Yet another shooting

D_Rosalind Mussell

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Posts
1,312
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
That is why we need stricter gun regulations. It's in no means an attempt to punish responsible gun owners nor an attempt to take everyone's gun away. I think most people do recognize that there are plenty of people who own firearms and use them properly. This is all about establishing additional provisions that could essentially prevent another tragedy in Arizona, or the recent school shooting in California.

Case in point, if the Assault Weapons Ban didn't expire in 2004 there would have been a good chance that the amount of casualties in Arizona would have been lower. Loughner shot 31 rounds before trying to reload. It was only when he was trying to put in another clip that people were able to stop him. The bill that expired under the previous administration would have limited the number of shots per clip to ten. Considering that most shooters, including most trained cops, let off several shots with only a few of them actually hitting their target and knowing the history of events on the day Loughner shot and killed 6 people, it's pretty safe to say that the number of dead or injured people wouldn't have been as much.

And here's another case in point. Let's look at how another country handles the issues of guns. In Canada, there are roughly 7 million guns in people's houses and about 11 million homes in the country. That's a rather high gun ownership ratio, yet they have less than a tenth of the same gun related violence. Their regulations are strict but pretty painless once you put it all together: Every gun has to be licensed and registered. Every gun owner has to undergo a safety course, followed by a month long waiting period where if you're currently or were married you would have to bring in some form of certified letter from your spouse endorsing your usage of it. Plus, they don't allow the selling of guns that can fire more than 10 rounds. It doesn't eliminate all of the gun violence, but it does prevent a lot of it from happening.

Why can't we do this here in America? If gun regulation is wrong, then I want to know a real reason that is based on fact and not blinded ideology as to why something as simple as this (or a version of it) shouldn't be implemented in our country in order to ensure the safety of innocent people?

I agree with you about having stricter gun laws. Unfortunately there are too many careless people out there that do not maintain a high level of responsibility when it comes to firearms so it ruins it for those who do. As far as I'm concerned, all weapons and gun owners should be registered. I know it's not required in every state (like my own) but it should be mandatory. I also believe that if a gun owner's negligence leads to a crime they should face tough consequences. Perhaps this might lead to people using a lock box instead of a nightstand as a handgun case.

My husband applied for his license to carry when we lived in Massachusetts, where there was a waiting period and in-depth background check. While I wasn't getting my license to carry, I did take the hunter and gun safety course with him. There was a test and everything, which had to be passed with flying colors. To this day we apply every safety measure you can think of to secure my husband's rifle. As far as I'm concerned, it's not difficult to secure a firearm properly so I have a hard time understanding why these safety measures aren't taken by every single gun owner.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
I'm with Countryguy here, where the hell did they get the gun? There are a lot of responsible gun owners out there that take every precautionary measure imaginable to ensure safety and and security. Those are the people you never hear about. You always hear about irresponsible shitheads that pick up a gun without really knowing anything except point and shoot. The unfortunate truth is there are too many careless gun owners that don't follow safety and security measures as well as they should.
I agree, and responsible gun owners should have no problem with responsible, sensible gun ownership regulations. In fact, when I was a kid, the NRA was all about responsible gun ownership, promoting gun safety and training. Over the years it has morphed into nothing but a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers and gun dealers. Along the way, it has changed its message and instilled in gun owners the ridiculous notion that ANY regulations on gun ownership are a violation of the Second Amendment and a slippery slope to the government taking away your guns.* It's resulted in a false polarization of gun advocates vs. gun control advocates. Republicans in the pocket of the NRA, people like Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle with their thinly veiled violent rhetoric, and Teabaggers with their signs threatening gun violence through "Second Amendment remedies", and the fella in New Hampshire who showed up at a presidential event with a gun strapped to his thigh - all serve to exaggerate that polarization. The NRA is largely responsible for this by fostering a defensive absolutist posture among gun owners and this false notion that anyone who advocates regulation is anti-gun and anti-gun ownership. The irony is that NRA doesn't ultimately give a shit about gun owners beyond fulfilling their function as consumers. The NRA is all about creating a bigger market for the gun industry. Period.

Where this particular gun came from is a distraction and beside the point. Guns have no place in school. As I said in my prior post, "This country is awash in firearms, and we also have the most permissive gun laws by far among advanced countries in the world. It's very easy to get your hands on a gun in the US, and state laws are a patchwork of inconsistencies." It's believed there are approximately 300 million civilian owned guns in the US, but no one knows for sure. One in four adults and one in three households have guns. The average number of guns per gun owner is 7. Approximately 4.5 million new guns are sold in the US annually by licensed dealers, approx. 2 million of them handguns. In addition, approx. 2 million used guns are sold annually, many of them at "gun shows" by "private sellers" (read "unlicensed dealers"). Unlike sales by licensed dealers, which are supposed to require a federal background check of the buyer (fwiw), sales by unlicensed dealers have no such legal requirement, and rarely is one performed - the so-called "gun show" loophole. All four of the guns used in the Columbine massacre were purchased at gun shows, and no background check was done. No one has any idea how many guns are bought illegally on the street, or through "straw purchases" or stolen, but it's surely in the 100,000's annually.

All of the information I've presented in this post, prior posts, and in other threads on the subject is cited and linked to independent verifiable sources. I would invite you to go back and read some of those links (search my name + keyword 'NRA') to get a perspective on what the real problems are with guns in America, and the part the NRA has played in bringing us to this Wild West mentality. The Brady Campaign website, though a bit of a challenge to navigate, is a good one for raw numbers and statistics. A few more numbers: Last year saw a 20% increase in the number of police officers shot and killed over the previous year. Before the Tuscon massacre, 125 people were killed and another 225 wounded in dozens of mass shootings in 2010. When is enough enough?

Not only should you not assume that someone like myself who advocates for sensible gun regulations is anti-gun, they may very well be gun owners themselves. Believe it or not, socially/politically progressive responsible gun owners do exist. :wink:


Footnote:

For those who forgot or don't know the history, what little Federal gun regulation we have is a result of the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the "Brady Bill", named after James Brady, who was shot, seriously wounded, and permanently disabled during an attempted assassination of President Reagan in 1981. He and his wife Sarah consequently became powerful gun control advocates. The Bill, first introduced in 1987, was fought hard by the NRA every step of the way. When it was ultimately passed and signed into law by President Clinton in November 1993, for the first time in history we had a system requiring background checks for the purchase of firearms from a federally licensed dealer.

* In January 1994, the National Rifle Association declared: "When Bill Clinton signed the Brady bill into law on November 30, a drop of blood dripped from the finger of the sovereign American citizen ... The executioner's tool is the Brady bill - now the Brady law ... [T]hey'll go house to house, kicking in the law-abiding gun owners' doors." [NRA, "Line Up and Shut Up. Face Forward. Stay in Line. Last Name First," American Rifleman 32, January 1994]
 
Last edited:

noirman

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Posts
736
Media
0
Likes
5,279
Points
523
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
More insult-slinging by conservatives and liberals while those of us in the political middle try to sort through the arguments. I do not allow a gun in my home, but the other males in my family are all hunters and have a variety of guns. If gun control, not abolishment of guns, were a reality, I would happily support it. There is no reason to allow UZIs or 9 mm's. If anyone tried to justify having these weapons for any legitimate reason, he would be hard pressed to convince me. Strict, enforcable controls regarding who is allowed to buy guns would allow hunters and target shooters to own guns but would not preclude gang members or criminals from accessing them. To believe otherwise is naive. What gun control would accomplish is prohibiting ready access of guns; that in itself would act as a deterrant and make it harder for unstable kids, for example, to go on a shooting rampage. I cannot see the harm in restricting access to any gun and denying access to weaponry that has place in our nation. Our culture is violent in nature and becoming more so by the decade. I really can't speculate on the reasons for that (I have heard all the prevailing theories), but since I do know that violent reactions seem to be the order of the day, it makes sense to me to make it harder for people prone to violence to have guns.

And, please, no attacks from the conservatives and liberals who disagree with me. You have your opinions and I have mine, and we all have the right to express them without expectation of being insulted for having them.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
To be fair the statistics of Canada are a bit off, there are only 1,831,327 gun licences issued in Canada, which is 5% of Canada's population, compared to an estimated 25% of the population of the U.S according to the NRA that has a gun of some sort, which is 85 million people with guns.

Just to be fair, Canada has a rate of Accidental firearm deaths of 1 per 1,000,000 people annually. So roughly 33 people (Children and Adults included) die a year in Canada due to accidental use of firearms. Compared to the states which alone over 200 children die every year due to accidental fire arm misuse. Adding the adults it's quite staggering the amount of people who die due to clear misuse of a firearm.

Thanks for the additional clarity on how gun control policy works in Canada. :wink:
 

bisexualjock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Posts
94
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Those of you who criticize the lack of federal/state oversight have more than likely never gone through the process of acquiring a firearm. It's easy for you to claim that it isn't a stringent enough process, when in fact, you've never done it.

Imagine DMV x 10. That is what it's like getting a gun in most states (speaking for NY here).
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Those of you who criticize the lack of federal/state oversight have more than likely never gone through the process of acquiring a firearm. It's easy for you to claim that it isn't a stringent enough process, when in fact, you've never done it.

Imagine DMV x 10. That is what it's like getting a gun in most states (speaking for NY here).

If this is the gripe, then perhaps the process to legally obtain one could also be looked at in regards to gun control reform? However, given how many deaths are associated with guns in this country the fact that some people hate waiting to get one doesn't really affect my decision. One doesn't have to go through the process without realizing that there's still a problem.
 

rawbone8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Posts
2,827
Media
1
Likes
294
Points
303
Location
Ontario (Canada)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Canadian Firearms stats must be viewed differently from USA stats for the following reasons:

Most registered firearms in Canada are long barrel (rifles, shotguns etc.). Handguns are typically licensed ONLY for sports like target shooting and not generally for self protection. It's difficult to get a licensed handgun for the express purpose of self defence. We don't have concealed carry permits here, as far as I know.

Most or all handgun violence in Canada is via use of illegal handguns. Police handguns are the exception.

The distinction is important if you want to compare the two nations.
 

B_talltpaguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,331
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Just another schoolday in the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave.

Thank you NRA, Republican Party, Teabaggers, and all other Second Amendment Absolutists.
Yeah...they're the reason the gun went off...despite none of them being there.
Well, except for the shooter himself of course.
 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
174
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
I have this socially challenged older brother who is simply queer for guns. It's the thing that caught his attention early and has become a major aspect of his life. And he's lost a great deal of his hearing from spending time at firing ranges in his youth and not wearing ear protection.

He is licensed to carry a hand gun in Nevada, Ewetaw, Idaho, Colorado, and until recently, Arizona. Whenever I am compelled to spend time with him and we drive to an attorney's office or a bank or even lunch, I insist he immediately allow me out of the vehicle -- regardless if I'm driving or he is -- and then I wait as he fumbles around taking his gun out of his holster and locking it up in his car or the center console of my truck or Jeep. It doesn't matter if he has the safety on or off. Somehow safety locks can slip to on when they are handled. I'm just trying to reduce my risk of being accidentally shot. If he gets shot, I won't be too concerned. He's already shot me on purpose once before, although that was about 40 years ago.

One day he forgot to remove his fire arm and walked into the restaurant/bar of a local casino. His gun set off the alarms when he walked from the restaurant to the casino restrooms and he was arrested, taken to jail, and charged for violating Nevada's concealed weapons laws. I make a point of not answering phone calls when I'm in the USA. I didn't answer his phone calls to me. He spent approximately 7 days in the Elko County Jail until his daughters could retrieve him. And he was fined almost $1,000 because he had taken the required State of Nevada fire arms courses, concealed weapons course, and as the judge reminded him, "There's no excuse for your lack of judgement."

I've timed him. It takes him approximately 10+ minutes to disarm himself, lock away his gun, and get out of a vehicle. Of course, it's his right to carry a gun if he wants to. Just as long as he's taking his meds.

But because of being somewhat of a social misfit he tends to anger quickly. Therefore, he is pretty much never in my life. If he intends to visit me at my ranch when I'm in the USA, he does not have a key to the three locked gates necessary to open and close to get to the main house. It's just better we meet in town where he's already arrived and locked up whatever pistol he is carrying that day.

Accidents happen and gun accidents happen to people who have guns.
 

bisexualjock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Posts
94
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
All of you advocating for more restrictive gun control are hypocrites. You want government off your back for being gay/bi, but you expect them to over-exert themselves in this area.

Shameful.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
I'm probably of mixed opinions when it comes to the issue of gun control.

I agree with most that Uzi's and other such weapons which obviously have nothing to do with "sport" should not be available, to anyone. I believe that gun registration and regulation laws also need reworking. Show up at Walmart at the crack of dawn for rifle or shotgun shells?? Yeah, maybe you're going hunting. Show up for 9mm ammunition?? I dunno, seems peculiar to me, but hey...

I believe responsible citizens have the right to bear (traditional) arms, even if just for protection. Waiting periods and registration procedures shouldn't be a problem. We have to register for a driver's license, why not weapons? I would think people would want that kind of enforcement.

But here's the problem.

Most of the ones who are "out there", sticking guns in peoples' faces, shooting and killing and engaging in criminal activities couldn't give a FLYING about gun control laws, because they'd never follow them in the first place. They'd continue to get their weaponry the same way they have been - off the streets and unregistered, and they'd be getting the shit that we couldn't buy.

That's because gun control legislation needs to start at the top: with the suppliers and manufacturers of weaponry.
 

helgaleena

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Posts
5,475
Media
7
Likes
43
Points
193
Location
Wisconsin USA
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Female
All of you advocating for more restrictive gun control are hypocrites. You want government off your back for being gay/bi, but you expect them to over-exert themselves in this area.

Shameful.

This is a generalization of a very scatter-shot sort indeed. :jester: Missed me.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
All of you advocating for more restrictive gun control are hypocrites. You want government off your back for being gay/bi, but you expect them to over-exert themselves in this area.

Shameful.

Now I know why stock prices for Reynold's Wrap went up today.
All proposals that have been presented to promote gun control legislation do not impede on a person's civil rights, however, policies that discriminate against people based on their sexual preference do. The only hypocrisy you see is the one you dreamed up in your head.
 

MercyfulFate

Experimental Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Posts
1,177
Media
23
Likes
18
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
More and more shootings will occur as Americans go insane from over medication, lies from TV and from politicians, lost jobs, rising prices on everything, etc. etc.

It's barely begun, it's bound to get much, much worse.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Those of you who criticize the lack of federal/state oversight have more than likely never gone through the process of acquiring a firearm. It's easy for you to claim that it isn't a stringent enough process, when in fact, you've never done it.

Imagine DMV x 10. That is what it's like getting a gun in most states (speaking for NY here).
Are you speaking for the process in NY, or are you speaking for what happens in "most states"? How do you know what happens in "most states"? How many states have you purchased firearms in?

While it's true that the state laws are a crazy patchwork as I noted in prior posts, we're talking about Federal statute here. The process of doing an NCIS (instant background check) is very simple, and shouldn't take more than about 10 -15 minutes tops. If there is a "hit" on your file requiring further investigation, it could take a few days, but usually resolved within 24 hours if you're clean. If you're in a hurry to get a gun, it's a sight better than the 5 day waiting period required in the original Brady bill. I have no idea what NY state gun transfer requirements are or how efficient the dealer was where you purchased your gun. If you have a complaint about the process though, you should put the blame where it rightly belongs, not on the Federal requirement.

By contrast, I can speak to my experience at the California DMV. I never got out of there in less than two hours of standing in line, waiting to be called, being shifted from station to station, waiting, waiting, waiting -- all for the most mundane things like renewing a license or registration, or transferring title. Buying a gun is a lot less complicated and time consuming than that, at least where the NCIS is concerned.

Even with the national database, the checks are only as good as the info put into the system. Lots of people who have no business purchasing firearms are approved anyway. So . . . . do you think we should just do away with criminal background checks entirely because you were personally 'inconvenienced'?

All of you advocating for more restrictive gun control are hypocrites. You want government off your back for being gay/bi, but you expect them to over-exert themselves in this area.

Shameful.
Here ya go. :rolleyes:


So what's your next stupid deflective argument against sensible gun regulations going to be?
 
Last edited:

bisexualjock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Posts
94
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
The Second Amendment does not require anyone to explain "why" they want a gun. Do you have to explain "why" you want to vote?

In addition, the 10th Amendment (which I'm sure you know), clearly states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This is why states are allowed to impose their own waiting periods, checks, etc. on gun ownership.

None of my arguments are deflective, or "stupid". This is the United States, and whether you agree or disagree with the Bill of Rights, it exists. Even if you believe it wasn't "complete" at its signing (i.e. Slavery, Women's suffrage, etc...), you cannot take the Rights it affirms away.

@VinylBoy - having been a former resident of the Socialist Republic of Manhattan, your queer hypocrisy just reminds me of why I got out. You are only interested in yourself, your gay brethren, and your insular world. You have no idea of the concerns or rights of others around you. Enjoy living in your fantasy.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
The Second Amendment does not require anyone to explain "why" they want a gun. Do you have to explain "why" you want to vote?
Do you also refuse to answer when your auto insurance company asks whether you use your car for business or for pleasure? Seriously, what's the big deal? You buy a gun for sport, for hunting, for personal protection, for assassinating politicians, whatever. Check a box, lie if you must, move on with your purchase and your life. :rolleyes:

In addition, the 10th Amendment (which I'm sure you know), clearly states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This is why states are allowed to impose their own waiting periods, checks, etc. on gun ownership.
Yes they are. If you don't like the requirements or restrictions in NY, complain to your state representative.

None of my arguments are deflective, or "stupid".
That's debatable.

This is the United States, and whether you agree or disagree with the Bill of Rights, it exists. Even if you believe it wasn't "complete" at its signing (i.e. Slavery, Women's suffrage, etc...), you cannot take the Rights it affirms away.
None of those rights are absolute. Freedom of Speech does not give you the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre or "Fuck Jesus!" in a private worship service, and the Right to Bear Arms does not entitle you to own a machine gun, a shoulder fired missile, or a Bradley tank. It's even debatable whether the founders intended this right to apply to individuals or to state militias. The full text:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

One also needs to recognize the context of history and society when this right was reserved -- namely firearms were an indispensable tool for many, particularly those living on the frontier or in remote areas, for shooting game, personal protection, killing livestock, etc. Not to mention, when people joined up into militias, it was commonly expected they brought their own guns. You sound like a Second Amendment absolutist. If that's your position, there is no way to have a rational discussion with you.

Oh, and thank you for reminding me what country I live in. :rolleyes:

You avoided my questions. I'm vaguely interested in your response to the last one, if you are so inclined.

Are you speaking for the process in NY, or are you speaking for what happens in "most states"? How do you know what happens in "most states"? How many states have you purchased firearms in?
......................................

So . . . . do you think we should just do away with criminal background checks entirely because you were personally 'inconvenienced'?
 
Last edited:

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The Second Amendment does not require anyone to explain "why" they want a gun. Do you have to explain "why" you want to vote?

That's not a valid reason or excuse. There are still many things that are granted or required of citizens despite what the Constitution says. And just because we have a "right" to do something doesn't mean it's automatically granted to you without any responsibilities. So even if the Second Amendment says you have a right to bear arms, the LAWS which helps to enforce that right should be created to make sure this is done responsibly.

In addition, the 10th Amendment (which I'm sure you know), clearly states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This is why states are allowed to impose their own waiting periods, checks, etc. on gun ownership.

So what? Despite your sourcing of the Second and Tenth Amendment, there's still a major problem in this country in regards to gun ownership and violence. It's so glaring that even former vice president Dick Cheney agrees with his usual political opposition that some form of regulation is needed now. Our government has the right to amend or write further laws to ensure that all of the rights to the Constitution are enforced. That includes the rights for people who decide not to own a gun and their right to live without having to worry too much about a stray bullet coming from someone else's gun and hitting them.

None of my arguments are deflective, or "stupid". This is the United States, and whether you agree or disagree with the Bill of Rights, it exists. Even if you believe it wasn't "complete" at its signing (i.e. Slavery, Women's suffrage, etc...), you cannot take the Rights it affirms away.

It's been stated many of times before, and it'll be stated again. Nobody is taking anyone's rights to own a gun away. This is the most disingenuous argument about gun control and needs to stop.

@VinylBoy - having been a former resident of the Socialist Republic of Manhattan, your queer hypocrisy just reminds me of why I got out. You are only interested in yourself, your gay brethren, and your insular world. You have no idea of the concerns or rights of others around you. Enjoy living in your fantasy.

Oh fuck off and stay on topic. The fact that I'm gay has nothing to do with this. That is, unless you want to think that somehow it's only gay people that choose not to own a gun. And you'd learn very quickly by hanging around here this is not the case. Now, do you want to continue talking the real issues or do you want to foolishly imply that sucking dick impedes a person's ability to view political issues thoroughly? :rolleyes: