea of solving the problem is to put additional burdens on the segment of society following the existing laws and rules. Your idea is to try to ban guns that still should be legal and ban large capacity magazines that this group uses responsibly.

    Many of the posters here feel that we need to come down much harder on the segment of society not currently following the laws and rules and enact mandatory sentencing for any crime using guns or attempting to illegally acquire guns.

    I like the second idea much better as ... wait for it ... They, and thier actions are the problem.

    Again .. restricting access to semi-auto weapons or large capacity magazines, or adding hoops to jump through for law abiding citizens is NOT the answer. All it's doing is limiting our constitutional rights.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  22. #747
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Wasn't talking about mass shooting.
    Really? Funny, because the root of this debate centers around mass shootings.
    And is it so wrong to figure/discuss ways to reduce murders by gun? Projection, a common tool when all else fails. Where have I ever said it was? I'm not going anywhere, I'll patiently wait for your response on this.

    As you say, murders happen day in and day out. Should we just accept that?
    Taking on their own, murders by gun are actually very low compared to the rest of the industrialized world. But activists love to add suicides in their numbers to skew the truth. Yes, it is a problem, but so is criminal recidivism, what is you solution for that? So is existing gun laws being continually broken by criminals, what is your solution for that. A vast majority of gun deaths are suicide, what is your solution for that?
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  23. #748
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Again .. restricting access to semi-auto weapons or large capacity magazines, or adding hoops to jump through for law abiding citizens is NOT the answer. All it's doing is limiting our constitutional rights.
    Where is it written one has a "right" to semi-auto weapons and large capacity magazines?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  24. #749
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Where is it written one has a "right" to semi-auto weapons and large capacity magazines?
    See here is where you lose the right (like that?) to say you're only promoting universal background checks. See why some of us are unwilling to believe the checks are only your first step?

    I've shown you numerous times in this thread why semi-automatic firearms and higher capacity magazines are necessary for self and home defense. The implication that they're not protected suddenly shows that you're leaning toward "hunting/target use only" types of firearms. Again, this is why I, against my own better judgement, cannot support any greater gun control measure.

  25. #750
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    See here is where you lose the right (like that?) to say you're only promoting universal background checks. See why some of us are unwilling to believe the checks are only your first step?
    This is where you lose the right to a literal interpretation of the Constitution.
    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