Gun control

[Fuzzy_]

Turn-about is fair play. It'd be funny if the reporters got all butt hurt over this video.

Times 24/7 is a link on the top of the Washington Times website.
Washington Times - Politics, Breaking News, US and World News

Yes, "extensive training". I guess something like this shouldn't happen then:
Las Vegas Negligent Discharge - YouTube
Orange police officer accidentally shoots himself in bar - OC Watchdog : The Orange County Register

Why does having a badge make a person better than someone else? You know they have classes where ordinary citizens can learn to shoot right?

What a speedy googler you are.

If you read Fuzzy's post, it referred to training, not the badge.

Fuzzy could find thousands of articles that mention citizens using guns irresponsibly, but Fuzzy doesn't want to continue to derail this thread... or make you look more foolish.

 

[B_SeattleYo]

What a speedy googler you are.

If you read Fuzzy's post, it referred to training, not the badge.

Fuzzy could find thousands of articles that mention citizens using guns irresponsibly, but Fuzzy doesn't want to continue to derail this thread... or make you look more foolish.

Police use their guns irresponsibly all the time too.

 

[Klingsor]

Police use their guns irresponsibly all the time too.

And doctors commit malpractice. That doesn't mean the rest of us should try to perform surgery--any more than we should try to usurp the police's role.

 

[B_SeattleYo]

And doctors commit malpractice. That doesn't mean the rest of us should try to perform surgery--any more than we should try to usurp the police's role.

The police's role is not to stop crime from happening, it is to investigate it after it does, and apprehend criminals.

 

[Klingsor]

The police's role is not to stop crime from happening, it is to investigate it after it does, and apprehend criminals.

Police try to stop crime from happening all the time. If officers on patrol see suspicious behavior, they'll stop and check it out. If you call and report someone trying to break into your neighbor's house, they'll send a squad car (if it's the right neighborhood, anyway).

It's true they're not always effective at it, but it's certainly part of their role.

 

[B_SeattleYo]

Police try to stop crime from happening all the time. If officers on patrol see suspicious behavior, they'll stop and check it out. If you call and report someone trying to break into your neighbor's house, they'll send a squad car (if it's the right neighborhood, anyway).

It's true they're not always effective at it, but it's certainly part of their role.

Whose role is it to protect yourself, your family, and your property?

 

[Klingsor]

Whose role is it to protect yourself, your family, and your property?

Yours, up to a point. But for the most drastic situations, you rely on the police.

Or I do, anyway. :smile:

 

[B_SeattleYo]

Yours, up to a point. But for the most drastic situations, you rely on the police.

Or I do, anyway. :smile:

In my experience, the police have always been around for the least drastic, and nowhere to be found for the most.

 

[hypoc8]

Yours, up to a point. But for the most drastic situations, you rely on the police.

Or I do, anyway. :smile:

If I have time I'll call the police, but I'm sure as hell not going to sit and wait on them to arrive. If I feel my life or loved ones is being threatened, I'll use any means necessary including deadly force. By the time police arrive it may to late.

 

[deleted213967]

And doctors commit malpractice. That doesn't mean the rest of us should try to perform surgery--any more than we should try to usurp the police's role.

Do you construe exercising your Second Amendment rights as "usurping the police's role"?

 

[JTalbain]

Also, hypocrites in the media, who'da thunk it?
Journalists unwilling to put up 'gun-free' yard signs | Times 247

It's not hypocritical. Respectable journalists are required to avoid the appearance of political bias in order to maintain their journalistic credibility. Journalism ethics and standards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Remember when Keith Olbermann got fired over donating to some politicians? They claimed it was only because he didn't report the contributions ahead of time, but the only reason why they have a rule like that in the first place is so they can be aware of political bias within their journalists and act accordingly. It's how they protect the news groups's credibility from the views of a few members of it.

 

[JTalbain]

Do you construe exercising your Second Amendment rights as "usurping the police's role"?

I would if their primary motivation for having guns was to fight crime. Who do they think they are? Penn Jilette's kid?

 

[deleted213967]

I would if their primary motivation for having guns was to fight crime. Who do they think they are? Penn Jilette's kid?

Just because the Second Amendment grants me the right to bear arms does not mean that I can point a gun at you nilly willy or that I can play vigilante with impunity.

I've never owned a gun, but I still object to the notion (presented here) that gun owners cannot be sane and law-abiding citizens.

Meanwhile, most Americans do want for guns to be harder to get, but are not convinced that gun availability caused the Newtown tragedy.


Majority in Poll Favors Stricter Laws for Gun Sales - WSJ.com

 

[ColoradoGuy]

Three things:

1. Man, I like reading Fuzzy's thoughts. Rational, succinct. There are a few of you in here who should maybe take notice and learn from that.

2. I offered up this article about a week ago that I thought would be useful for informing the 2nd Amendment discussion. Everybody is articulating what they think it means (and yes, some of you non-Americans actually grasp it better than Americans do), but nobody is addressing the important issues of what was really meant. Go read the article.

Not that this tit-for-tat isn't stimulating, but I think there are several contributors who are less than casually familiar with what the Second Amendment actually says.

I would attempt to explain the reason why this part of the Constitution -- so widely invoked, but seldom understood -- is a contextual conundrum, but I think Kurt Eichenwald does a pretty good job in this Vanity Fair article. His argument to repeal the Second Amendment isn't designed to invoke the ire of the right, but rather to suggest a logical solution that preserves the rights of gun owners AND protects the US population better than the status quo.

Please read the article before you respond. It offers up some food for thought and provides a framework for rational discussion.

3. I read this from Balsary:

I have a request of the anti-gun folks. Can you guys explain what you think the problem is, and what you think should be done about it. As it stands, I'm not really sure what any of you think (aside from a few of the non-American peeps that think we should impliment something similar to what there country has done) other than us pro-gun guys are wrong. If you support changes to gun laws, then say so, and maybe include what those changes should be. If you support bans on guns, then say so, and maybe include what specific guns should be banned. If all you guys are going to do is lie in waiting to jump on anything you disagree with with some generalized blanket statement, or put words in our mouths then I can quit wasting my time with this thread.

And I'm going to assume it was an honest request, so here's my two cents:

- I don't support banning firearms.
- I do support requiring EVERY firearm to be registered to an owner who has a federal license to own it.
- I do support, that as part of that federal license, an owner would be required to obtain insurance from an insurance company. No insurance policy, no firearm license. No firearm license, no firearm. If you're caught with a weapon that doesn't have a license and an insurance policy, you catch a fine, you surrender the weapon, and you're done. Do it twice and you go to prison.
- I do support, with those two requirements in place, that an individual can own whatever firearm he wants with two exceptions: no automatics and no military grade equipment. However, for every firearm that you own, you must obtain additional insurance.
- No private sales of firearms. All firearms must be sold through a registered firearm dealer.
- The firearm owner is responsible for that firearm unless and until it is transferred to a new owner or destroyed by a competent authority.
- If you want to buy ammunition, you must show your license, your proof of insurance, and you may buy ammunition ONLY for that gun. No limits.

So, there you go.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

Three things:

1. Man, I like reading Fuzzy's thoughts. Rational, succinct. There are a few of you in here who should maybe take notice and learn from that.

I concur. Fuzzy has a rare commitment to rationality.

2. I offered up this article about a week ago that I thought would be useful for informing the 2nd Amendment discussion. Everybody is articulating what they think it means (and yes, some of you non-Americans actually grasp it better than Americans do), but nobody is addressing the important issues of what was really meant. Go read the article.

I read the article and intended to post in praise of it. Don't think I did.
It is certainly worth a read.
Eichenwald is always superb.

3. I read this from Balsary:

I have a request of the anti-gun folks. Can you guys explain what you think the problem is, and what you think should be done about it. As it stands, I'm not really sure what any of you think (aside from a few of the non-American peeps that think we should impliment something similar to what there country has done) other than us pro-gun guys are wrong. If you support changes to gun laws, then say so, and maybe include what those changes should be. If you support bans on guns, then say so, and maybe include what specific guns should be banned. If all you guys are going to do is lie in waiting to jump on anything you disagree with with some generalized blanket statement, or put words in our mouths then I can quit wasting my time with this thread.
​

And I'm going to assume it was an honest request, so here's my two cents:

- I don't support banning firearms.
- I do support requiring EVERY firearm to be registered to an owner who has a federal license to own it.
- I do support, that as part of that federal license, an owner would be required to obtain insurance from an insurance company. No insurance policy, no firearm license. No firearm license, no firearm. If you're caught with a weapon that doesn't have a license and an insurance policy, you catch a fine, you surrender the weapon, and you're done. Do it twice and you go to prison.
- I do support, with those two requirements in place, that an individual can own whatever firearm he wants with two exceptions: no automatics and no military grade equipment. However, for every firearm that you own, you must obtain additional insurance.
- No private sales of firearms. All firearms must be sold through a registered firearm dealer.
- The firearm owner is responsible for that firearm unless and until it is transferred to a new owner or destroyed by a competent authority.
- If you want to buy ammunition, you must show your license, your proof of insurance, and you may buy ammunition ONLY for that gun. No limits.

So, there you go.

I think that's an excellent set of recommendations.
Probably goes further than what is now politically possible, but it's something to aim for over time.

 

[JTalbain]

Just because the Second Amendment grants me the right to bear arms does not mean that I can point a gun at you nilly willy or that I can play vigilante with impunity.

I've never owned a gun, but I still object to the notion (presented here) that gun owners cannot be sane and law-abiding citizens.

Meanwhile, most Americans do want for guns to be harder to get, but are not convinced that gun availability caused the Newtown tragedy.


Majority in Poll Favors Stricter Laws for Gun Sales - WSJ.com

That was intended to be a bit of light sarcasm there, "Crimefighter" is actually Penn's kid's middle name. But besides that, I wasn't making a statement about what people should or shouldn't be able to do with guns. Merely that if they're primary purpose for getting them is to try to stop crime, then they are indeed attempting to usurp the police's role.

 

[554279]

Ahh, with the trillions that have lived, died and decayed before us, there is bound to be a wee bit of everything drifting around in the atmosphere on this small globe that we breathe into our lungs every day and night. Even a bit of animal. I remember as a kid playing cricket on an oval not far from a crematorium, we used to get the fallout from the chimney back then, before they were made to put the filters in.

For sure you and I are distant cousins.

If people could wrap their heads around this it would probably eliminate most of the ills including this one.

 

[ColoradoGuy]

. . . I think that's an excellent set of recommendations. Probably goes further than what is now politically possible, but it's something to aim for over time.

You're right, of course. There would be an element of the US who would argue:

- they already undergo background checks;
- they can't afford to carry insurance; and,
- that registration and insurance would be 'one step away' from confiscation.

For bonus points, there would be a few who might even argue that trying to protect the 2nd Amendment in this fashion would violate the 10th Amendment (the ever-popular Commerce Clause argument). In fact, there have been attempts in 27 or 28 states to nullify Federal firearm legislation in advance of any actual attempt to introduce such legislation. Every one of these attempts are a variant of 10th Amendment interpretations.

However, I favor this approach because we will NEVER be able to restrict firearms in the US. Nor should we. There are many who believe gun ownership is more important than any other Constitutional guarantee (ironically, including Freedom of Speech) and that's too bad, but that's what happens when you have a (largely) ignorant populace.

The approach I'm advocating would do at least three things:

1. Make the background check / vetting process that the NRA has gutted over the years into an insurance company headache. Give insurance companies the responsibility to determine if somebody is too crazy to own a gun (and trust me, the dollar incentive will ensure they take that seriously because they understand litigation).

2. Create a seamless record of responsibility from manufacture to destruction. Fool-proof? No, but it does address a lot of the glaring holes in the legal landscape that exist today. (Something like 40% of gun sales transactions in the US today evade oversight.)

3. The fees collected by registration, secondary sales, and credentialing will be sufficient to pay for this increased oversight. The taxes from secondary sales (private party sales) will boost local tax revenues.

There would be other potential benefits like reducing gun-related suicides, but I guess the reason I like this is because every gun-toting, flag-waving, NRA life member would be able to keep their guns legally. It's as close to a win-win as I can imagine and it goes a long ways toward ending this perennial debate over gun control.

 

[Klingsor]

In my experience, the police have always been around for the least drastic, and nowhere to be found for the most.

If I have time I'll call the police, but I'm sure as hell not going to sit and wait on them to arrive. If I feel my life or loved ones is being threatened, I'll use any means necessary including deadly force. By the time police arrive it may to late.

I admit the police will not always be there when you need them. I'll also admit there can be times when having a gun enables you to protect yourself and your family from danger. (Though things can also go very badly precisely because there's a gun in the house.)

More to the point, I guess my whole mindset is a bit more focused on the long term. Instead of seeing a more heavily armed population as the answer, I'm more inclined to ask what we can do to alleviate poverty, to provide viable alternatives to crime, to identify and treat the mentally or emotionally disturbed.

The more we can foster communities rather than war zones, the less of a pressing issue this whole gun debate will become.

 

[h0neymustard]

1-19 - YouTube

Lots of rallies in state capitols today.

This guy in the video was there in Tienenmen Square when students were massacred. He knows what real gun control is like.