|
And not one was caused by a gun. it was the tool used. every single one was caused by irresponsibility or choice of a human.Who wouldn't have been able to accomplish the goal of killing as effectively with a lesser tool.Bull. Ask Bath MI about their little school incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
The only gun involved was a hunting rifle used to detonate the bomb, and that would have been easily done without it.And you go back 80 years because such incidents are so common?
Yes, it is possible to kill people without guns. It is harder. Guns make it easy. You can do it up close and personal which makes getting hurt yourself much more likely.
You can mess around with explosives, which are also controlled. Improvised ones are tricky to work with. People often either blow themselves up or build something that doesn't detonate.
Only had to go back to one of the biggest incidents of school violence in american history
|
And not one was caused by a gun. it was the tool used. every single one was caused by irresponsibility or choice of a human.Who wouldn't have been able to accomplish the goal of killing as effectively with a lesser tool.Bull. Ask Bath MI about their little school incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
The only gun involved was a hunting rifle used to detonate the bomb, and that would have been easily done without it.And you go back 80 years because such incidents are so common?
Yes, it is possible to kill people without guns. It is harder. Guns make it easy. You can do it up close and personal which makes getting hurt yourself much more likely.
You can mess around with explosives, which are also controlled. Improvised ones are tricky to work with. People often either blow themselves up or build something that doesn't detonate.
He had to go back to before handguns were any good. It is not a coincidence the bomb Holmes used failed but the guns worked great.
|
|
Only had to go back to one of the biggest incidents of school violence in american historyAnd not one was caused by a gun. it was the tool used. every single one was caused by irresponsibility or choice of a human.Who wouldn't have been able to accomplish the goal of killing as effectively with a lesser tool.Bull. Ask Bath MI about their little school incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
The only gun involved was a hunting rifle used to detonate the bomb, and that would have been easily done without it.And you go back 80 years because such incidents are so common?
Yes, it is possible to kill people without guns. It is harder. Guns make it easy. You can do it up close and personal which makes getting hurt yourself much more likely.
You can mess around with explosives, which are also controlled. Improvised ones are tricky to work with. People often either blow themselves up or build something that doesn't detonate.
If by "School violence" you mean domestic terrorism by an anti-tax zealot, sure.
Why Andrew Kehoe was an original Tea Partier!
What is sad is you couldn't even find one that didn't involve a gun.
Also, now that we regulate access to Dynamite. Odd that?
|
|
Did you know that the US's current federal regulations on the use, sale, and transport of dynamite were passed 42 years ago? Damn that liberal president...uh...Nixon.
And was it regulated according to existing laws and practicality or was it a knee jerk emotional response to a bad incident?
|
|
Did you know that the US's current federal regulations on the use, sale, and transport of dynamite were passed 42 years ago? Damn that liberal president...uh...Nixon.And was it regulated according to existing laws and practicality or was it a knee jerk emotional response to a bad incident?What does that even mean?
They passed laws to regulate it, so it obviously wasn't regulated by existing laws, it was regulated under the new laws.
There is no amendment to ensure rights to explosives. Were there any pre existing laws applicable to regulating explosive or was it a free for all before that?
|
|
And was it regulated according to existing laws and practicality or was it a knee jerk emotional response to a bad incident?Hilariously enough, the latter. It was part of a law passed to deal with organized crime, as part of a late-60s moral panic about organized crime and illegal drugs. The same legislative push led to the passage of RICO, and later, the formation of the ATF to enforce these laws. I have no clue what point you're trying to make any more.
I do know my point, though. Guns are somewhere between liquor and explosives. They all have legitimate uses, they all have a capacity to harm the user or passersby. Because of this capacity, they all need regulation that allows the legitimate uses while limiting potential harm. I don't think this part is controversial. What is controversial are the details. What are the legitimate uses of firearms? Is the risk of harm to the gun owner a significant factor, or should we merely consider the potential harm to others? (This isn't a simple yes/no or either/or question; there's a balance to be struck.) Even if a goal is desirable in principle, is that goal still desirable when you consider the consequences or side-effects of attempting to achieve it?
The real detail is that we have RIGHTS and it is hard to make even smart regulations without infringing on the right to bear arms.
Guns serve no purpose, except to kill and maim.
.
It just occurred to me that people are afraid of guns and
want to see them banned, because they are afraid of dieing.
Read the bible -- you have nothing to fear. And certainly not guns.
Don't make Psychiatrist's have to protect you. Learn to protect
yourself, and to protect your own soul.
.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've read the Bible. It scares me.
|
|
Guns serve no purpose, except to kill and maim..
It just occurred to me that people are afraid of guns and
want to see them banned, because they are afraid of dieing.Read the bible -- you have nothing to fear. And certainly not guns.
Don't make Psychiatrist's have to protect you. Learn to protect
yourself, and to protect your own soul.
Jesus is my kevlar?
Guns serve no purpose, except to kill and maim..
It just occurred to me that people are afraid of guns and
want to see them banned, because they are afraid of dieing.Read the bible -- you have nothing to fear. And certainly not guns.
Don't make Psychiatrist's have to protect you. Learn to protect
yourself, and to protect your own soul..
Learning to protect oneself is always a good idea. Protecting your soul, to me, means reading the bible and similar works and understanding the danger to your soul that lies in them. As for death: To someone who fears death, there is no life. And that is my view of things even without being religious.
Blind Prisoner: You do not fear death. You think this makes you strong. It makes you weak.
Bruce Wayne: Why?
Blind Prisoner: How can you move faster than possible, fight longer than possible without the most powerful impulse of the spirit: the fear of death.
|
|
Guns serve no purpose, except to kill and maim..
It just occurred to me that people are afraid of guns and
want to see them banned, because they are afraid of dieing.Read the bible -- you have nothing to fear. And certainly not guns.
Don't make Psychiatrist's have to protect you. Learn to protect
yourself, and to protect your own soul..
If gun owners aren't afraid of dying and believe God will protect and watch over them, and believe all things that happen are God's will, why do they need guns?
|
If gun owners aren't afraid of dying and believe God will protect and watch over them, and believe all things that happen are God's will, why do they need guns?
You answered your own question. All things are His will! So, for better or worse, if we as Christians find ourselves in need of protection, whether we rely on ourselves or somebody else (like law enforcement) for that protection, it happened because it was His will...
But this is a discussion about gun control and not the beliefs of Christians or religion in general!
But this is a discussion about gun control and not the beliefs of Christians or religion in general!
QFT. This thread is volatile enough (pardon the pun) without adding religion to the mix.
...It's constitutional to make laws disallowing fully-automatic weapons because there is no legitimate use for them. Likewise short-barreled ("sawed-off") shotguns. Likewise training and licensing laws, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens to own weapons for legitimate uses. Those are all specifically called out in the Heller majority decision. Thus, there's still room for a reasonable discussion about regulation that allows legitimate uses while limiting potential harm.
Limiting legal gun possession to the technology level guns had when the 2nd amendment was written might solve a lot of these discussions :-)
|
|
Limiting legal gun possession to the technology level guns had when the 2nd amendment was written might solve a lot of these discussions :-)
LOL! Most states do not even consider these to be firearms and can be purchased freely by anyone (including over the internet)...
In that same vein, many states do not control the sale of "Antique" firearms manufactured before 1898 (meaning no FFL required for their purchase)...
Taking this point even further, if a firearm is older than 50 years, it is considered a "Curio & Relic" and can be sold legally (in most states) without paperwork or background check (but must be purchased in person, so an FFL IS required for interstate/internet sales)...
But these are Federal laws and regulations governed by the BATFE. Some states however, do control the sale of these "antique" and "Curio & Relic" firearms by requiring an FFL (which includes all the prerequisite paperwork and background checks) for their purchase...
Right, but if the best someone could buy, even illegally, was a musket, I don't think I'd be awfully worried about mass shootings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Limiting legal gun possession to the technology level guns had when the 2nd amendment was written might solve a lot of these discussions :-)
...It's constitutional to make laws disallowing fully-automatic weapons because there is no legitimate use for them. Likewise short-barreled ("sawed-off") shotguns. Likewise training and licensing laws, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens to own weapons for legitimate uses. Those are all specifically called out in the Heller majority decision. Thus, there's still room for a reasonable discussion about regulation that allows legitimate uses while limiting potential harm.
Let's apply that standard to other constitutional rights. e.g. No freedom of press on the internet, television, or radio because they didn't exist then.
Taking this point even further, if a firearm is older than 50 years, it is considered a "Curio & Relic" and can be sold legally (in most states) without paperwork or background check (but must be purchased in person, so an FFL IS required for interstate/internet sales)...But these are Federal laws and regulations governed by the BATFE. Some states however, do control the sale of these "antique" and "Curio & Relic" firearms by requiring an FFL (which includes all the prerequisite paperwork and background checks) for their purchase...
So, could you buy a WW2 machine gun without any great trouble? Or does this apply only to rifles, pistols and the like, are military-grade weapons restricted?
Limiting legal gun possession to the technology level guns had when the 2nd amendment was written might solve a lot of these discussions :-)
...It's constitutional to make laws disallowing fully-automatic weapons because there is no legitimate use for them. Likewise short-barreled ("sawed-off") shotguns. Likewise training and licensing laws, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens to own weapons for legitimate uses. Those are all specifically called out in the Heller majority decision. Thus, there's still room for a reasonable discussion about regulation that allows legitimate uses while limiting potential harm.
Sure thing. As long as the police and military also limit themseves to the same level of technology, I'd be cool with it.
Let's apply that standard to other constitutional rights. e.g. No freedom of press on the internet, television, or radio because they didn't exist then.Limiting legal gun possession to the technology level guns had when the 2nd amendment was written might solve a lot of these discussions :-)
...It's constitutional to make laws disallowing fully-automatic weapons because there is no legitimate use for them. Likewise short-barreled ("sawed-off") shotguns. Likewise training and licensing laws, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens to own weapons for legitimate uses. Those are all specifically called out in the Heller majority decision. Thus, there's still room for a reasonable discussion about regulation that allows legitimate uses while limiting potential harm.
Funny because we have done those things. As new technologies arise we reexamine how they interact with those precious enumerated rights.
Is all transmission of information speech? No, the FCC regulates the airwaves, and the government attempts to combat internet piracy.
Freedom of speech and freedom of press (among others) continue to be viable in the information age because the purpose behind those rights is to create a better informed electorate.
Why did they want everyone to have the right to bear arms again? Is that still a viable reason?
Let's apply that standard to other constitutional rights. e.g. No freedom of press on the internet, television, or radio because they didn't exist then.Limiting legal gun possession to the technology level guns had when the 2nd amendment was written might solve a lot of these discussions :-)
...It's constitutional to make laws disallowing fully-automatic weapons because there is no legitimate use for them. Likewise short-barreled ("sawed-off") shotguns. Likewise training and licensing laws, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens to own weapons for legitimate uses. Those are all specifically called out in the Heller majority decision. Thus, there's still room for a reasonable discussion about regulation that allows legitimate uses while limiting potential harm.
Well, that´s kinda my point. Laws need to be checked against reality from time to time. Society and technology changes all the time, laws need to be changed as well.
Let's apply that standard to other constitutional rights. e.g. No freedom of press on the internet, television, or radio because they didn't exist then.Limiting legal gun possession to the technology level guns had when the 2nd amendment was written might solve a lot of these discussions :-)
...It's constitutional to make laws disallowing fully-automatic weapons because there is no legitimate use for them. Likewise short-barreled ("sawed-off") shotguns. Likewise training and licensing laws, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens to own weapons for legitimate uses. Those are all specifically called out in the Heller majority decision. Thus, there's still room for a reasonable discussion about regulation that allows legitimate uses while limiting potential harm.Funny because we have done those things. As new technologies arise we reexamine how they interact with those precious enumerated rights.
Is all transmission of information speech? No, the FCC regulates the airwaves, and the government attempts to combat internet piracy.
Freedom of speech and freedom of press (among others) continue to be viable in the information age because the purpose behind those rights is to create a better informed electorate.
Why did they want everyone to have the right to bear arms again? Is that still a viable reason?
I don't know. (Turns TV on to story about Syrian uprising).
|
|
If gun owners aren't afraid of dying and believe God will protect and watch over them, and believe all things that happen are God's will, why do they need guns?You answered your own question. All things are His will! So, for better or worse, if we as Christians find ourselves in need of protection, whether we rely on ourselves or somebody else (like law enforcement) for that protection, it happened because it was His will...
But this is a discussion about gun control and not the beliefs of Christians or religion in general!
Hey, I was only commenting on the person who was saying gun owners aren't afraid of death, which is fail logic since they are the ones afraid of being unarmed.
|
|
So, could you buy a WW2 machine gun without any great trouble? Or does this apply only to rifles, pistols and the like, are military-grade weapons restricted?
No, fully automatic or short barreled (i.e. "sawed-off) firearms regardless of age still fall under the NFA (National Firearms Act) and are heavily regulated by our BATFE.
That said, if one is otherwise able to legally own a gun, has the cash to buy something like a full-auto or short-barreled firearm, and pays the $200 for the federal tax stamp allowing him to own that specific firearm (one tax stamp per NFA item), then that person can legally own an NFA firearm.
But even then, we cannot own any firearm that falls under the NFA that was manufactured after 1986...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, could you buy a WW2 machine gun without any great trouble? Or does this apply only to rifles, pistols and the like, are military-grade weapons restricted?No, fully automatic or short barreled (i.e. "sawed-off) firearms regardless of age still fall under the NFA (National Firearms Act) and are heavily regulated by our BATFE.
That said, if one is otherwise able to legally own a gun, has the cash to buy something like a full-auto or short-barreled firearm, and pays the $200 for the federal tax stamp allowing him to own that specific firearm (one tax stamp per NFA item), then that person can legally own an NFA firearm.
But even then, we cannot own any firearm that falls under the NFA that was manufactured after 1986...
Well, I guess that 1985 NFA firearms can be deadly enough still.
But then, I get the impression that there are tendencies in the US that value freedom of choice and the observance of the amendments higher than anything else, like gun ownership and health care discussions seem to indicate. I can´t say that I can fathom this reasoning, but I guess that comes down to "whatever floats your boat".
(Honestly, it looks to me like the US is an empire in decline, with legal, economical and social conflicts tearing the nation apart from within. Guns and health care are probably just the topics where this comes into view clearly. Gun ownership would probably not even a topic if violence would not be rampant, compared to other western countries. As an aside, starting wars seems to be an attempt to put something external into focus as a distraction of domestic problems.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, could you buy a WW2 machine gun without any great trouble? Or does this apply only to rifles, pistols and the like, are military-grade weapons restricted?No, fully automatic or short barreled (i.e. "sawed-off) firearms regardless of age still fall under the NFA (National Firearms Act) and are heavily regulated by our BATFE.
That said, if one is otherwise able to legally own a gun, has the cash to buy something like a full-auto or short-barreled firearm, and pays the $200 for the federal tax stamp allowing him to own that specific firearm (one tax stamp per NFA item), then that person can legally own an NFA firearm.
But even then, we cannot own any firearm that falls under the NFA that was manufactured after 1986...
Well, I guess that 1985 NFA firearms can be deadly enough still.
But then, I get the impression that there are tendencies in the US that value freedom of choice and the observance of the amendments higher than anything else, like gun ownership and health care discussions seem to indicate. I can´t say that I can fathom this reasoning, but I guess that comes down to "whatever floats your boat".
(Honestly, it looks to me like the US is an empire in decline, with legal, economical and social conflicts tearing the nation apart from within. Guns and health care are probably just the topics where this comes into view clearly. Gun ownership would probably not even a topic if violence would not be rampant, compared to other western countries. As an aside, starting wars seems to be an attempt to put something external into focus as a distraction of domestic problems.)
That's very possibly the most cogent criticism of american domestic policy I've heard since 911.
Not to mention that the security authorities have multiplied and grown on this failing empire's paranoia, and the empire is looking to compensate failing internal economy by using their friends' economies even if they go down the toilet in the process. See the SWIFT act, which gives the US intelligence agencies the right to get the data on every economic transaction in european banks, including those of european companies... and couple this with the law that states that these same intelligence agencies may give data to american companies. See also the current state of the european economy.
Not to mention that the security authorities have multiplied and grown on this failing empire's paranoia, and the empire is looking to compensate failing internal economy by using their friends' economies even if they go down the toilet in the process. See the SWIFT act, which gives the US intelligence agencies the right to get the data on every economic transaction in european banks, including those of european companies... and couple this with the law that states that these same intelligence agencies may give data to american companies. See also the current state of the european economy.
Some good points there. Why do some US-American, privately owned rating agencies have the power to determine the weal or woe of whole countries, and nobody seems to be able to stop that abuse of power?
But we are getting quite far away from the original topic, so we perhaps should leave it at that.
Seriously. We can't agree to this?.
I'm going to form a group of "Psychiatric Professionals" and we are going
to limit the gun ownership of *you* and your family.Seriously, you certainly do not need guns anyways. Just do what you are
told, and get back to work..
This is potent in light of the South African Police Shootings
|
|
This is potent in light of the South African Police ShootingsSeriously. We can't agree to this?.
I'm going to form a group of "Psychiatric Professionals" and we are going
to limit the gun ownership of *you* and your family.Seriously, you certainly do not need guns anyways. Just do what you are
told, and get back to work.Mine wars again. There is nothing new.
Though, given this: "miners armed with spears, machetes and handguns died on Thursday in a hail of police fire", I'm not sure that more guns would have helped them.
It didn't help they had hacked a couple police officers to death a few days prior...
Wouldn't have helped, unless you want to block every shy, quirky person (ie half the boards here) from buying a gun. As far as I've heard he didn't have anything that would have disqualified him from purchase
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bumping this thread for obvious reasons...
Because you want to see if we can get two threads closed at the same time?
Man, in what context did I write that? And why wasn't it Jean-Paul?
But I see I did link The Big Lebowski and talked about international proletarian socialist revolution, so I guess the whole "fighting the government" isn't just a right-wing Red Dawn fantasy.
Of course, I always rooted for the Soviet-Nicaraguan-Cuban alliance and, IIRC, it's a good example of the US-China alliance I was talking about in the Israel thread.
I like this thread better.
|
|
May not in this case, but the same thing was said about Aurora when this thread started and more info came out later, didn't it?
In other words it would have made a difference in other cases and it would be something worth discussing because it is a reasonable thing to do to allow mental health professionals to request limits on gun access pending court review.
Speaking from personal experience as someone who has had to enforce a 'no gun access' order from a judge that extended to the rest of the home...
EDIT: Context was an ultimatum saying basically if you want your child to be at home, that home can have no firearms because your son is dangerous.
