Also hunting is abhorrent and should be illegal.The environmental costs of banning hunting would be catastrophic. The problem is that we, like geniuses, went and shot almost all the wolves and most of the cougars. Without these predators, the deer population is not being regulated the way it should, which is very, very bad for the ecosystem. Ideally we'd reintroduce the predators, but it's politically difficult because the ranchers are adamant about not wanting to have to protect their livestock. The other solution is to sell humans licenses and let them shoot the animals. Of course, this needs to be closely regulated to keep the population from dropping too low or endangered animals from being targeted, but currently hunting is necessary to keep the ecosystem balanced.
Absolutely true. But to expand on that, in spite of all the sincere claims of politicians and civic leaders about their commitment to true environmentalism, if they actually re-introduced the predators necessary to cull the populations of herbivores, it wouldn't be long before the death toll of joggers, bicyclers and people sunning out in their back yards would lead to hunting and killing the very predators they re-introduced. Even smaller predators, like lynxes for example, would be killing precious little pets by the kazillions.
People really don't seem to realize that lions, tigers and bears are actually lions, tigers and bears.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bring back the wolves. You lose waaaaay more people hunting than you do to ticked off wolves.
Bring back the wolves. You lose waaaaay more people hunting than you do to ticked off wolves.
That's primarily due to a lack of wolves.... Wolf.
Wolves were once feared and loathed by humans because wolves not only ate humans, but they tended to like the young tender ones best.
|
Ammunition design is quite sophisticated.
[thread jack] Not only do you want to take the material the bullet is made of into consideration before you start shooting at something, but also the weight of the projectile (the bullet itself) as well...
For example, when the "alphabet soup" law enforcement agencies (SWAT, DEA, FBI, etc.) enter a building armed with their AR platform rifles, these firearms are typically loaded with 75 or 77 grain ammunition, as these heavier weights tends to keyhole (i.e. turn sideways) and there-by lose their inertia when they hit solid material (such as drywall), which significantly lowers the chance of the round over penetrating what it hits. [/end thread jack]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bring back the wolves. You lose waaaaay more people hunting than you do to ticked off wolves.That's primarily due to a lack of wolves.... Wolf.
Wolves were once feared and loathed by humans because wolves not only ate humans, but they tended to like the young tender ones best.
They're abundant in Canada with one death.(an engineering student who apparently ticked them off)
They're all over Alaska and the last death was in 1939? from a rabid biteThey've made a come back in Europe with no deaths I can find. One attack when a shepherd apparently got too close to some cubs.
They don't seem to regularly consider humans on the menu.
I think humans hatred and misinformation stems more from their loss of livestock. We lose people every year to trampling bison, and no one hates them.
|
Bring back the wolves. You lose waaaaay more people hunting than you do to ticked off wolves.That's primarily due to a lack of wolves.... Wolf.
Wolves were once feared and loathed by humans because wolves not only ate humans, but they tended to like the young tender ones best.
Which is kinda how predators operate? They single out the weak or feeble ones as to minimize risk to themselves/the pack. There is no malice behind that. What humans didn't know. They thought wolves were evil. Which is ridiculous.
Which is kinda how predators operate? They single out the weak or feeble ones as to minimize risk to themselves/the pack. There is no malice behind that. What humans didn't know. They thought wolves were evil. Which is ridiculous.Bring back the wolves. You lose waaaaay more people hunting than you do to ticked off wolves.That's primarily due to a lack of wolves.... Wolf.
Wolves were once feared and loathed by humans because wolves not only ate humans, but they tended to like the young tender ones best.
Nobody asserted or even implied malice Hama. Although I will now assert that wolves, just like dogs and humans, include some seriously mean individuals who seem to enjoy causing pain and suffering.
Wolf, there have been many public debates and even some academic studies on how dangerous wolves actually are or have been to humans throughout their history. I've even seen some academics claim that wolves have NEVER killed a human being.
Wolves are very smart. Much smarter than people seem to realize. In a world with humans carrying guns when they walk around in the woods, wolves are smart enough to bypass the humans.
But much of this thread has been about getting rid of guns.
If we do, and we re-introduce wolves, it is my firm belief that wolves will figure it out.
Sorry but I can't abide by the banning of firearms, there are not enough good reasons to do so,
There are plenty. You are just ignorant of them, or you choose to ignore them.
and the bad judgment of a few is never a good reason to punish the masses.
That's a call that we make all the time. You could use the same argument in defense of allowing civilians to own weapons of mass destruction.
People who want to hurt others will always find a way,
That is a myth. Increased access to firearms is correlated with an overall increase in violent crimes and suicides, which indicates that removing firearms does not result in people always finding another way to inflict harm. Because acts of violence are often precipitated by temporary emotions that easy access to firearms enables.
and the more likely it is that someone may be armed, the less likely a criminal is to attempt to victimize them.
Literally the opposite of that is true.
Overall the areas in the US with the highest gun control, do not have less gun related violence/crimes, and in some of those locations, they actually have higher rates.
That is also not true, and in the handful of areas where it runs counter it's because there is easy access to adjacent jurisdictions where strict gun control is not in place. We also have strong evidence on an international level that, among developed countries, increased gun control is correlated with lower levels of both firearm-related crime and violent crime in general.
In my experience most of the people I know who are for stricter gun control know little about firearms,
Knowing about firearms isn't that important. Knowing about the impact of firearms is important. I find that those opposed to gun control are typically ignorant of many of the facts, and believe that they know far more than they actually do.
And not to sound like I'm personally attacking you, but based on what you've said here, you're a pretty good example of the above, in fact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But there is an important consideration, at least here in the U.S. The purpose of the right to bear arms is not to have guns for self-defense, nor hunting. The purpose, as explained by many of the Founding Fathers in many places, is so that if the government was to get too tyrannical, it could be overthrown.
I'm afraid that particular rationale has outlived its applicability. No amount of personal firearms will protect you from a United States government gone out of control in open war with its own citizens. That day has long since passed. If you want to prevent that scenario from taking place, you need to participate in the democratic process. Your guns will not save you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But there is an important consideration, at least here in the U.S. The purpose of the right to bear arms is not to have guns for self-defense, nor hunting. The purpose, as explained by many of the Founding Fathers in many places, is so that if the government was to get too tyrannical, it could be overthrown.I'm afraid that particular rationale has outlived its applicability. No amount of personal firearms will protect you from a United States government gone out of control in open war with its own citizens. That day has long since passed. If you want to prevent that scenario from taking place, you need to participate in the democratic process. Your guns will not save you.
Scott, if this is true, can you explain why the US Government has had so much trouble dealing with terrorists and rebels in Afghanistan and Iraq who are mostly armed with small arms? After all, if the premise is that armed US citizens are helpless before the ultimate power of the mighty US Government, why have we been so bad at dealing with insurgents around the world?
Is it possible there is some flaw in your logic here?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wolf, there have been many public debates and even some academic studies on how dangerous wolves actually are or have been to humans throughout their history. I've even seen some academics claim that wolves have NEVER killed a human being.
The usual claim is that there has never been a healthy wild wolf thats attacked and killed a human being in north america. I can say that off the top of my head because I must have said it 800 times working at a wolf center. (it was true at the time) You can make a case for it still being true (but i think they're wrong. That canadian student mentioned above MAY have been killed by a bear and then eaten with wolves but the bear has a pretty good alibi for hibernating)
Healthy: Rabid wolves have attacked people. Rabid ANYTHINGS will attack people. Including squirrels.
Wild: Captive wolves have killed people: usually small women working with them. I don't know if larger people scare them a little more (i seemed to), are more confident standing next to a wolf, people working in zoos/captive fascilities tend to be short or what but thats the trend.
killed: Wolves have bitten people who lived: Everything from going after people with dogs to dragging a kid out of a backpack.
North america: Russian wolves seem to be a bit more aggressive. In India where livestock and prey are scarce and children are unattended
Wolves are very smart. Much smarter than people seem to realize. In a world with humans carrying guns when they walk around in the woods, wolves are smart enough to bypass the humans.
1) Any wolf pack that kills a human is going to be shot whether civilians have guns or not. Police and forest rangers are still going to have guns even in the most utopic/dystopic gun removers fantasy. This will continue to be a very strong selection factor in the genetics of how wolves see people.
2) Most of the discussion isn't about guns/no guns, its about what KIND of guns are allowed. Humans scared wolves into submission with muzzle loading flint locks. They apparently weren't even that big of a deal when people had bows. As long as we have those we'll still be ok.
3) I know how smart wolves are (one saw me check a lock by putting my hand in the enclosure. Guess where his snout was EVERY morning i went back?) But they're apparently VERY conservative about hunting new prey as long as their regular prey is around. They'll live for years right next to herds of cattle without anyone going "Hey.. you know those things are made of MEAT!" (which is why you DO NOT just leave dead cattle lying around for the wolves to get used to) Once they figure that out though they can go to town on a herd.
4) We have about 1,000 injuries and 100 hunting deaths per year in the US and Canada. I don't know of any projections that don't involve supervilliany that would put the death toll from wolves back up that high.
Wolf, fair enough. I'm actually predisposed to agree with you on this. I like wolves. I wouldn't mind seeing them re-introduced to much of their historic range.
Hunting deaths and injuries are one of my major concerns about firearms use. I have seen some very frightening things in the woods. I once went squirrel hunting with some co-workers and a few of them just started shooting up into the trees if they SUSPECTED a nest was there.
I asked them to stop and they ignored me. Then I saw a bow-hunter camouflaged in a tree who was clearly terror-stricken. I dunno what he was doing there, but there he was. I again told them to stop, pointed out the bow-hunter and immediately left the area and never hunted with them again.
There are definitely some very irresponsible hunters in the woods. I too would like to get them out of the woods. I've read stories of hunters who have shot friends and family members and have said things like "It sounded like a deer." (Emphasis mine).
When I hear or read stuff like that, I tend to start taking the gun control arguments more seriously.
But I also don't think it's fair that I should be penalized because of idiots. I would rather weed out the idiots.
Scott, if this is true, can you explain why the US Government has had so much trouble dealing with terrorists and rebels in Afghanistan and Iraq who are mostly armed with small arms?
Because they are concerned about the moral considerations and public perception of using more dramatic and indiscriminate methods. A United States government which is out-of-control enough to engage in the sort of open war with its own citizens that would necessitate taking up arms against the government will not care about those things.
The idea of a noble rebellion against the United States government is a conservative fantasy. Nothing more.
Hama, according to this site, the USA is #4. It appears to be the #1 WESTERN nation in shooting homicides though.
Since the vast majority of those shootings have occurred in the cities with the strongest gun control laws (Chicago, Detroit, New York, DC) I'm not sure how gun control relates to curing the problem.
Statistics are the damnedest things you know. They can be made to "prove" just about anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scott, if this is true, can you explain why the US Government has had so much trouble dealing with terrorists and rebels in Afghanistan and Iraq who are mostly armed with small arms?Because they are concerned about the moral considerations and public perception of using more dramatic and indiscriminate methods. A United States government which is out-of-control enough to engage in the sort of open war with its own citizens that would necessitate taking up arms against the government will not care about those things.
The idea of a noble rebellion against the United States government is a conservative fantasy. Nothing more.
I wondered if you would argue that the US government would be more willing to use its deadliest force against its own citizens than against their most evil sworn enemies, and damned if you didn't do it.
I salute you sir.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wondered if you would argue that the US government would be more willing to use its deadliest force against its own citizens than against their most evil sworn enemies, and damned if you didn't do it.
On the contrary, I believe the opposite. I don't think the United States government would ever do such a thing, because I don't believe that the United States government will ever become so corrupt that its own citizenry rises up against it.
But if it did happen, that's how it would go down. Conservatives love to believe they could sustain a noble rebellion with their family AR-15, but they're deluded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how people claim to understand the secret motives of those they despise.
Hama, according to this site, the USA is #4. It appears to be the #1 WESTERN nation in shooting homicides though.
Since the vast majority of those shootings have occurred in the cities with the strongest gun control laws (Chicago, Detroit, New York, DC)
Oh yeah?
So, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and DC, hmm?
Those entire states (not just your favorite example cities) add up to a grand total annual 2010 firearm homicide count of 1,393.
There were over 11,000 gun homicides in the country as a whole in 2010.
So not only do those cities not represent the "vast majority" of shooting homicides, they're actually a fairly small minority.
In fact, of the ten states with the highest per capita rate of firearm homicides, only one has a Brady Campaign rating above 25 (a score of 100 representing the most restrictive gun control laws). Most aren't even in the double digits.
Statistics are the damnedest things you know. They can be made to "prove" just about anything.
No, they can't. Not if you have even a basic ability to conceptualize statistics.
I often hear this sort of thing bandied about by the sort of person who tends not to like what statistics have to say. Funny, that.
Besides, the guy who just finished telling us that four urban areas are responsible for the "vast majority" of gun homicides in the U.S. does not get to criticize others for the veracity of their statistics.
I love how people claim to understand the secret motives of those they despise.
Oftentimes we've come to despise them because they have made their "secret" motives public knowledge, and we're actually kind of horrified at what those motives turned out to be.
Hm, i better check my sources then. Sorry for the mistake.
You weren't strictly wrong; developed nations are the only ones that matter in this discussion (non-developed countries do not have the infrastructure to support the reliable implementation of gun control legislation, and thus cannot be compared with countries which are capable of such implementation). The United States ranks first among developed countries in both overall gun homicide rate and per capita homicide rate.
Adamantine Dragon just doesn't like what the facts say because they make his position seem pretty misguided. Which it is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hunting deaths and injuries are one of my major concerns about firearms use. I have seen some very frightening things in the woods. I once went squirrel hunting with some co-workers and a few of them just started shooting up into the trees if they SUSPECTED a nest was there.
Chuckle.
Heard from one of my professors about a Florida forest where he was measuring some trees. Apparently how they "hunt" there (where all the forests have logging roads ) is to drop dogs off at one point, drive around to the other side of that patch of forest, and sit in the back of a pick up with a hunting rifle mounted on a swivel in the bed of the truck and shoot the deer. All of them.
One group ignored the "No hunting, survey commencing" signs. Went through the locked gate and let loose with a volley of lead. After the fire died down a bit, the crew picked themselves up and angrily went over to the hunters.
The guy said don't worry, we know what we're doing... while leaning on the rifle so that the business end was pointing at the drivers head less than 6 inches away.
There are definitely some very irresponsible hunters in the woods. I too would like to get them out of the woods. I've read stories of hunters who have shot friends and family members and have said things like "It sounded like a deer." (Emphasis mine).
Well how do you do that?
The pro gun crowd talks about safety in very rare circumstances... when you are the victim of a crime AND you have time to fight back AND for some inexplicable reason the criminals don't run off once you fire a few shots at them THEN you need a SAW under your pillow with armor piercing rounds.
When you're going to be attacked by a wolf and you have a gun on you AND you've got time to pull the trigger...
but for some reason these very rare circumstances and outright hypotheticals carry more weight than the regrettably common circumstances of accidental discharge and hunting accidents.. BEFORE you even consider the very deliberate misuse of these tools by criminals.
But I also don't think it's fair that I should be penalized because of idiots. I would rather weed out the idiots.
We have very limited ways of keeping them out of the hands of criminals and NO way to keep them out of the hands of the yahoos like your squirrel hunting friends.
From a purely numbers game having them is making life worse. I'm chaotic to neutral good.. i really, really understand the desire not to have the government tell people what to do or take away their options, but the harm these guns are doing is IMMENSE.
This is an embarrassing question for me to ask, because I come from a place where it's common for people to own veritable arsenals of guns, but:
Other than "YES, MOAR CONTROL" and "NO, MOAR GUNS," what are the general stances on gun control? For example, I'm sure there are NRA folks who want everything to be legal, but with detailed law-enforced record keeping.
Basically I'm looking for 3-6 multiple choice answers I can attach to the political poll I'm writing.
First I come from a place with stricter weapons laws that the US.
But my stance it: Nobody needs a full combat level firearm in his house. Here mostly hunters and members in a gun club are allowed to have weapons at home.My idea for better weapons laws would be to have specialized versions of guns produces for having at home that only have an ammo capacity of maximum 3 shots.
Why? Because it is much harder to run amok when you have to reload after every third shot. But it is still possible to go hunting or shoot practice for shooting competitions at the gun club.
Chuckle.
Heard from one of my professors about a Florida forest where he was measuring some trees. Apparently how they "hunt" there (where all the forests have logging roads ) is to drop dogs off at one point, drive around to the other side of that patch of forest, and sit in the back of a pick up with a hunting rifle mounted on a swivel in the bed of the truck and shoot the deer. All of them.
One group ignored the "No hunting, survey commencing" signs. Went through the locked gate and let loose with a volley of lead. After the fire died down a bit, the crew picked themselves up and angrily went over to the hunters.
The guy said don't worry, we know what we're doing... while leaning on the rifle so that the business end was pointing at the drivers head less than 6 inches away.
Did the Forest Service get involved? This is, at the least, one count of reckless endangerment for ignoring the sign and opening fire on people and one for pointing the rifle at his driver's head in clear violation of basic gun safety rules. Depending on the local regs, they may also be liable for illegal hunting and trespassing.
If you could put something this complicated on a spectrum
Allow fully automatic weapons
Leave things as they are
Outlaw or restrict more types of guns
Total gun ban
What we DO know is that guns in the hands of citizens have taken lives.
Corrected that for you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wondered if you would argue that the US government would be more willing to use its deadliest force against its own citizens than against their most evil sworn enemies, and damned if you didn't do it.
I salute you sir.
We are perfectly willing to use our deadliest force against our sworn enemies. We just can't find those sworn enemies to use it against.
U.S. citizens are a lot easier to find.
Which is kinda how predators operate? They single out the weak or feeble ones as to minimize risk to themselves/the pack. There is no malice behind that. What humans didn't know. They thought wolves were evil. Which is ridiculous.Bring back the wolves. You lose waaaaay more people hunting than you do to ticked off wolves.That's primarily due to a lack of wolves.... Wolf.
Wolves were once feared and loathed by humans because wolves not only ate humans, but they tended to like the young tender ones best.
Nobody asserted or even implied malice Hama. Although I will now assert that wolves, just like dogs and humans, include some seriously mean individuals who seem to enjoy causing pain and suffering.
Wolf, there have been many public debates and even some academic studies on how dangerous wolves actually are or have been to humans throughout their history. I've even seen some academics claim that wolves have NEVER killed a human being.
Wolves are very smart. Much smarter than people seem to realize. In a world with humans carrying guns when they walk around in the woods, wolves are smart enough to bypass the humans.
But much of this thread has been about getting rid of guns.
If we do, and we re-introduce wolves, it is my firm belief that wolves will figure it out.
Love wolves myself. Not a dog person though.
That said, wolves are INCREDIBLY FREAKING OBSERVANT if not FRIGHTENINGLY INTELLIGENT. Humanity has treated them like a dim witted monster for centuries, only recently(comparatively) realizing that they may have some smarts.
Statistics are the damnedest things you know. They can be made to "prove" just about anything.I work as a quality analyst, so I'm well aware of that fact. We even have a saying about it. If you torture that data enough, it will surrender and provide whatever result you desire.
Just one of the reasons I hate math.
|
Here is my position on Gun Control.
Guns Licensing should have classes in the same way that Car Licensing does.
You want a .22 or less, no license required. I'm on the fence with background checks here.
Up to automatic weapons, you do the background check unless you want to get a license that we can swipe and verify that allows you to not have to wait the 5 days, in exchange for being in a database which can be updated and managed easily.
You want automatic weapons, you need to be licensed as you would for a drivers license. But if you are, no waiting period, just swipe your license and off you go.
If a mental health professional (LSCW or higher) wants to tag you for no access, they can.
Judge already can, but now if they do it will be in a fed database and not the crappy state ones that don't communicate.
If a mental health professional does cite you, you and the mental health professional go before a review board to decide, preferably with a month. Licensing of the mental health professional can be revoked with excessive or unwarranted removal of licensing.
But of course people will start ranting about how the right to a gun is the same as the right to food...
Speaking as an outsider (I'm a Brit).
Generally in the UK there is a stereotype that gun owners are gun chewing overly-macho yahoos (both men and women) who have all the common sense and world knowledge of Sarah Palin (who is, it must be said, a terrible advert for the gun owning lobby).
However, I personally think thats unfair (to the gun owners, not Sarah Palin. )
At its heart, I think you have to ask why people want to own guns. It seems to boil down to five categories
1) people do not feel their police can adequately protect them from crime (either local or international.
2) hunters and other folks frequently in the wilderness
3) people who feel the need to have armaments to protect themselves from their own government
4) "its my right so I'm going to own one" (the macho toy brigade/ the uber patriot brigade)
5) marksman hobbyists (the gun range sports types)
Most folks are a mixture of thses, no doubt.
While I dont necessarily agree with them, I think that (given americas size and conditions) people on category 1 & 2 have at least an understandable attachment to owning a firearm
3&4 is more problematical. This is an attachment to guns in some folks in the US which is deepset and undeniable in the US culture ; this (much like the british attachment to binge drinking) is something that is based around percieved social worth, and could be changed, but the time,effort and cost is all something that most politicians are unwilling to address.. (Because it requires time,effort and cost and doesnt win votes)
5 is also understandable.
To my mind, in an ideal world, children would be brought up to have a disrespect for someone carrying a gun, rather than the reverse. The use of a weapon (outside of hunting) represents a failure - a failure in diplomacy, a failure in security, a failure in policy, a failure in society.( Thats not to diss the military or the police, what I'm getting at is they have to go in to clear up a mess made by someone elses mistakes.)
However, disassociating guns from social respect is never going to happen. Even today, look at the social cache of swordsmen in our. Fiction and culture.
Therefore the acrimonious divide will continue indefinitely, and probably forever. Regardless of what the more aggressive propoents on both sides of the debate says, not all lf their opponents ar eignorant or stupid...it is merely that we, as humans, have a tendancy to simplify complex issues like this into "us and them" .
In the end, gun control (much like abortion) in the US will always have to be a compromise that *noone* is happy with. The US is simply too large and too diverse -due to its very makeup of mutlitple individual states each with their own laws and rights - and too too divided...and will remain so)
Thats no critisim of the United States intended, by the way. Merely that the practicalities of your constitution and the makeup of your country (as a Union of Semi-independant states) will mean these sorts of issues will always divide and never be truly resolved.
(Look at Europe for another example)
Finally, I think it ought to be questioned whether you should have to have "the right to bear arms" in your constitution. it made a great deal of sense when the US was formed ; however, these days I think its anachronistic . ( However, thats a revision to the constitution not going to happen of course...far too much cultural attachment to it)
*The tl:dr version*
You're a bunch of loosely affiliated states in a union spread across a large continent. Those states have huge.y different lifestyles. Sadly, You're never going to agree, you'll always have to live with a compromise that noone likes.
. we don't have any way to tell the responsible gun owners from the irresponsible ones other than after the fact.
Very true. Although I saw some gun advocates saying that rather than gun controls being enacted, more psychological research should be carried out...although they were very vague on how this could be at all practical or usable.
I've never understood why *assault rifles* are legal.
Hunting rifles, fine, Shotguns, ok. Even handguns for self protection. I can see the arguments. i wouldnt want to see it enacted in the UK, but different strokes for different folks, and all that.
But...assault rifles ?
Theres only three arguments I can see for that - you're planning to massacre either citizens, police or enemy invaders. A & B are not legal and C seems pretty unlikely and is why you have a military.
When you hear from enough people who expect to use their personal arsenals to overthrow the government, you eventually realize that they're living in a fantasy world, are dangerously paranoid, or both. I take them at their word: they really believe this stuff.
Ok, keep on believing it. But people who really do believe this stuff clearly aren't in possession of the kind of judgment I'd want to see in anybody with a firearms permit.
:(
[Cries at Comrade Samnell's lack of faith in me]
But there is an important consideration, at least here in the U.S. The purpose of the right to bear arms is not to have guns for self-defense, nor hunting. The purpose, as explained by many of the Founding Fathers in many places, is so that if the government was to get too tyrannical, it could be overthrown.I'm afraid that particular rationale has outlived its applicability. No amount of personal firearms will protect you from a United States government gone out of control in open war with its own citizens. That day has long since passed. If you want to prevent that scenario from taking place, you need to participate in the democratic process. Your guns will not save you.Scott, if this is true, can you explain why the US Government has had so much trouble dealing with terrorists and rebels in Afghanistan and Iraq who are mostly armed with small arms? After all, if the premise is that armed US citizens are helpless before the ultimate power of the mighty US Government, why have we been so bad at dealing with insurgents around the world?
Is it possible there is some flaw in your logic here?
Because the US is playing by rules that prevent them from just nuking towns and villages? In a guerrilla war, where you can't tell the good guy from the bad guy it makes it harder.
|
|
Because the US is playing by rules that prevent them from just nuking towns and villages? In a guerrilla war, where you can't tell the good guy from the bad guy it makes it harder.But there is an important consideration, at least here in the U.S. The purpose of the right to bear arms is not to have guns for self-defense, nor hunting. The purpose, as explained by many of the Founding Fathers in many places, is so that if the government was to get too tyrannical, it could be overthrown.I'm afraid that particular rationale has outlived its applicability. No amount of personal firearms will protect you from a United States government gone out of control in open war with its own citizens. That day has long since passed. If you want to prevent that scenario from taking place, you need to participate in the democratic process. Your guns will not save you.Scott, if this is true, can you explain why the US Government has had so much trouble dealing with terrorists and rebels in Afghanistan and Iraq who are mostly armed with small arms? After all, if the premise is that armed US citizens are helpless before the ultimate power of the mighty US Government, why have we been so bad at dealing with insurgents around the world?
Is it possible there is some flaw in your logic here?
All of this is predicated on the assumption there is an "them" for "us" to have to stop.
When they can't pass a budget...
This isn't to say consolidation of power isn't something to be feared, but rather to say you and your AK ain't doing much if "they" can convince the military you are the target.
On the other hand, it is completely reasonable for you to think you need to defend yourself if you live in an area where services aren't coming to help you if it really goes down.
Hence the rural vs urban divide on the issue.
The gun violence issues in the United States are very complicated.
By way of background, I grew up in a house with several firearms (rifles, shotguns and pistols). We were taught at an early age about gun safety and as we grew older did a fair amount of target shooting at a local gun club. I have friends/family who own weapons and friends/family who don't. I grew up in a peaceful suburban area outside Philadelphia in the 70s/80s. While we regularly heard stories of violence in the city, it wasn't something that ever seemed to be in the local news. We'd often leave the house unlocked during the day, even if we stepped out for short trips to the supermarket or whatever.
Nowadays, I live in northern VA outside of Washington, DC. Gun violence is in the news pretty much daily, and it seems just as much in the suburbs as the inner city.
I think most Americans can agree with the following statements:
1. People should have the right to defend themselves and their property.
2. People with violent criminal offenses and serious, proven mental conditions should not have access to firearms.
3. People should be able to acquire firearms for defense and hunting.
4. Gun violence in the US is too high, in particular urban street violence and drug related violence.
5. Military grade weapons do not need to be in the hands of private citizens.
6. Background checks need to be required for the purchase of any firearms.
7. Most firearms are legal at the time they are manufactured. There aren't a ton of hidden illegal factories out there.
Here's my personal opinion on the whole situation.
Let's start with my last point above because I think it's an important one. Most of the gun crimes committed are performed using handguns. Often these are illegal handguns in the sense that the person using it did not obtain it legally through a licensed dealer. But if we assume that there isn't a big supply of guns that are "falling off the truck" on the way from the manufacturer to a licensed dealer, then by definition someone is legally purchasing that gun (assuming they don't rob the gun store) and then that person is either selling it to someone else, giving it to someone else, losing it, or allowing for it to be stolen. And since we don't have a government registration of how many guns that person purchases, and we don't audit what guns they still have, there's little to stop that person from going back sometime later and legally buying another gun (allowing that gun to go off the grid too).
So what can we do about this?
Well, I think one thing we can do is bring insurance companies into the mix to a greater extent.
To purchase a firearm from the dealer you should need to have two things.
1. You need to acquire a firearms purchasing license from your state. This minimally involves getting a background check and completing a firearms training and safety certification. You are issued a photo ID.
2. You need to carry Firearms Liability Insurance.
When you go to buy the gun, they do another instant background check and they confirm that your license and insurance are still current. If they are not, no gun. To obtain the gun after the legal purchase, you need to complete a waiting period for all types of firearms. I think at least a week, but certainly less than a month. I'm not against the idea that a check of your license and insurance should be required for ammunition purchases too.
Next, comprehensive, replacement insurance for firearms cannot be covered under a non-firearms policy. To have a gun covered you need to have the serial# attached to your firearms specific insurance policy.
So what do these changes do over time? My contention is that since the insurance company (and not the government) will know when you insure a weapon you own and they know when you purchase a weapon by the check for your liability insurance (whether or not you choose to pay for a policy to cover its damage or loss) they can set their prices accordingly. If they see that you are buying one gun a month versus one gun every three years, or they know you have 25 guns on your policy they can choose to charge you more. They can choose to increase your rate if you make claims for lost weapons. If the gun you registered
with them is ever found to be used in a crime (whether you caused it or were found negligible in handling/storage) they can drop you like a hot potato and you won't be able to legally purchase weapons any more. The insurer may also require you to have a gun safe or other way of securing your weapons in order to maintain your policy or have a reasonable price. The goal here is to have a market based solution that helps prevent straw purchases because the behavior of hording weapons or frequently buying weapons is financially discouraged by the insurance industry and you need insurance to buy. If the criminals can't get "clean" person X to buy their guns they'll have to go to Y and so on, reducing that particular path of legal to illegal gun.
To add to that, I think there needs to be a general feedback loop that says if weapon type X is used in a crime (say a revolver, or semi-automatic pistol, or shotgun, or whatever) that makes the cost to get insurancee that type of weapon more expensive. Supply and demand would imply that if guns used often in crimes become more expensive, less will be sold and less will be manufactured.
In the end, people making straw purchases won't be able to do so, or certainly less often, and people who are careless with their weapons will be less likely to obtain more.
The catch with something like this is that it has to be a federal law. Gun control in the US is definitely a complicated situation because every state and many localities have their own rules and it can be fairly easy for people who are in a state/area with stricter gun laws to hop the border to a less strict state.
Other things:
- No high capacity magazines (say larger than 10 rounds)
- Semiautomatic weapons are ok (many pistols and rifles are semi, not just those that looks assaultish)
- No government registration of firearms
- I'm up for a reasonable cap on the number of firearms that can be manufacturer in a year by a single manufacturer
- Fix the US health care system for real so that mental health issues can actually be treated in a more comprehensive fashion (another huge issue for another topic)
L
|
|
Just as an FYI and an aside, recorded crime of pretty much every type peaked in the 1970's and 1980's.
Much of the reason it wasn't on the news came down to lack of coverage (no satellite trucks...) and not lack of crime. Also, population density was such that the higher rate of crime per person was someone countered by the lower numbers of people.
We are at crime rates not seen since the 1950's, and the 1950's were notorious for not counting things that happened to non-whites.
Right...This also may be relevant: a recent statistic shows that the Berlin police used their firearms 551 times in the last 5 years. 398 times out of those 551, they shot at animalsWhat the hell? Man up and use the nightstick if you're in a fight with fido.d'awwwww.....
Wild empathy check?
You wouldn't say this if you'd ever been eye to eye with one of these beasts. Have you seen the tusks?
Ciretose, while we are at a low point in overall crime, there have been some recent upticks, both in overall crime but more importantly in violet crime. I think violent crime had dropped to an historic low a few years ago before ticking back up a bit. But even so we still have a lot less crime than we used to.
Having said that, there are still some very, very dangerous places to be in the USA. And I don't begrudge the desire of people to protect themselves when they can't count on the police to come, in time or in some cases at all, even if they call 911.
As I've said multiple times on this thread I have very mixed feelings about gun ownership vs gun control. I think it's a difficult issue to address in any way that truly does balance the rights and responsibilities of all sides.
I find it very difficult to argue for blanket gun ownership with no licensing or controls because I know too many totally irresponsible idiots who already have guns. On the other hand, I think owning a gun for self-protection by a responsible and mature individual is, and should be, a constitutionally protected right.
For full disclosure I own four gunpowder guns, two pellet guns (one of which is potentially lethal and can put a .25 caliber pellet through a 3/4 inch plywood board with ease), a crossbow and some throwing knives (which I'm fairly proficient with). So I like guns and like shooting or throwing in general. The gunpowder guns I own are a shotgun, a rifle (single-shot bolt action), a .22 revolver and a 12 magazine semi-automatic 9mm pistol. I am quite proficient with all of them and have taken self-defense courses and am licensed to carry concealed (which I do).
But I can't totally discount the arguments of the gun control crowd because of the demonstrable irresponsibility and stupidity of a significant fraction of gun owners.
I also live in Colorado, where shooting is quite common and generally viewed positively.
It's a tough call. I've skirted the issue over the years by approaching individual laws as unique cases and I've opposed some gun control laws and supported others. I've even opposed some laws that expanded gun availability.
It is always interesting to me how many people demonstrate their own extremism by immediately assuming that anyone who disagrees with them on the most minute detail of policy must be aligned totally in opposition to them and therefore attacked.
I try to be rational about it, but I acknowledge my own bias.
I am fairly confident that fifty years from now my own "arsenal" would be considered shocking to most people.
I did purchase the powerful pellet gun specifically to ensure I could continue to have some lethal capability even if they outlawed my gunpowder guns. I am looking at purchasing a pellet pistol of similar power. Eventually I suppose those will be outlawed too.
Which is a shame, shooting is a fun activity, and done responsibly it is no more dangerous than most other outdoor activities, all of which have some risk associated with them.
When you hear from enough people who expect to use their personal arsenals to overthrow the government, you eventually realize that they're living in a fantasy world, are dangerously paranoid, or both. I take them at their word: they really believe this stuff.
Ok, keep on believing it. But people who really do believe this stuff clearly aren't in possession of the kind of judgment I'd want to see in anybody with a firearms permit.
:(
[Cries at Comrade Samnell's lack of faith in me]
I still love you, especially in the street where I am told that goblin affection is best expressed. :)
You wouldn't say this if you'd ever been eye to eye with one of these beasts. Have you seen the tusks?
Yup.
I've d'awwwed at a lot of things that wanted to eat me. We worked it out.
There's also a pretty good argument that while guns might help you protect yourself when the police don't come, they don't make you (or those around you) safer overall. Between the accident statistics, the difficulty in reacting quickly and appropriately in a situation where you are likely surprised and your attacker is likely prepared, especially if you're storing your weapon safely to avoid the accidents, it's not at all clear. Having a gun certainly adds to a feeling of security, but that can be largely an illusion.
Then add in the those who will take risks they wouldn't have if they didn't have the gun. And add in the increased chance of suicide. And the impulse/rage shootings.
The problem I have with this argument is that I believe it is overlooking the previous argument about idiots and irresponsible people having guns. I would argue that whatever statistics there are about guns making nearby people less safe (and I've seen the statistics argued both ways) probably are heavily skewed by the idiots/irresponsible people I've already talked about wanting to deal with. If you deal with those folks, I believe that the "danger" to nearby people would drop dramatically since I don't think responsible gun owners are the ones accidentally shooting grandma or leaving a gun on the nightstand for little Bobby to play army with.
believe that the "danger" to nearby people would drop dramatically since I don't think responsible gun owners are the ones accidentally shooting grandma or leaving a gun on the nightstand for little Bobby to play army with.
That's a bit of a tautology isn't it?
Just as an FYI and an aside, recorded crime of pretty much every type peaked in the 1970's and 1980's.
With the exception of the "mass shooting" type. I'm pretty middle-of-the-road when it comes to the issue of gun control, but this is becoming pretty ridiculous.