Gun Control: Rights, Responsibilities, And Privileges

[Iznogud]

While we´re expecting a new ban, I´d love to hear about the practical conclusions of the previous one (1994-2004). It´s not that there were none - and those might have influenced in the non renewal of the legislation - .
Have you gone full circle and still trying to figure out if it´s the chicken or ther egg?

Wish I could find a video regarding the firearms ban Down Under. Some people are not happy about it.

Certainly BHO has been trying to enforce UN policies without success so far and might be enjoying a window of opportunity here.

 

[dennisr]

Do I dare have a point of view?
Difficult dilemma for the USA. Three hundred million weapons out there and trying to put the genie back in the bottle is almost impossible: policing guns. Personally have been on both sides of the fence on gun control and do not have an answer. Think we have to address the "why" more than the weapon used. Am all for some sort of gun control because behavior is out of control.
And to P.O. all the hunters out there:
In the USA live in a rural area (moved out of the big city many years ago) and any notion that hunters are super responsible gun owners is a joke in my view. From my personal experience, the majority of hunters are the most irresponsible group of gun owners I have ever observed. Clowns from the big city should NOT be allowed to hunt: road signs all shot up, livestock shot, fences torn down, private property vandalized and reckless killing of game. Down right scary watching these people with a weapon in their possession. Cruising down the road at a snail's pace with guns hanging out the window looking for Bambi while taking a pull of Yukon Jack. And, please do not tell me my observations' are isolated. These people are really nuts and they are permitted to own guns because they are hunters. Indeed, gun control

One sick puppie: dennisr

 

[Iznogud]

Being a european and sharing the common view there (and every other country I've been to) that the US is an insane country for allowing this proliferation of guns, I'm surprised at how reasonable I found this post. The horse may have bolted for the US in restricting guns like the rest of the civilised world, but this is a good start for a discussion. I now live in Australia, and found this in the local press last week: " In 1996, Australia banned semi-automatics. In the 18 years before, there were 13 mass shootings. Since then, none".

Something has to be done otherwise we're just waiting for the next inevitable mass funeral of school kids and more crocodile tears from the NRA and its friends.

A friend passed this on to me this week: http://www.upworthy....-guns-in-the-us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p8RDWltHxRc

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

Big Snip...

Until people go back to honestly asking what the Constitution allows us to do and mature a little in trying to go too far, we won't get anywhere.

I think you are very correct that we need to be extremely careful about how we handle the Constitution. I've thought much about the 2nd Amendment and what it was originally tried to enact. I think the times were different. The fledgling country didn't have a massive, and effective military to deter invaders. The country literally relied on farmers with rifles.

I'm torn about the Preppers. Yes, I think you have a right to plan for the end of the world if that is what you think is going to happen. However, we now have competing rights. I think parents have the right to reasonably expect their kids to come home from school alive.

Thoughtfully,

GS

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

Snip...

GS_Dirtboy, what do you think of the suggestions made by Wayne LaPierre, of the NRA, yesterday. If the NRA intends to continue to represent the gun owners side of this debate, they'll need a more credible approach than to blame video games and the media.

I didn't think much of LaPierre's argument and I think his press conference is exactly what I'm pointing out about extremes. Yes, I think video games have an impact. Three years ago I was given Call of Duty. Set it up on my 52" flatscreen with internet access and went on a 12-hour killing spree. Once I got the hang of the peculiarities of the game I got really good at slaughtering people. That night I couldn't sleep. Then, for the next 3 days I was in a really bad mood. My wife finally asked, "What the hell is wrong with you?" After a moment of contemplation I replied, "I don't know." I finally traced it back to the game. I literally had symptoms of PTSD.

The point is that it all has an impact. This shooter's home life had an impact. His mental state had an impact. Access to weapons had an impact. It is a multi-faceted problem and until each group stops saying, "Until we solve problem X nothing is going to change", nothing will change. Yes, we need better health care, and better gun owner screening, and better parenting, and more responsible gun ownership, and better choices when it comes to the violence that we expose our kids to. Let's start working on it all at once. I'm not sure I have a lot of faith in our VP, though. That's a whole other post.

 

[PhilinBSAS]

Now that you are about to have armed drones watching and tracing your every move in the homeland itself will it become a matter of exercising your constitutional right as well as the fashion accessory of the moment to carry a SAM? - since the military are about to become directly involved with controlling the indigenous population?

Naomi Wolf - She of "10 steps" fame predicts .......

"... a major lobbying effort, "a huge push by […] the defense sector" to promote the use of drones in American skies: 30,000 of them are expected to be in use by 2020, some as small as hummingbirds – meaning that you won't necessarily see them, tracking your meeting with your fellow-activists, with your accountant or your congressman, or filming your cruising the bars or your assignation with your lover, as its video-gathering whirs .........

The air force document explains that the air force will be overseeing the deployment of its own military surveillance drones within the borders of the US; that it may keep video and other data it collects with these drones for 90 days without a warrant – and will then, retroactively, determine if the material can be retained – which does away for good with the fourth amendment in these cases. While the drones are not supposed to specifically "conduct non-consensual surveillance on on specifically identified US persons", according to the document, the wording allows for domestic military surveillance of non-"specifically identified" people (that is, a group of activists or protesters) and it comes with the important caveat, also seemingly wholly unconstitutional, that it may not target individuals "unless expressly approved by the secretary of Defense".

.......... In other words, the Pentagon can now send a domestic drone to hover outside your apartment window, collecting footage of you and your family, if the Secretary of Defense approves it. Or it may track you and your friends and pick up audio of your conversations, on your way, say, to protest or vote or talk to your representative, if you are not "specifically identified", a determination that is so vague as to be meaningless.!!


http://www.guardian....-attack-america

Seems to me to be marching blindly into an internal and paranoid arms race and on into a dystopic "nobody can ever win" control society. Time to reconsider your constitution as well as a pile of other stuff? I thought the thing about being able to carry arms was to keep out the British. And then you go and invite Piers Morgan into every parlour. How dysfuntional is that? But then we have our street cameras in the UK which at least do go someway in indentifying the reality of what goes on and showing the Police are well able to lie

 

[StevePalermo]

A couple of questions for you:

1 What was the source for this video, the NRA?

2 Since 1996 when semi-automatic weapons were banned in Australia, how many massacres have there been?

A lot of people have been talking here (Australia) about the events in Newtown, and the general consensus I've found is, thank god we don't have guns over here.

 

[Iznogud]

Lucky me, I do not live in a world of absolutes.
Here´s just to show you that there´s not one side to the discussion and there´s no pleasing everybody.

What if the source of the video was the NRA? Does it have to be discarted as the source can be claimed as tainted?
There are countries where civilians are disarmed yet massacres are a daily happenstance, others have guns up the wazoo yet no such events take place even on remote occasions.

Looking at the problem unidimensionally seems to be the only way most uneducated people chose to treat it. Methinks they´re missing the point, most times on purpose or lacking the tools for such a task.

 

[StevePalermo]

Lucky me, I do not live in a world of absolutes.
Here´s just to show you that there´s not one side to the discussion and there´s no pleasing everybody.

What if the source of the video was the NRA? Does it have to be discarted as the source can be claimed as tainted?
There are countries where civilians are disarmed yet massacres are a daily happenstance, others have guns up the wazoo yet no such events take place even on remote occasions.

Looking at the problem unidimensionally seems to be the only way most uneducated people chose to treat it. Methinks they´re missing the point, most times on purpose or lacking the tools for such a task.

If the source was the NRA it is tainted, if you can't see that then I think you're missing the point. And if you'd read all of my earlier post, you'd have seen my comment that I thought the OP had written a very reasonable post. I didn't agree with its conclusions but said it was a good start to a discussion.

I'll ignore the inference that I'm uneducated.

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

I agree with many, many of your posts. The only issue I have is increasing the amount of people who are allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Training or not, I still think it brings a lot of security issues to the table.

My only other suggestion is requiring insurance be purchased for every gun. We require car owners to carry insurance, I think gun owners should have it as well. Seems logical and a good way to encourage responsible gun ownership.

I am very pro gun management (I like that) and definitely think more training and more training is a great step. I'm definitely not anti-gun (we have one in the house) but think the whole system in the US needs to be better managed. And I find many gun owners in the US are very open and aware and want to be part of the solution. The trick is to get their (your) voices heard.

A friend of mine posted this the day after the shooting. I really loved it.

Let me start with the fact that I am a gun owner...Multiple guns....I own some very old guns that belonged to my grandfather as it provides a connection to him and the past. I also own a modern weapon for my protection. All are secure in a safe and rarely come out. Yesterdays tragedy is bringing a lot of attention to this issue of gun laws and such. Yes, almost 30 people, a majority children died by a mad-man. Not much could have stopped that. Current reports suggest the guns were not even his and were purchased by his mother. So laws did not help. But just because laws didn't work doesn't mean we can't have a meaningful conversation about gun violence. I hear all this BS like guns don't kill people, if a bus killed kids do we get rid of busses? Just stop with that nonsense. Here is the facts: For almost 40 years, about 10,000 Americans are killed annually due to gun violence. More than any other western country. Its a problem and we have to figure it out. Doing nothing isn't an option because although you have the right to own a gun, that right also took away those kids right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Its a serious problem that deserves a serious conversation. In my opinion, the first step is better training, better screening process and creating a culture of responsible gun ownership. We need to do something - now.

I know. More guns doesn't seem to be the solution. I actually think it won't be more guns as those guns are already out there. My idea, as crazy as it sounds, it to increase the number of open carry permits. The police do not like surprises - like finding a weapon that was hidden on your person. I'd like to have those weapons visible on one's belt or in a shoulder holster.

Many concealed carry holders don't like that idea because part of the security is that the "bad guys" don't know they are armed.

I like the idea of insurance. That's something that didn't occur to me.

Yes, many gun owners I know think in a similar way. That's probably a function of natural selection as I don't hang around with militia members. Personally, I very much appreciate what the NRA has done for all of us gun owners over the years. At the same time, I think we need to update our mantra and move into the 21'st century with more intelligent, and inclusive, solutions.