U.S. President's gun violence reduction proposal

[NeuroTypical]

http://www.pensacolafishingforum.com/attachments/f22/68576d1356023071t-genius-gun-control-retards-zombie-zone-jpg

[Tough Grits]

Loudmouth_Mormon,

I don't get it. Zombies aren't real.

[HoosierGuy]

The actual guns and bullets/cartridges deserve some blame. They are designed to kill. Cars can kill and do but cars are designed for transportation, not murder. Guns though are 100% killing weapons. Yes, you can be like me, a target shooter, but still, guns are made to kill.

[RipplecutBuddha]

The actual guns and bullets/cartridges deserve some blame. They are designed to kill. Cars can kill and do but cars are designed for transportation, not murder. Guns though are 100% killing weapons. Yes, you can be like me, a target shooter, but still, guns are made to kill.

So are swords and knives, and all the other types of military-oriented weapons. When they are used, do we blame them, or the nations that use them?

*sigh*

Okay, I'll repeat myself one last time, then I'm done here.

None of those items can, on their own, harm anyone if untouched. This is the point I have repeatedly made; It takes a concious willful decision to make any weapon actively lethal. It requires a person who decides to use the item as a weapon. Accountability cannot be laid at the feet of a tool that is incapable of independant action of any kind.

Every gun 'made to kill' that has ever existed can, and has been, used in a peaceful and harmless manner. Whether or not the weapon is actually used to kill is based entirely upon the intent of the individual weilding said weapon. I never said guns were harmless, nor would I. Guns are weapons. They obviously require respect and care when handled, no matter the skill set or training. At the same time, Christ will never judge a weapon. He will always judge the one who used it.

However, would you be fascinated to know that cars kill more people than guns? How would that fact change your opinion of cars?

[Windseeker]

The actual guns and bullets/cartridges deserve some blame. They are designed to kill. Cars can kill and do but cars are designed for transportation, not murder. Guns though are 100% killing weapons. Yes, you can be like me, a target shooter, but still, guns are made to kill.

Being that their were 31,940 gun related deaths (19,766 were suicides) last year and there are over 350,000,000 guns in the United States it seems that 349,968,060 are defective and should be returned for a refund.

[pam]

Loudmouth_Mormon,

I don't get it. Zombies aren't real.

It's going to take a lot of convincing to convince Mirkwood of that.

[Blackmarch]

I can't see how I can be more clear on my points. The people actually committing the act of violence are the cause of the shootings. Not the guns. It's not the fault of the four handguns used at Sandy Hook that so many deaths occured. It is the shooter that will have to stand before Christ and account for that day, not the weapons.

How many times are mass killings done with knives, bows and arrows? Just a few months ago here in Casper Wyoming a man stabbed his mother to death, went to the college where his father taught, shot him with a crossbow, then used his knife to kill himself. China has had a rash of adults attacking schoolchildren with knives. Why knives? Because personal gun ownership is banned in China.

So why didnt the guy with crossbow fill other people with bolts?

It takes multiple individuals over a period of a week or more to injure children... vs 1 individual killing 10-20 of them in under 20 minutes or less? go china. Interesting, I was thinking more of military grade weapons bans... but this would appear to support a total gun ban.

Altho it does make one wonder about the bystanders.

Cities and counties are increasingly posting signs at their borders that their citizens are armed. Why would they do that if it weren't an effective deterrent? Imagine you're a burgler rolling into a new town and the sign at the city limits says "Welcome to Hometown USA, Our citizens carry concealed weapons, and use of firearms for home defense is encouraged.".

Surely pro-gun enthusiasm has absolutely nothing to do with such.

Wouldn't be my first choice of wording for warning would be criminals, but Forewarned is forearmed.

Now, as a burgler, will you risk trying some of those homes, or would you peacefully roll on to the next town?

yes. and while the family was home and at dinner or lunch (one of the more effective burglars i've read about would do exactly that).

its not going to be the gun signs that would keep me out.. but more likely other things that would discourage a would be burglar things like un accessible windows, having the doors be where they are visible, unfriendly lawn and yard fauna.

quote:

so are bullets, anthrax, nukes, grenades, mortars, artillery, mustard gas, AGMs, going with the logic thats being used here all these things should be legalized and be allowed to be owned by the civillian population as well.

You didn't read the second sentence of my reply.This is the point I have repeatedly made that you keep skirting around; It takes a concious willful decision to make any weapon actively lethal. It requires a person who decides to use the item as a weapon. Accountability cannot be laid at the feet of a tool that is incapable of independant action of any kind.

How does that skirt around what you said? Most would be lawfully, legally, and safely owned wouldn't they?

Did I or did I not say: "so lets make grenades, RPGs, mortars, SM-AAMs legal and availble to the civilian public too, because obviously the bad guys don't abide the law and will use them anyways. While were at it lets throw in nukes for the ultra rich ones.

Because aparently the only way to stop a bad guy is to use it first on them."?

Does this demonstrate or not the concept that a weapon has to be used by a person for whatever intent?

might it be somewhat concieveable that i have some inkling of what youre saying here?

You keep blaming guns as the problem rather than the concious, willfully acting individual holding the gun. I said it before, but the person who acted will stand to account for what they did, not their sword, gun,bullets, anthrax, nukes, grenades, mortars, artillery, mustard gas, AGMs, or ICBMs.

can you please show me where im saying they are the root or the whole of the problem? I've been saying they are part of the problem, and as part of the problem it has to be dealt with.

Because of this, banning guns will not reduce crime. It will change the statistics here and there, but the willful acts will continue, with different weapons. If you can accept that, that's fine.

I doubt the total number of crimes would go down much. but then again i've said that hasn't been the point or intent.

Me? I'm going to meet any threat with whatever force is necessary. If that means a gun in their face, so be it. I didn't tell them to come try to break into my home, or assault my family, or whatever the case may be. However I will not stand by and helplessly let them act out their evil choice.

They have agency to choose evil. I have agency to act to stop it.

absolutely. Edited January 24, 2013 by Blackmarch

[Backroads]

The actual guns and bullets/cartridges deserve some blame. They are designed to kill. Cars can kill and do but cars are designed for transportation, not murder. Guns though are 100% killing weapons. Yes, you can be like me, a target shooter, but still, guns are made to kill.

If I'm not mistaken, cars kill a heck of a lot more people every year than guns. Who cares what their design was.

EDIT: I'm sorry, this fact was already mentioned.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Backroads

[Blackmarch]

If I'm not mistaken, cars kill a heck of a lot more people every year than guns. Who cares what their design was.

thats been true till this last year (or it was rate of such, or something like that.), but also noted wsa that 75-78% or so of gun related deaths were suicides.

Every recall that theres been would indicate that there is at least some care as to what the design was. Every car ban that there has been has been due to the design of that car in not meeting certain requirements.

[Still_Small_Voice]

I am against magazine capacity limits because one never knows how much ammunition you will need in a self defense situation. I watched a video where multiple attackers armed with firearms were sent running to their getaway car by a homeowner with a semi automatic rifle that held at least thirty rounds. If there were a magazine capacity limit I would not want that limit to any less than thirty rounds.

If you are ever in a fight for your life you will never say: I wish I had less ammunition. If peaceful citizens have their magazine capacity limited to ten or seven rounds they are going to be at a disadvantage to thugs who may have fifteen shots or more.

Edit: I personally don't like magazines much larger than thirty rounds because they are too large or the extra ammunition makes the firearm too heavy.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Still_Small_Voice
Adding comment

[NeuroTypical]

What do I think about it? I think the House has a Repuplican majority.

Huh - this actually all fell apart in the Senate before it even made it to the house.

Senate left with no clear path forward on gun bill

I wish it had died here in Colorado. But alas, some bad law got crammed through and signed. It takes effect July 1st, unless folks can sue it out of existence:

Sheriffs to sue over gun laws

[bytor2112]

Speaking of guns....bought a nifty new .357 with a 4 inch barrel..stainless and pick it up tomorrow!

[Windseeker]

Speaking of guns....bought a nifty new .357 with a 4 inch barrel..stainless and pick it up tomorrow!

Nice!

Well guess who is going to Rush in Fort Lauderdale this month???

Thats right my ME! My wife bought me tickets for my b-day.

[mordorbund]

Huh - this actually all fell apart in the Senate before it even made it to the house.

Senate left with no clear path forward on gun bill

I wish it had died here in Colorado. But alas, some bad law got crammed through and signed. It takes effect July 1st, unless folks can sue it out of existence:

Sheriffs to sue over gun laws

For the sake of clarity, do you object to the unenforceable capacity limit or the background checks for private sales (the "gun show loophole" aspect) or both?

[Still_Small_Voice]

With the invention of three dimensional printers a ban on magazines that hold over ten or fifteen rounds is a joke. People can just set up the equipment get the files and print out all the magazines they want in their own basement.

I heard people can also print out any piece of a firearm they want using a metal three dimensional printer. The fact is gun laws only apply to the law abiding citizen. The evil thug will do whatever he wants because he doesn't care about the law.

[NeuroTypical]

For the sake of clarity, do you object to the unenforceable capacity limit or the background checks for private sales (the "gun show loophole" aspect) or both?

I object to the mag cap because it makes my life harder, limits my ability to defend myself and my family, will have zero impact on bad guys, and is unenforceable.

Expanding background checks is just unenforceable without firearm registration. So it's not that I object to it, it's that I think it will do nothing to curb gun violence. A waste of time and money. It will prevent some innocent law-abiding people from obtaining a firearm. It's a bunch of feel-good false-sense-of-security nonsense.

StillSmallVoice sums it up well. The definition of "law-breaker" is someone who breaks the laws. The definition of "law-abiding" is someone who obeys the laws. Therefore, by definition, your average new gun law will be obeyed only by the law-abiding.

[talisyn]

Adolphus Busch IV resigns NRA membership | ksdk.com

"I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision," he said. "The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established. Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members."

"One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point. The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun and ammunition manufacturers rather than gun owners."

[bytor2112]

Nice!

Well guess who is going to Rush in Fort Lauderdale this month???

Thats right my ME! My wife bought me tickets for my b-day.

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeet! I will be seeing them in Orlando on the 28th!! BAM!

[bytor2112]

Adolphus Busch IV resigns NRA membership | ksdk.com

"I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision," he said. "The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established. Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members."

"One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point. The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun and ammunition manufacturers rather than gun owners."

Of course, what Mr. Busch and others seem to struggle to grasp is that the anti-gun left want to ultimately take away the 2nd Amendment as we know it. They have already framed the argument in political debate to suggest that "no one is trying to stop hunters and sportsman from owning those types of weapons"........as if the 2nd Amendment ever had anything to do with hunting or sport.

[Still_Small_Voice]

Adolphus Busch is simply unable to understand what the Second Amendment is about. It is the right to protect ourselves from thugs. Adolphus also does not understand what an "assault weapon" is.

Any gun ban is pretty much a joke because thugs are going to get what they want anyway. There are ten of millions of thirty and twenty round magazines out there already in the United States. Even if you did manage to shut down the manufacturers three dimensional printers are just going to create more and more. This push for more restrictive laws is all about control. We have all the laws we need.

It seems Obama and those aligned with him are only interested in pushing for more control of the peaceful citizens and not enforcement of our present laws. If they really cared they would eliminate the gun free zones and place trained, concealed weapon personnel in our schools to prevent these horrible things from happening again.

[bytor2112]

It is the right to protect ourselves from thugs.

AKA oppressive, tyrannical government.

Edited April 19, 2013 by bytor2112

[talisyn]

Ahh, I see. Thank you all for defending the Constitution. Good night.

[Roseslipper]

3. Making schools safer

HOW? I work in a school system. If somebody wants to get in, they will get in.

Unless we start having fenced-in schools with armed guards at the gated entrance, how do we prevent the people who already have guns and/or who already have a propensity for violence and/or mental illness from harming children and school staff?

As a certified teacher, I am in favor of fencing with armed gate-guards.

I don't want a gun on my hip (my hips already have enough weight!).

what a world we live in!!! I know most of u wont agree with me, but I do think that guns need to be harder to get, back ground checks need to be done, people with mental issues should not have guns. And if I was a teacher and in a way I am I would not want to carry a gun. And having fenced in schools with armned guards to me is not a good idea either, Whats this world coming too????

[Roseslipper]

Adolphus Busch IV resigns NRA membership | ksdk.com

"I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision," he said. "The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established. Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members."

"One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point. The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun and ammunition manufacturers rather than gun owners."

Its always all about the $$$

[bytebear]

I found that statistics give a much clearer picture for me.

Check out this article:

List of preventable causes of death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, I heard the president say that these new laws will not prevent all gun violence, but if it saves even one life, it's worth it. I cry shenanigans! If it was really about saving lives, there are things that are far more dangerous to us than guns.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Leading_causes_of_death_among_children_worldwide.svg

Guns don't even make the top of the list on the death of children. Cars and drowning are far higher. If Obama really cared about protecting children, he'd be on a campaign for swimming lessons and lifeguards. It would, as a statistical fact, save more lives than gun control laws.

I truly believe that this push is two fold. 1) it makes people feel safer even though there is no evidence that it actually will make them safer, and they aren't particularly unsafe. and 2) there is a move to eliminate guns altogether giving the government one more piece of control over the citizenry.

Here's another interesting tidbit.

List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice that the US is 34 of 108, just about the middle of the list. So, when someone wants to kill themselves, having more access to a gun makes no real difference. There is no relation to suicide rates and gun availability. I believe this to be true of the crazy people who want to kill other people. if they want to do it, they will find a way. By the way, suicide is the number one cause of death by gun in the US (62% suicide, 35% homicide, 3% accidental).

And lastly, there is a real lack of discussion on the real cause of high mortality rates caused by guns in the US. It's not by crazy lone gunmen. No, they kill only a few people annually, and make headlines. No, the real killer are criminals, mostly in the inner city. And, ironically, they are usually in areas with the most strict gun laws. Here's another statistic:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Firearmsources.svg

Notice that criminals only get 23% of their guns through forms where any of these laws would be in effect. In other words, these laws would not affect 3/4 of criminal gun possessions, and there is no law that will change that.

Edited April 19, 2013 by bytebear