[Mr Twisty]

Originally Posted by detamble13

But how large of a tragedy needs to take place for something to happen? And if such an event were to take place civil liberties will be removed without anyone's opinion (see 9/11)

If this happened in a non-communist state, the victims would have had the opportunity to defend themselves in like fashion..... he wouldn't have been able to do that in Austin, Tx. or Oklahoma City without coming up on more than a few folks that were armed and willing to return fire.

You see, it's legal to own in Ca... you just can't carry it loaded on your person unless you're a cop or an elected official.

[detamble13]

Originally Posted by kalimus

The gun deaths are worse?

No, absolutely not. The focus most certainly always falls on gun owners and their rights which isn't justified. The problem is both sides don't budge and nothing changes.

[detamble13]

Originally Posted by Mr Twisty

If this happened in a non-communist state, the victims would have had the opportunity to defend themselves in like fashion..... he wouldn't have been able to do that in Austin, Tx. or Oklahoma City without coming up on more than a few folks that were armed and willing to return fire.

You see, it's legal to own in Ca... you just can't carry it loaded on your person unless you're a cop or an elected official.

You're predicting the outcome of a hypothetical situation? No one would have guessed that 19 guys from a cave in Afghanistan (with box cutters not guns) could have brought the US national defense to it's knees. They crashed a plane into the pentagon! That actually happened

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by detamble13

...The problem is both sides don't budge and nothing changes.

That's because it's been very clearly established that law-abiding citizens have the absolute right to own firearms. Why should the pro-gun 'side' budge on anything at this point?

We've already established in the courts and with laws that convicted felons and mentally unstable persons should not be granted access to firearms.

What more is there to budge on?

[Mr Twisty]

Originally Posted by detamble13

You're predicting the outcome of a hypothetical situation? No one would have guessed that 19 guys from a cave in Afghanistan (with box cutters not guns) could have brought the US national defense to it's knees. They crashed a plane into the pentagon! That actually happened

9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally Owned Firearm
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthi...by-someone-wit

.

[edneyens]

Originally Posted by detamble13

I can respond to the first part but the rest is certainly a grey area. It's very difficult to determine who is so mentally unstable they can't posess firearms. But guns for all is definitely not the answer.

People use tragic events to push their agenda. It's not right but it happens. Anti gun lobbyists are using this story in an attempt to achieve their goals but I don't think this guy has an "agenda". He lost his son and is speaking passionately about an issue that has effected him in a very negative way. I wouldn't have been surprised if he called for world peace. He's searching for his own inner peace and a way to live his life without his son. The fact is his opinion holds more weight than someone complaining about less rounds per magazine.

If these events just continue to draw lines and get everone's back up then nothing will change and this will happen again and again. If you're alright with that then so be it. But how large of a tragedy needs to take place for something to happen? And if such an event were to take place civil liberties will be removed without anyone's opinion (see 9/11)

It is a complex issue which has no simple easy answers. I am sure action could be taken to improve the situation, however we need to very careful for undesired side effects.

Any action taken to prevent undesired people from getting weapons that also hinders the law abiding citizen from protecting themselves, or the sportsman from his recreational activities is bad. Any action taken that benefits a few high profile privileged people and puts many common people in harms way is bad. A law set up to protect people but in reality turn out to be magnets for wackos and criminals (like gun free zones) need to be re-assessed (figure a way to fix the problem, or remove the restriction that only law abiding citizens obey).

It is sad but we just need to make the best of what we can of the fact that mentally disturbed people exist and criminals exist. I am constantly amazed that many of the people who are anti-gun are not trying to see what they can do to improve our situation by working with 2nd amendment supporters in areas we should agree on - why can't we work together to address the mentally disturbed individuals issue, why can't we work together to enforce existing laws to punish and therefore discourage criminal activity?

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by detamble13

No, absolutely not. The focus most certainly always falls on gun owners and their rights which isn't justified. The problem is both sides don't budge and nothing changes.

Gun owners "budged" for the NFA, GCA, the Brady Bill, and hundreds of other laws. In fact, the only side that doesn't budge is the side wanting to make the new laws. As gun owners, we can't even fight laws in court as fast as they make new ones. And even if we do win a lawsuit in the court system, the states just make a new law circumventing it.

If you knew the sh** we had to deal with in California... and then of course there are all those northeast states. The reason gun owners don't want to budge, is that we are the only ones giving concessions. But the problem isn't that both sides don't budge... the problem is that apprently the legislators don't address the real problem, which is crazies, poverty, and poor education. When you consider that the majority of crime are committed by people that suffer from one of those three things, the tool that those people use should be irrelevant.

It's really no different than blaming video games and bad action flicks for people acting like fools (which sadly still happens from time to time). Why address the people, when they can address "things". I personally believe it's because nobody wants to accept that some people were never able to be helped, and they don't want to lock them up because of it.

[detamble13]

I'm thinking this conversation can go on forever... and it may. You guys are bringing up good points and responsible gun owners are certainly not the problem.
Sometimes you don't know someone has gone crazy until they act out. And if weapons are readily available to them then the impact is that much greater. Yes I think the "things" need to be addressed just as much as the people. Guns, more specifically hand guns, are made with one purpose and that is to kill people. I think the root of the problem, or the disconnect between both sides is the right to take someone's life. What gives you the right to squeeze a trigger and end someone's existance. Yes sometimes it is necessary, but if you're familiar with the George Zimmer case (I think that was his last name) it appears an innocent kid was killed and the guy got off because of his right to defend himself.
It's bad enough when you see that a cop has killed a kid carrying a pellet gun (different story), but civilians now get to make these decisions. The reaction to this story, for some, was that this teenager was an idiot and the police did the right thing. I wasn't there, I don't know. But do any of you guys/girls have kids? Can you imagine if your kid was shot to death. I can't. It makes me feel a little sick just thinking about it and maybe I'm relating a little too closely to this story but some people are acting far too removed from it.

If you're going to use the argument that guns for everyone make a community safer, then I'll go the exact opposite way and say that if no one had a gun it would be safer. Yes people will still be killed through various means but less people would die... and more importantly innocent people

[edneyens]

Originally Posted by detamble13

I'm thinking this conversation can go on forever... and it may. You guys are bringing up good points and responsible gun owners are certainly not the problem.
Sometimes you don't know someone has gone crazy until they act out. And if weapons are readily available to them then the impact is that much greater. Yes I think the "things" need to be addressed just as much as the people. Guns, more specifically hand guns, are made with one purpose and that is to kill people. I think the root of the problem, or the disconnect between both sides is the right to take someone's life. What gives you the right to squeeze a trigger and end someone's existance. Yes sometimes it is necessary, but if you're familiar with the George Zimmer case (I think that was his last name) it appears an innocent kid was killed and the guy got off because of his right to defend himself.
It's bad enough when you see that a cop has killed a kid carrying a pellet gun (different story), but civilians now get to make these decisions. The reaction to this story, for some, was that this teenager was an idiot and the police did the right thing. I wasn't there, I don't know. But do any of you guys/girls have kids? Can you imagine if your kid was shot to death. I can't. It makes me feel a little sick just thinking about it and maybe I'm relating a little too closely to this story but some people are acting far too removed from it.

If you're going to use the argument that guns for everyone make a community safer, then I'll go the exact opposite way and say that if no one had a gun it would be safer. Yes people will still be killed through various means but less people would die... and more importantly innocent people

You see here is where we have a big disagreement, you feel an intimate object can be guilty of causing violence and you feel that the purpose of a weapon is to kill.

I on the other hand place the blame of the violence on the person and I feel the fundamental purpose of a gun or any weapon is to protect the user (outside of recreational uses, which is another purpose).

We both can find some justification for our perspectives, however I will contend that there are orders of magnitude of instances I can use to justify my perspective. You on the other hand are looking at instances where weapons are used for bad purposes which are almost not measurable retaliative to when weapons are used for good purposes.

I really think you need to do some re-assessment, the facts and reasonable logic leads any reasonably intelligent person to conclude that fixes have to address the root cause and the root cause is a person.

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by detamble13

I'm thinking this conversation can go on forever... and it may. You guys are bringing up good points and responsible gun owners are certainly not the problem.
Sometimes you don't know someone has gone crazy until they act out. And if weapons are readily available to them then the impact is that much greater. Yes I think the "things" need to be addressed just as much as the people. Guns, more specifically hand guns, are made with one purpose and that is to kill people.

Let me stop you right there for a second. Hand guns are not made with the purpose to kill. They are made with the purpose to defend. They are made with the purpose of recreational shooting. The gun itself is a tool to be used with extreme prejudice. However, in the case that you need to use that tool to defend yourself, EVERY self-defense course teaches you that if you intend to pull the trigger to defend yourself, you don't stop pulling that trigger until the threat(s) are neutralized. If one shot makes that person turn and run, then so be it. But if you have to fire 6 times and the person is STILL coming at you, you don't stop until the THREAT is gone.

Originally Posted by detamble13

I think the root of the problem, or the disconnect between both sides is the right to take someone's life. What gives you the right to squeeze a trigger and end someone's existance.

God and the Constitution of the United States gives me the right to defend myself from a threat. If that threat does not stop coming at me until I have had to end their life, then that was the consequence to THEIR choice.

Let me flip it around. What gives another human being the right to threaten me or my family? I have a right to defend myself. The threat DOES NOT have a right to attack me, rob me, rape me, or inflict any other harm on me. I will not feel sorry for someone dying who attacks me or my family for NO REASON.

Originally Posted by detamble13

Yes sometimes it is necessary, but if you're familiar with the George Zimmerman case (I think that was his last name) it appears an innocent kid was killed and the guy got off because of his right to defend himself.

You're right. George Zimmerman was acquitted of the charges brought against him because he has a RIGHT to defend himself from another human being intending to do him bodily harm. What the media didn't portray was just how big of a person T. Martin was at the time of the incident. George Zimmerman is only 5'-7" tall and T. Martin was 5'-11" tall and 160 pounds at the time of the incident. (not sure why the kid's first name is censored on Camaro5 )

This "kid" wasn't exactly a "kid" now was he?

Originally Posted by detamble13

It's bad enough when you see that a cop has killed a kid carrying a pellet gun (different story), but civilians now get to make these decisions. The reaction to this story, for some, was that this teenager was an idiot and the police did the right thing. I wasn't there, I don't know. But do any of you guys/girls have kids? Can you imagine if your kid was shot to death. I can't. It makes me feel a little sick just thinking about it and maybe I'm relating a little too closely to this story but some people are acting far too removed from it.

Why are kids running around in public with realistic looking pellet guns?! When I was a kid, we had cap guns, but if we ever played with them, it was in the backyard or somewhere PRIVATE. You know, places where police wouldn't be able to observe whatever cops and robbers game we were playing. If a parent allows their child to have a pellet gun, and then doesn't monitor how that child is playing with that pellet gun, then guess what? They're going to have a bad time.

Originally Posted by detamble13

If you're going to use the argument that guns for everyone make a community safer, then I'll go the exact opposite way and say that if no one had a gun it would be safer. Yes people will still be killed through various means but less people would die... and more importantly innocent people

Wrong. Magically waving a wand and eliminating all guns from the face of the Earth will NOT reduce the number of violent crimes or murders. Or would you like that wand to also eliminate all knives, baseball bats, two by fours, tire irons, tightly rolled up magazines, golf clubs, heavy book end and/or paper weights...

Catch my drift?

Humans have been murdering other humans since homo sapiens learned how to pick up a rock. So, to say eliminating one tool will magically "solve" the problem is a laughable fallacy at best.

That being said, I do not subscribe to the theory of "guns for all, no restrictions" either. I fully believe that people convicted of certain crimes should have their right revoked indefinitely. However, I'm not fully convinced that that revocation should include all felonies absolutely. I personally know someone who was convicted of felony theft when they were younger who cannot purchase a firearm because of that conviction, even though they are now more responsible than half the people I know who are legally allowed to purchase a firearm.

The system is jacked, don't get me wrong. But it is a RIGHT to own a firearm and a RIGHT to defend ourselves, guaranteed to all people by our creator, and protected (in the United States) by the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution.

To attempt to limit that RIGHT to law-abiding citizens is a very serious thing, and it should NOT be taken lightly.

[CamaroSkooter]

All of that being said (and I tried not to get political, I hope I succeeded in that), it's interesting to see what the opinions on these issues are from people who live outside the United States - especially people who live in countries with very different gun laws.

The perspective is always interesting.

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

That being said, I do not subscribe to the theory of "guns for all, no restrictions" either. I fully believe that people convicted of certain crimes should have their right revoked indefinitely. However, I'm not fully convinced that that revocation should include all felonies absolutely. I personally know someone who was convicted of felony theft when they were younger who cannot purchase a firearm because of that conviction, even though they are now more responsible than half the people I know who are legally allowed to purchase a firearm.

See I actually disagree with you about this. Unfortunately, the system IS broken, and it "has" to be like this. But revoking a person's rights forever should only be done with due process... like the process that happens that would lead to a conviction. After a conviction, a person is given a penalty. Sometimes it's a fine, sometimes it's long term jail time. However, after that is taken care of, the criminal's debt to society is supposed to be deemed "paid", which means restoration of all rights. (Edited to add: I mean to say that "forever" means that due process has removed them from society "forever").

The legal system serves two main purposes: Rehabilitation, or removal. If a person is sentenced to jail time (removal) and let out, it is because the debt is paid and they are "rehabilitated". If they prove in jail that they are too dangerous, they are kept. If a person is so potentially dangerous that he or she is barred from having a firearm, then he or she should not be in the general public. At all. There is no such thing as a person "too dangerous to have a firearm", but not so dangerous that we'll risk that person having access to things that can make explosives, or knives, or whatever makeshift weapon. That's a ridiculous assertion that is implied by the way our legal system releases people. If someone is let out and is on probation, then I understand. That person is still paying their debt to society. But once that is all done... hasn't punishment been applied? Of course there are countless legitimate things that could have rights temporarily revoked... but those are slippery slopes as well....

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

All of that being said (and I tried not to get political, I hope I succeeded in that), it's interesting to see what the opinions on these issues are from people who live outside the United States - especially people who live in countries with very different gun laws.

The perspective is always interesting.

I've heard someone from UK and someone from Aussie. The UK person touted their low rate of firearms-related crime, but of course completely ignored the rest of their crime. The Aussie was a prior gun owner. He was less enthusiastic.

Ah, and then my girlfriend who is from Brazil. Absolutely hated that I had guns, and thought nobody should have them.

Until I sat her down and explained some things.










And took her shooting


Also this thread....

[edneyens]

Originally Posted by kalimus

See I actually disagree with you about this. Unfortunately, the system IS broken, and it "has" to be like this. But revoking a person's rights forever should only be done with due process... like the process that happens that would lead to a conviction. After a conviction, a person is given a penalty. Sometimes it's a fine, sometimes it's long term jail time. However, after that is taken care of, the criminal's debt to society is supposed to be deemed "paid", which means restoration of all rights. (Edited to add: I mean to say that "forever" means that due process has removed them from society "forever").

The legal system serves two main purposes: Rehabilitation, or removal. If a person is sentenced to jail time (removal) and let out, it is because the debt is paid and they are "rehabilitated". If they prove in jail that they are too dangerous, they are kept. If a person is so potentially dangerous that he or she is barred from having a firearm, then he or she should not be in the general public. At all. There is no such thing as a person "too dangerous to have a firearm", but not so dangerous that we'll risk that person having access to things that can make explosives, or knives, or whatever makeshift weapon. That's a ridiculous assertion that is implied by the way our legal system releases people. If someone is let out and is on probation, then I understand. That person is still paying their debt to society. But once that is all done... hasn't punishment been applied? Of course there are countless legitimate things that could have rights temporarily revoked... but those are slippery slopes as well....



I've heard someone from UK and someone from Aussie. The UK person touted their low rate of firearms-related crime, but of course completely ignored the rest of their crime. The Aussie was a prior gun owner. He was less enthusiastic.

Ah, and then my girlfriend who is from Brazil. Absolutely hated that I had guns, and thought nobody should have them.

Until I sat her down and explained some things.










And took her shooting


Also this thread....

What is interesting about your reference to England and Australia is that prior to law changes severely restricting gun ownership (yes in reaction to some wacko actions) they both had crime and violence situations similar to what we experience here in the good old USA.

Now today if you assess crime and violence in a meaningful and honest way (they fudge reports and numbers to make things look better) they have close to twice the violent crimes that we do. Also what is shown in a statistical analysis is that their crimes committed against the weak (rapes, attacks on elderly, etc.) are almost triple what we have in the USA. And yes even though it is hard there to get firearms most of these crimes are still committed with guns. If you care to do some research you can verify my claims are true.

So I think your mentioning these other countries is good because it shows that taking guns away from the general public is not the answer because it does not yield the intended results.

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by kalimus

See I actually disagree with you about this. Unfortunately, the system IS broken, and it "has" to be like this. But revoking a person's rights forever should only be done with due process... like the process that happens that would lead to a conviction. After a conviction, a person is given a penalty. Sometimes it's a fine, sometimes it's long term jail time. However, after that is taken care of, the criminal's debt to society is supposed to be deemed "paid", which means restoration of all rights. (Edited to add: I mean to say that "forever" means that due process has removed them from society "forever").

The legal system serves two main purposes: Rehabilitation, or removal. If a person is sentenced to jail time (removal) and let out, it is because the debt is paid and they are "rehabilitated". If they prove in jail that they are too dangerous, they are kept. If a person is so potentially dangerous that he or she is barred from having a firearm, then he or she should not be in the general public. At all. There is no such thing as a person "too dangerous to have a firearm", but not so dangerous that we'll risk that person having access to things that can make explosives, or knives, or whatever makeshift weapon. That's a ridiculous assertion that is implied by the way our legal system releases people. If someone is let out and is on probation, then I understand. That person is still paying their debt to society. But once that is all done... hasn't punishment been applied? Of course there are countless legitimate things that could have rights temporarily revoked... but those are slippery slopes as well....

See, I agree with you on this in theory, but in practice I'm more hesitant. In a perfect world, if a person commits a crime, they are punished accordingly. But there are plenty of cases that go through the system and, even though the person was convicted, they are effectively given just a slap on the wrist (in the relative sense) depending on how good their lawyer is or who the judge was or how lenient the jury was.

How many child molesters are out there that are repeat offenders? They were convicted, registered, and served their time. But then they were let out of prison, supposedly "rehabilitated," and then they commit the same crime (or some variant) again.

So, in this particular instance, until we get criminal punishments standardized here, I have a problem with assuming a person is "rehabilitated" just because they "paid their debt" to society. That's why I think there are some crimes that, even if you serve your time, should completely exclude you from ever owning a firearm for the rest of your life. Granted, it would likely be a short list, but it would still need to exist, at least with the way the current system is setup.