• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 5 votes

Gun Ownership

guns handguns massacre shooting gun control security mass shooting rights us law gun law handguns gun law

  • Please log in to reply
177 replies to this topic

Poll: life extension and guns (75 member(s) have cast votes)

Private ownership of handguns should be..

  1. outlawed (10 votes [13.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.33%

  2. highly restricted (12 votes [16.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.00%

  3. restricted somewhat (16 votes [21.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.33%

  4. largely unrestricted (32 votes [42.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 42.67%

  5. other (5 votes [6.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.67%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#121 Luminosity

  • Guest
  • 2,000 posts
  • 646
  • Location:Gaia

Posted 01 March 2013 - 06:33 AM

In the seventies I would have been all for English or Canadian style gun control for the US because the government didn't seem to have totalitarian tendencies. This would have saved lives. There was half a chance that the laws would have been applied sanely, and that criminals might have had much less access to guns.

Now, I don't know. The US government is abusing it's powers, and seems to be getting worse. There is a ten year low in prosecutions of violations of the existing gun laws by the Federal Government. (Source: Democracy Now) Hmmm. We gave guns to Mexican cartels to shoot our our own border patrol agents. Some of the mass shootings might be staged false flag incidents. Law enforcement on all levels has basically given up trying to really do anything about a lot of crimes, so how would that impact gun law enforcements?

Possibly one of the things stopping a jack-booted fascist federal takeover is the sobering fact that Americans are twitchy and heavily armed. One of the things fueling rational people to own guns is crime and the lack of effective law enforcement. I'd say do something real about crime and the erosion of civil rights, and the gap between rich and poor, the plutocracy, runaway inflation, and mismanagement of the environment. These fuel crime, unrest, and doomsday visions. After that you might stand more of a chance of getting rational people's guns away.

Theoretically, right now you could ban assault weapons, do mental health and background checks on prospective gun owners, and institutionalize dangerous mentally ill people. All of those powers can be abused, however. If a preschool child is suspended from school under a "zero tolerance policy" because he formed his hand into a gun, what would compromise and an automatic weapon? A nail gun? Whatever the police say it is in that moment and good luck getting any one to listen to you. Stuff like this is happening right now. What would constitute a dangerous mentally ill person? Would the batman shooter maybe have gone free while an inconvenient dissident might locked up without a trial?

It costs around a thousand dollars a day to hospitalize someone. Who will pay for that? Whose agenda will be worth a thousand dollars a day per nut case forever? Right now protecting innocent kids lives isn't worth that kind of money. Why would it be worth it later? If someone got a call from the President's Office about a rowdy whistleblower with too much information who was "dangerous" and "threatening to shoot people," a favor to a President is worth the money, and besides, the person is "dangerous."

An FBI whistleblower is just starting a thirty month prison sentence for whistleblowing, prosecuted by the Obama administration. He says he is proud to do it. The Obama Administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than President Bush. (Source: Democracy Now)

The theories of gun control have to be held up against the reality of the those who would enforce them. Do you want the people who are responsible for Airport Security and the No Fly List to have more power?

Edited by Luminosity, 01 March 2013 - 06:39 AM.

  • like x 3

#122 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 01 March 2013 - 02:13 PM

Some of the mass shootings might be staged false flag incidents.

runaway inflation


:laugh:
  • dislike x 1

#123 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,692 posts
  • -113
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 01 March 2013 - 07:47 PM

Niner: Twice now I've talked about how all the laws in the world are not going to keep guns off the streets of Chicago if the area surrounding Chicago allows uncontrolled sales of huge numbers of guns to straw purchasers. Do we at least agree on this?


I don’t have the stats on that so I don’t know if this question has merit or not. What percentage of Guns in Chicago come from sales such as this. We can agree, if it is against the law, it should be enforced. I suspect it is already illegal to sell guns to criminals in Chicago, whether they came across a state line or not. Maybe they are getting guns from Canada. If they can’t stop dope, maybe they can’t stop guns


I think if you look into it, you'll find that straw purchasers are a huge problem in Chicago and other high crime areas. No doubt it is illegal to sell guns to criminals, but it's very hard to enforce laws like that. Having a suburban gun shop ten miles outside of the city where a straw purchaser can buy a crate of pistols creates a situation ripe for abuse, and it's a simple choke point where the flow of guns to criminals could be cut off. Do you really think guns are coming in from Canada?


Perhaps so but what percentage of the criminal gun problem are they. I know the government is in this business. The fact is it is hard to stop criminals but easy to rag on law abiding such as the NRA who are not causing the problem. Criminals own cars and all kind of things that law abiding citizens do as well. Lets throw them all in jail. Lets make it so everyone is a criminal and loose their rights. A dictatorship of law is what we need.

I have no reason to think guns from Canada do not make their way to Chicago. Lets lock them all up! Better safe than sorry. I don’t want to be unconvinced with the liberty of others, do you?
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 2

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#124 Luminosity

  • Guest
  • 2,000 posts
  • 646
  • Location:Gaia

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:56 AM

Since When? A Skeptical Look At Gun Control



Who will guard the guards?

-- Juvenal



In the seventies I would have been all for English or Canadian style gun control for the US because the government didn't seem to have totalitarian tendencies. This would have saved lives. There was half a chance that the laws would have been applied sanely, and that criminals might have had much less access to guns.

I still see the logic behind gun control, but can we get some less evil people to enact it? The US government is abusing its powers, and seems to be getting worse. There is a ten year low in prosecutions of violations ofexisting gun laws by the Federal Government. (Source: Democracy Now) Hmmm. We sold guns to Mexican cartels to shoot our our own border patrol agents. Some of the mass shootings might be staged false flag incidents. Law enforcement on all levels has basically given up trying to really do anything about a lot of crimes, so how would that impact gun law enforcements?

Possibly one of the things stopping a jack-booted fascist federal takeover is the sobering fact that Americans are twitchy and heavily armed. One of the things fueling rational people to own guns is crime and the lack of effective law enforcement. I'd say do something real about crime, the erosion of civil rights, the gap between rich and poor, the plutocracy, the kleptocracy, runaway prices, and mismanagement of the environment. These fuel crime, unrest, and doomsday visions. After that you might stand more of a chance of getting rational people's guns away.

Theoretically, right now you could ban assault weapons, do mental health/background checks on prospective gun owners, and institutionalize dangerous mentally ill people. All of those powers can be abused, however. If a preschool child is suspended from school under a "zero tolerance policy" because he formed his hand into a gun, what would compromise and an automatic weapon? A nail gun? Whatever the police say it is and good luck getting any one to listen to you? Cause stuff like this is happening now. What would constitute a dangerous mentally ill person? Would the batman shooter have gone free while an inconvenient dissident might locked up without a trial?

It can cost around a thousand dollars a day to mentally hospitalize someone. Who will pay for that? Whose agenda will be worth a thousand dollars a day per nut case forever? Right now protecting innocent kids lives isn't worth that kind of money. Why would it be worth it later? If someone got a call from the President's Office about a rowdy whistleblower with too much information who was "dangerous" and "threatening to shoot people," a favor to a President is worth the money, and besides, the person is "dangerous."

An CIA whistleblower is just starting a thirty month prison sentence, prosecuted by the Obama administration. He says he is proud to do it. Former CIA agent John Kiriakou is being jailed for speaking out about torture by the US government. He said, "My oath is to the constitution . . . to me, torture is unconstitutional." The Obama Administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than President Bush. (Source: Democracy Now)

http://www.democracy...bracing_torture

The theories of gun control have to be held up against the reality of the those who would enforce them. Do you want the people who are responsible for Airport Security and the No Fly List to have more power?

For this and other commentary, go to my blog at:
http://www.longecity...at-7-commentary

Edited by Luminosity, 03 March 2013 - 02:57 AM.

  • like x 1

#125 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:33 PM

In the seventies...the government didn't seem to have totalitarian tendencies.


That statement is so untrue, I couldn't read any further.

#126 dz93

  • Guest
  • 424 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 April 2013 - 02:43 PM

I'm not against gun ownership.

Putting restrictive laws on guns or banning them will only take away protection from law biding citizens allowing criminals to keep doing what they do best. All these politicians who are advocating restrictions on gun ownership all have concealed carries and body guards with guns. Why? Because they know they need protection, yet the small little pathetic citizen doesn't need protection or according to micheal moore all they need is a guard dog for protection.

The only thing that can stop a criminal with a gun is a citizen with a gun or wait 5min for the police to come but during that 5min you're on your own and lets hope your guard dog is bullet proof.

Edited by Lister, 09 April 2013 - 04:46 PM.

  • like x 1

#127 Bron

  • Guest
  • 103 posts
  • 10
  • Location:CSA- Camellia Sinensis Anonymous

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:46 AM

As I asked before. Canadians own a lot of guns, but do not use them to kill each other as often as in the U.S. Why?

As far as corrupt governments go, and the murder of hundreds of millions of people, repeatedly, I can't ignore history. Someone has to at least bring it up. Someone has to remain vigilant. If that makes me "the goat" or "the kook" that is fine. I have a thick skin.


Austrians and Swiss as well.

I voted for somewhat restricted, because 1) I don't want some nut to be able to own firearms. 2) I want to be able to own firearms.

If it was highly restricted, I would not be able to own and carry a handgun, I would be restricted to a club or something idiotic like that. I also don't want the criminally insane to be able to own firearms either.

Then again, if some guy needs to take an SSRI because he can't shake a depression, should he have his rights infringed? I don't think so. But then how would you regulate the system to where only some of the mentally ill were restricted, and not others? Well I guess you probably couldn't. You could only restrict those that were committed, just like it is now.

So I don't have any good answers. All I can tell you is I am not giving up my firearms. Not ever.

Edited by Bron, 10 April 2013 - 02:47 AM.

  • like x 2

#128 Bron

  • Guest
  • 103 posts
  • 10
  • Location:CSA- Camellia Sinensis Anonymous

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:53 AM

Hopefully in the future we will actually have truly smart weapons. Where the weapon literally would not be able to function in an illegal capacity. The firearm would have software, would be able to be overridden, and would be able to recognize threats/non-threats.

That wouldn't solve the problem Mind mentioned, to where you had to fight some sort of dystopian government, but I never plan on doing that. I just want to be able to survive, I don't want some lowlife to be able to threaten me or my family.

I personally could get by with a revolver, shotgun, and hunting rifle, although that is not all I own. In fact, I actually don't even need the hunting rifle, I don't even eat meat anymore...

#129 gwgaston

  • Guest
  • 526 posts
  • 58
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:10 PM

What is amazing is how a small (in size comparison - not in how tragic it was) an event relevant to overall crime rates and specifically tragic gun crime rates can cause such a demand to "do something now". The mental/social conditions that ignited the problem just didn't happen over night, and it will not be fixed by legislation in the short term. Not in this country.

Reminds me of a plane falling out of the sky and killing hundreds immediately making everyone question the safety of flying in general.

I was going to stay away from this thread but some of the comments made here really are twisting stats or ignoring relevant stats. If you plan to only think one move ahead, please make it the the best move that is relevant to where the pieces are on the board and the skill and determination of your adversary. Would the world be a better place without death from guns? Absolutely! Will we get there? Maybe one day, but we will not be starting with the removal (or most of the current proposed restrictions) of my "gun". It is not the logical place to start.


Once of a few videos I plan to post:



Edited by gwgaston, 10 April 2013 - 05:25 PM.

  • like x 1

#130 gwgaston

  • Guest
  • 526 posts
  • 58
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:40 PM

A comparative analysis of UK and US murder rates.


  • like x 1

#131 dz93

  • Guest
  • 424 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:21 PM

Mexico has extremely strict gun laws... Isn't Mexico such a friendlier place now? :dry:

Edited by dz93, 10 April 2013 - 10:23 PM.

  • like x 2

#132 gwgaston

  • Guest
  • 526 posts
  • 58
  • Location:USA

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:20 PM

England is all happy about their situation either:


Edited by gwgaston, 11 April 2013 - 06:20 PM.

  • like x 1

#133 gwgaston

  • Guest
  • 526 posts
  • 58
  • Location:USA

Posted 11 April 2013 - 10:08 PM

England is all happy about their situation either:

Sorry for all the typos folks. Of course that should have read something like: "England is not very happy about their situation either"


Now for the Australians:

http://youtu.be/BoLSk_BjGuo

Edited by gwgaston, 11 April 2013 - 10:18 PM.

  • like x 1

#134 gwgaston

  • Guest
  • 526 posts
  • 58
  • Location:USA

Posted 11 April 2013 - 10:38 PM

A personal message from a German mechanical engineer. He rambles on a bit,,, So skip to ~ 10:31 where he talks about the issues in Germany if you are pressed for time. At the beginning he talks about the difficulty in legally obtaining a gun there:


Edited by gwgaston, 11 April 2013 - 10:42 PM.

  • like x 1

#135 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,205 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 12 April 2013 - 05:18 PM

One thing I am not sure has been stressed in this thread, forgive me if I am repeating something, but there is a second amendment in the U.S constitution and there is a method for changing it. I think it is horrendous that politicians just come up with willy-nilly modifications to this inalienable right (in the U.S.), based on emotion and passing national mood swings.

The best solution, IMO would be to hold a constitutional convention and modify the 2nd amendment, to make it a matter for state governments. That way in New York, people could vote to ban everything while people in Texas could vote to retain their conceal and carry laws and right to self-defense, what-not.
  • like x 2

#136 npcomplete

  • Guest
  • 44 posts
  • 284
  • Location:Near the Corner of P & NP

Posted 13 April 2013 - 10:34 PM

Although I am a strong States' rights proponent, it must be noted that the rights of the states must be in line with the guiding principles of the U.S. Constitution. Now personally I believe that the Federal level has become too powerful, to the extent of making the Tenth Amendment almost meaningless, but I believe that the Bill of Rights is what united us as a Nation of States, so I am not in favor of eliminating any of these rights as codified in the Constitution. I believe that these "inalienable" rights mean just that: inalienable.

The Constitution provides a basic template for the States, and a constraint on what an individual state can or cannot do, with some differentiation allowed via State and local law. Allowing States to decide on whether or not to support the Second Amendment would be like allowing individual States to allow freedom of speech (First Amendment) or allowing the States to pick and choose other parts of the Constitution they wish to observe at the State level.

Letting the States make their own decisions on the Second Amendment has already been decided in the Supreme Court decision of McDonald v. Chicago (2010). The case revolved around the ban of handguns in Chicago.

http://en.wikipedia....nald_v._Chicago

In the earlier decision of Washington DC. v. Heller, the majority decided that the Second Amendment is a guarantee of individual rights (vs. a collective right only used by members of a militia). This was a key decision, with DC v. Heller laying some of the groundwork for the McDonald v. Chicago ruling in 2010. Since DC was not a "State", then the question arose as to whether an individual State could pass laws that significantly infringed on the Second Amendment. The decision was based on the "Due Process" clause of the 14th Amendment.

http://www.law.corne...on/amendmentxiv

Amendment XIV
...snip...
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...snip...


here is the text of McDonald v. Chicago (2010):

http://www.supremeco...pdf/08-1521.pdf

As I mentioned in the sugar-water (soda pop) thread for New York: "an individual state cannot just do as it pleases if found in violation of the overarching Constitutional guidelines". That principle applies to local government in the same way that it applies to state governments. For example, a city cannot decide on its own to place unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech or religion without risking a "smackdown" by the highest court.

The DC v. Heller decision essentially defined gun ownership as an individual right, which then led to issues with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since an individual Constitutional right was denied to individuals by local law, and "without due process of law" applied to those individuals who were denied their rights. In McDonald v. Chicago we find that Chicago was denying individuals, without due process, a right guaranteed in Heller at the Federal level (recall this was for DC) a few years prior. The McDonald v. Chicago decision, with the majority opinion written by Justice Alito, then turned towards issues of whether this individual right was in some sense a "fundamental" right that would be protected by the Due Process Clause, and therefore could not be infringed upon by the States. The majority found that it was fundamental, and the decision is an *excellent* read on the history of various types of rights and protections of same. The Seventh Circuit Court decision was then reversed by the Supreme Court.

As suggested, we could call a Constitutional Convention and do a major rewrite, but then we would be at further risk of degeneration into a "dis-United States" as one state decides to ban religion, another bans guns, and still another decides to toss out the double jeopardy provision of the Constitution because they didn't like a recent court ruling. This would in turn lead to serious problems with the "Equal Protection Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment, where fundamental rights given to citizens in one state are not observed in another, making fundamental rights no longer fundamental - in turn leading to disunification of our Union.

Here are a few comments from the majority opinion of McDonald v. Chicago written by Justice Alito. Page numbers refer to actual PDF page numbers, not page numbers printed in the document (makes it easier to jump to PDF pages directly):

The Court clarified that the governing standard is whether a particular Bill of Rights protection is fundamental to our Nation’s particular scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice. Duncan, supra, at 149, n. 14. The Court eventually held that almost all of the Bill of Rights’ guarantees met the requirements for protection under the Due Process Clause. The Court also held that Bill of Rights protections must “all . . . be enforced against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment according to the same standards that protect those personal rights against federal encroachment.” Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, 10. Under this approach, the Court overruled earlier decisions holding that particular Bill of Rights guarantees or remedies did not apply to the States. (PDF page 3)

The Court must decide whether that right is fundamental to the Nation’s scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 149, or, as the Court has said in a related context, whether it is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721. Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right. (PDF page 3-4)

U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.The city of Chicago (City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws that are similar to the District of Columbia’s, but Chicago and Oak Park argue that their laws are constitutional because the Second Amendment has no application to the States. (PDF page 7)

In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty. (PDF page 37)

Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home. Municipal respondents, in effect, ask us to treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause. (PDF page 39)

According to municipal respondents, if it is possible to imagine any civilized legal system that does not recognize a particular right, then the Due Process Clause does not make that right binding on the States (PDF page 39)

We likewise reject municipal respondents’ argument that we should depart from our established incorporation methodology on the ground that making the Second Amendment binding on the States and their subdivisions is inconsistent with principles of federalism and will stifle experimentation. (PDF page 42)

Under our precedents, if a Bill of Rights guarantee is fundamental from an American perspective, then, unless stare decisis counsels otherwise,30 that guarantee is fully binding on the States and thus limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values. (PDF page 43)


Note that this federalist view of the Second Amendment offered by the municipal respondents (second to last paragraph in quote) is the same as the suggested view of letting the states decide - and was rejected by the Supreme Court. I do not believe that the amendment process was designed to tear down the major supporting beams of the overall legal architecture of the country by eliminating fundamental rights recognized in the Bill of Rights.

Edited by npcomplete, 13 April 2013 - 10:43 PM.

  • like x 3

#137 Logic

  • Guest
  • 2,649 posts
  • 568
  • Location:Kimberley, South Africa
  • NO

Posted 14 April 2013 - 01:37 AM

Prominent rifle manufacturer killed in mysterious car crash days after posting psych drug link to school shooters

Learn more: http://www.naturalne...l#ixzz2QOi3dTyW
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#138 npcomplete

  • Guest
  • 44 posts
  • 284
  • Location:Near the Corner of P & NP

Posted 21 April 2013 - 09:57 PM

Here are the results for Senate bill S.649 on gun control that was withdrawn from the Senate. Harry Reid pulled the bill after key amendments were voted down. Links to the full bill and the roll call for the amendments follow. Just the facts.


FULL BILL:
http://www.gpo.gov/f...-113s649pcs.pdf


AMENDMENTS:

==

Harkin Amdt. No. 730
To reauthorize and improve programs related to mental health and substance use disorders.

Amendment Agreed to: Vote (Yea/Nay/Not Voting) = 95/2/3
http://www.senate.go...on=1&vote=00105

==

Barrasso Amdt. No. 717
To withhold 5 percent of Community Oriented Policing Services program Federal funding from States and local governments that release sensitive and confidential information on law-abiding gun owners and victims of domestic violence.

Amendment Agreed to: Vote (Yea/Nay/Not Voting) = 67/30/3
http://www.senate.go...on=1&vote=00104

==

Lautenberg Amdt. No. 714
To regulate large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Amendment Rejected: Vote (Yea/Nay/Not Voting) = 46/54/0
http://www.senate.go...on=1&vote=00103

==

Burr Amdt. No. 720
To protect the Second Amendment rights of veterans and their families.

Amendment Rejected: Vote (Yea/Nay/Not Voting) = 56/44/0
http://www.senate.go...on=1&vote=00102

==

Feinstein Amdt. No. 711
To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

Amendment Rejected: Vote (Yea/Nay/Not Voting) = 40/60/0
http://www.senate.go...on=1&vote=00101

==

Cornyn Amdt. No. 719
To allow reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.

Amendment Rejected: Vote (Yea/Nay/Not Voting) = 57/43/0
http://www.senate.go...on=1&vote=00100

==

Leahy Amdt. No. 713
To increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking.

Amendment Rejected: Vote (Yea/Nay/Not Voting) = 58/42/0
http://www.senate.go...on=1&vote=00099

==

Grassley Amdt. No. 725
To address gun violence, improve the availability of records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, address mental illness in the criminal justice system, and end straw purchases and trafficking of illegal firearms, and for other purposes.

Amendment Rejected: Vote (Yea/Nay/Not Voting) = 52/48/0
http://www.senate.go...on=1&vote=00098

==

Manchin Amdt. No. 715
To protect Second Amendment rights, ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and provide a responsible and consistent background check process.

Amendment Rejected: Vote (Yea/Nay/Not Voting) = 54/46/0
http://www.senate.go...on=1&vote=00097

==

Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S.649
A bill to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes.

Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to: Vote (Yea/Nay/Not Voting) = 68/31/1
http://www.senate.go...on=1&vote=00095

==
  • like x 4

#139 Lister

  • Member, Moderator
  • 390 posts
  • 131
  • Location:Kelowna, Canada

Posted 26 April 2013 - 04:57 PM

It’s a shame that there’s so little value found in Gun Control down there in states. Given a decade of time, a large enough gun buyback, and some extreme restrictions on gun ownership you would see a decrease in gun violence in the US…

Worked in Australia… I’m sure you could work extremely hard to separate the two nations as being totally different cases and perhaps they are different however, it’s still a very obvious fact that less guns means less gun violence. You can’t shoot someone if you don’t have a gun. Good guys vs. Bad Guys. Criminals vs. Honest Citizens. In the end the use of guns results in gun violence, regardless of who you are.
  • dislike x 2

#140 npcomplete

  • Guest
  • 44 posts
  • 284
  • Location:Near the Corner of P & NP

Posted 26 April 2013 - 05:38 PM

It’s a shame that there’s so little value found in Gun Control down there in states....snip...


It's a shame that they don't have the same Constitutional guarantees for God-given rights up there in Canada that we enjoy down here in the states!

We fought a war over that little issue... and we won!
  • dislike x 3
  • like x 2

#141 Lister

  • Member, Moderator
  • 390 posts
  • 131
  • Location:Kelowna, Canada

Posted 26 April 2013 - 10:35 PM

It's a shame that they don't have the same Constitutional guarantees for God-given rights up there in Canada that we enjoy down here in the states!

We fought a war over that little issue... and we won!


Up/Down is more or less a reference to positions on a globe – it’s not a statement of something.

You fought so hard for those rights yet you’re so eager to give them up when it comes to Terrorism/Muslims. Plus as I’ve said before you have almost none of those rights except for the 2nd amendment. In Canada we have far less security, far less government over reach, and we have more public services!

If you have more guns you have more gun violence. When you have more gun violence you need more security, more police and that all creates more fear which drives gun purchases up and creates ever more gun violence. Eventually you’re left with a police state and from what you’ve all been saying it appears that’s what you have. Your guns have brought you less freedom, they have given the government reason to strip you of your rights and the solution to that are yet more guns?
  • dislike x 2
  • like x 2

#142 gwgaston

  • Guest
  • 526 posts
  • 58
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:11 AM

Obviously Mr. Twister didn't watch any of the videos I posted in this thread. He has no dog in this fight but thinks he knows what is best for America. Gun control in Australia has yet to work according to their own law enforcement. Hearing some politician state otherwise doesn't make it so.
  • dislike x 3
  • like x 1

#143 Lister

  • Member, Moderator
  • 390 posts
  • 131
  • Location:Kelowna, Canada

Posted 27 April 2013 - 08:44 AM

Obviously Mr. Twister didn't watch any of the videos I posted in this thread. He has no dog in this fight but thinks he knows what is best for America. Gun control in Australia has yet to work according to their own law enforcement. Hearing some politician state otherwise doesn't make it so.


Of course you're right it doesn't work. Let me prove you right. Here's some proof:

Posted Image

Yet more proof:

Posted Image

Aside from that there have been Zero mass shootings since gun control went into play.

In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

http://www.slate.com..._provide_a.html

The US and Australia are very similar in their roots too. Even the gun ownership advocates who rallied against gun control in Australia have since changed their minds (even the ones shouting the exact same thing the NRA is saying now). They found that the gun control which was implemented was manageable. I'm sorry but all this data just seems to invalidate the NRA and like-minded views.

Mass buy back of weapons followed up by strict gun control will heal parts of the US. And to say that it will take too long is nonsense; it took 3 months in Australia.
  • dislike x 2
  • like x 1

#144 gwgaston

  • Guest
  • 526 posts
  • 58
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 April 2013 - 07:51 PM

Mr. Twister strikes again. Stats can be twisted to support anything.

Pretty images from guncontrol.org.au ... a site likely more biased than what people claim of the NRA.

Yes, their gun related murders and suicides are down, but so are ours with no such gun ban. But it's ultimately about the total number of homicides. The fact is, there has been a steady decrease over the past three decades of homicides within Australia. Declining before any legislation. Their numbers are going down, but again, so has ours in the US with no gun bans. Despite increases in gun sales/gun ownership, gun crimes continued to decrease in the US. The US has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, and yet gun crime has been declining. Firearm murders are down, as is overall gun violence.

Of course the homicides that are occurring in Australia are just using another weapon of choice. from http://www.aic.gov.au :
"While gun related homicide has dropped to an historic low of 13%, the proportion of people dying through stab wounds has increased from 30% to 41% over the last 10 years"

As for suicides I'm not very compassionate there (well specifically adult suicides - which according to Australia are highed in middle-aged males) , so those numbers aren't as important to me. That said, looking at Australia's data, the gun ban apparently hasn't made a dent in the suicide rate... they're just using another method (hanging is up for one):

The forum software doesn't allow the posting of inline GIF images... so click this:

http://www.abs.gov.a...dElemFormat=gif


On the mass shootings, zero of them sounds great but you can't know its from the gun ban. New Zealand can claim the same... without a gun ban. In the period 1980-1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries.Since 1996 neither country has experienced a mass shooting event. IMNSHO, its just a matter of time for both countries.

The fact remains that you really can't compare "us to them". They don't have the number of large 250,000+ population dense areas in economic turmoil. Which statistically is where almost all of the gun related violence occurs in America.

As I said before, get the guns away from the criminals... then come ask for mine. I still won't likely give all of them up but I'll at least entertain the idea. :)

Edited by gwgaston, 27 April 2013 - 08:27 PM.

  • like x 1

#145 Lister

  • Member, Moderator
  • 390 posts
  • 131
  • Location:Kelowna, Canada

Posted 28 April 2013 - 04:43 AM

Mr. Twister strikes again. Stats can be twisted to support anything.

Pretty images from guncontrol.org.au ... a site likely more biased than what people claim of the NRA.

Yes, their gun related murders and suicides are down, but so are ours with no such gun ban. But it's ultimately about the total number of homicides. The fact is, there has been a steady decrease over the past three decades of homicides within Australia. Declining before any legislation. Their numbers are going down, but again, so has ours in the US with no gun bans. Despite increases in gun sales/gun ownership, gun crimes continued to decrease in the US. The US has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, and yet gun crime has been declining. Firearm murders are down, as is overall gun violence.

Of course the homicides that are occurring in Australia are just using another weapon of choice. from http://www.aic.gov.au :
"While gun related homicide has dropped to an historic low of 13%, the proportion of people dying through stab wounds has increased from 30% to 41% over the last 10 years"

As for suicides I'm not very compassionate there (well specifically adult suicides - which according to Australia are highed in middle-aged males) , so those numbers aren't as important to me. That said, looking at Australia's data, the gun ban apparently hasn't made a dent in the suicide rate... they're just using another method (hanging is up for one):

The forum software doesn't allow the posting of inline GIF images... so click this:

http://www.abs.gov.a...dElemFormat=gif


On the mass shootings, zero of them sounds great but you can't know its from the gun ban. New Zealand can claim the same... without a gun ban. In the period 1980-1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries.Since 1996 neither country has experienced a mass shooting event. IMNSHO, its just a matter of time for both countries.

The fact remains that you really can't compare "us to them". They don't have the number of large 250,000+ population dense areas in economic turmoil. Which statistically is where almost all of the gun related violence occurs in America.

As I said before, get the guns away from the criminals... then come ask for mine. I still won't likely give all of them up but I'll at least entertain the idea. :)


What's with the Mr. Twister thing? You think what you're saying doesn't appear to be mostly twisted facts? Let’s try and be grownups and keep the name calling (however tame it may be) in high schools where it belongs.

Gun violence is on the decline in the states because of the growth of social media, and the gradual change of US culture due to immigration and blending of other, less gun friendly cultures. Additionally the decline of gun violence overall is gradual however the very clear and sharpest decrease in Australia occurred after Gun Control was implemented.

Stabbing deaths being up is still going to be an order of magnitude less deaths overall. True knifes kill, though, I’m sure you of all people would agree that knifes are less effective than guns at killing. Thus your stabbing deaths stat is just filler.

Additionally because suicide stats aren’t relevant to you that doesn’t mean they aren’t relevant to the conversation. The world doesn’t revolve around you just as it doesn’t revolve around me or anyone else in this thread.

You could argue that I can’t connect the rain falling on my head to the cloud above me; you may say that its water blown off a roof down the street or it's rain from other clouds miles away. You can force distance between common sense connections all you want but that doesn’t change reality.

You may say there’s no reason to implement gun control as criminals will find ways of getting guns, but let me ask you this: Why bother putting a lock on your door when you know criminals will just break a window? Why bother having locks on your cars? Why bother?

#146 dz93

  • Guest
  • 424 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 28 April 2013 - 05:37 AM

The only reason it seems like the US has more gun violence is because the media go off the wall with gun violence making it seem like a big problem but the FBI has facts on their own website stating gun violence drops when gun owners increase. The only thing that gun control does is tell the criminals, who are obviously exempt from the law so gun control doesn't effect them, that the law biding citizen they're targeting has less, smaller, or even no guns at all to defend themselves. So what are they supposed to do? Wait 5 minutes for the cops to come while the criminal is doing whatever he wants to do. No matter your view on guns you shouldn't take them away from any law biding individual. Rights do not get modified or changed.
  • like x 1

#147 gwgaston

  • Guest
  • 526 posts
  • 58
  • Location:USA

Posted 28 April 2013 - 05:15 PM

Here a message from a Canadian New source know as "Sun News"... Of course I had never heard of them before... I, being from the states, but a quick google of the name and some of the most polite descriptions listing them as "Fox News North". So please understand that at the very least that implies they are biased. But of course all media these days seems to lean one way or another. I did verify that this news story was legit. In fact the link below the video is from another source and states that Ian Thompson was acquitted of the charges against him (which if you watch the video and read the news link you will see that he didn't even shoot anyone - they would not have walked away from my home). Of course it took 2.5 yrs to get said acquittal.

http://youtu.be/_52pMg8qQcc

Matt Gurney: Ian Thomson acquitted after shooting at his attackers

This is an example of corruption plain and simple... from the comments: "...the masked men who were throwing the fire bombs at his house were NOT charged with attempted murder - even though on the surveillance you can hear one asking him if he is ready to die. If any of the 3 were charged with attempted murder, then Thomson's defence of self defence would have been 100% cut and dry."

Edited by gwgaston, 28 April 2013 - 05:35 PM.

  • like x 1

#148 Lister

  • Member, Moderator
  • 390 posts
  • 131
  • Location:Kelowna, Canada

Posted 29 April 2013 - 04:12 AM

I was trying to figure out how to post a Youtube video earlier but failed and deleted the comment. Apparently gwgston caught it before I deleted it (or it's still posted and for some reason I can't see it) and he enjoyed it.

This video and the one below it are both from Vice. The first one isn't totally work safe but the second one is. Both are showing the other side of the gun debate from my perspective anyways (why gun regulation can be bad/useless in the future). I enjoy much of what Vice produces and I highly recommend everyone take some time to enjoy their Youtube channel. Though most of it is pretty heavy duty so ensure you’re not at work or around children… or have a weak stomach.

Enjoy!

http://youtu.be/LpIyaIHsJbc

http://youtu.be/DconsfGsXyA

Other than their Garbage Island video I think Vice does a pretty good job of remaining objective when it comes to news stories.

Edited by Lister, 29 April 2013 - 04:24 AM.

  • like x 1

#149 mtn2011

  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • -0
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 03 May 2013 - 07:23 PM

difficult to extend your life if you can't defend it
  • like x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#150 gwgaston

  • Guest
  • 526 posts
  • 58
  • Location:USA

Posted 04 May 2013 - 03:28 AM

We were in the 150s on responses. I will need to go back to my own archives to see what has happened here.Seems posts have been removed. But yes I believe we have made good points on both sides.
  • dislike x 2
  • like x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: guns, handguns, massacre, shooting, gun control, security, mass shooting, rights, us law, gun law, handguns, gun law

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users