Gun Control

[Colonel Hogan]

No you have no right to complain, you did harm them. You created and supported the environment that made it possible. Defending the laws and Constitution when they are hurting people doesn't make you the good guy and the rest of your points are just fluff.

There are no people without access to guns. Well very few at any rate what you mean is people kill without guns and I didn't deny that. Though treally don't poison each other as I showed you earlier. That people are capable of doing it other ways doesn't change the the facts.

We can look around the planet and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you took away the guns most of the people who use them to kill simply wouldn't kill. You're the one denying facts here.

The people problem is partially that they have access to guns. And fixing people problems is very complicated even if it is possible.

I'm still curious why you can't just come out and say that the number of people who are killed annually with guns is an acceptable price to pay for your freedom. Is it really so hard?

I'll say it.

The number of people who are killed annually with guns is an acceptable price to pay for my freedom. Actually, I don't feel that to be true, but it must be true because I know I DON'T BELIEVE the converse statement: Losing my Second Amendment right to bear arms WITHOUT a lawfully enacted amendment of repeal is an acceptable price to pay BECAUSE of the tragic number of innocent people killed by firearms.

I guess I just feel stronger about the inappropriateness of the second statement as compared with the discomfort of the first. And if you force me to choose, I guess I'll stick with the first.

What I would like to know is by what calculus you decided that automobile related deaths (non-Constitutionally protected) caused by truly inadvertent accidents AND the grossest degree of negligence equating to criminal manslaughter (drunk driving and excessively high speeds 30, 40 or more over the limit) are more defensible than deaths from guns (the LAWFUL ownership and use of which for whatever reasons clearly enjoys Constitutional protection)?

Is it simply because you have decided that automobiles, their own human carnage notwithstanding, have a greater utilitarian purpose than guns? If so, will you say it?

It's a simple statement: The number of people killed annually by automobiles is an acceptable price to pay for my freedom and convenience to drive.

And in case you are wondering, yes, I would make that same statement myself as well.

Unlike you and others, I am NOT willing to condemn the ownership of one admittedly lethal inanimate object protected by law while defending the ownership of another admittedly lethal semi-animate object NOT expressly protected by law merely on the basis of subjective utility. That seems a particularly weak argument to me.

It seems especially weak to me considering that the safe and responsible operation of each inanimate object has been repeatedly proscribed (and routinely violated) under the law with nearly EQUAL MEASURE in practically every conceivable American jurisdiction.

Those efforts at safe and responsible ownership should NEVER cease and, as best I can tell, should ALWAYS preclude total prohibition.

 

[Sean Renaud]

That's fine. I don't disagree. I'm simply willing to admit it and frame it as such. I'd point out that however that the 2nd Amendment has to varying degrees been ignored where and when it suits the powers that be and for the most part people don't complain.

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.

A few things have to be addressed here. First and possibly most importantly the Constitution doesn't grant rights, those are inherent with being alive. Whether you believe they were handed down from deity or agreed upon by society the Constitution presumes that these (and many more that are never listed explicitly) are assumed to exist independent of the Constitution. What the Constitution does is prevent the government from taking these rights away. Second, I'm failing to see the part that says "if your crazy or a criminal you don't have said rights." This is important because lets be fair, if you're running a government and you intend to oppress some folk and it's legal if they are "deemed unfit" or are convicted criminals you're going to broaden the scope of those things. Worse the people who are going to rebel are by definition criminals.

Most of us seem to be in agreement that those people should have limited if any access to firearms. Which by the by the Constitution doesn't protect.

I have no interest in forcing anybody to choose. As it stands I'm not overly concerned here. I own guns, I enjoying going to shoot. I'm not worried at all about my government rounding me up nor do I really believe that me and my weapons would do more than put me at the front of the line to be executed if the government ever did make that decision.

I made no such claim that the deaths caused by automobile deaths are more defensible than those caused by guns. Jerk off claimed that the percentage of gun owners/operators who cause deaths are lower than the percentage of automobile owner/operators who do the same. He then offered up Missouri as proof. that was post #100. There were in 2010, 321 gun murders and 819 fatalities (in 776 crashes) in the same year. By his logic that makes cars more deadly than guns. However, and I admit that part of this is an assumption. Who knows for sure how many people who come through my office are carrying concealed weapons. It could be all of them for all I know. That aside I operate my car at least twice a day five days as week. Going to work and fro work. I feel safe assuming this is fairly average (if a bit low) for most Americans. Especially if you factor in riding in a car or bus instead of driving. On the flip side people who's professions do not involve firearms directly are unlikely to operate or depending on how strictly you choose define it (my guns are in my walk in closet so every day when I grab my shirt and pants I'm in the room with a gun. if we're being technical) otherwise I can easily go weeks or months without (knowingly) being in a room with a firearm. That is of course assuming the mail lady isn't packing.

Ultimately that boils down to ownership percentage and frequency of use and exposure. If my car had a 1/1000 chance of spontaneously blowing up and killing me I'd be lucky to make it through a year and almost certainly wouldn't make it through two years. If my gun had a 1/10 chance of doing the same I'd probably make it two or three years since I shoot on average once every three months.

In short, cars kill more people annually per year and by a wide margin. Firearms being used however are more likely in any given circumstance than a car. Though by Jerk and a lot of Conservative's argument I'm not really clear on why my car isn't constitutionally protected. I mean common sense says no, but if anything can be used as a weapon which is the crux of the "if you take away guns they'll use knives, if you take away knives they'll build fertilizer bombs, if you take a fertilizer they'll use rocks. Well since my car can be used as a weapon why isn't it a weapon?

I will state that I do think that automobiles (and similar vehicles) have a MUCH greater utilitarian purpose than guns. If my guns were confiscated tomorrow I'd be pissed, I wouldn't be able to go out and shoot for fun and hypothetically I might not be able to defend myself from someone breaking into my place. (I'm not really sold that unless I was dealing with a very polite burglar that the amount of time it took me to open my safe and load my weapon would be less than the amount of time it took him to shoot me but whatever.) IF my car gets towed I'm not going to work. If trucks were taken off the road I don't eat. I don't live on a farm, I shop at Vons. That however really wasn't the point i was making as stated above.

I agree the number of people killed annually by cars is a fair price. I reject that the two are a fair comparison however. If for the sake of argument the government mandated breathalyzers to start your vehicle I'm less inclined to say that my right to drive after mouth wash or cold medicine is worth the lives that would (assuming it worked as advertised for the sake of argument) save by preventing drunk drivers.

At the moment I'm not particularly concerned with what is or isn't protected by law. Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of the law. I submit to the law whether or not I agree with it. And in most cases I don't do things that are wrong regardless of if they are legal or not. That of course isn't iron clad or anything.

Finally I am not supporting a ban on firearms. If I were I would remove nearly all restrictions on rifles and shotguns, put in place strong regulations and/or bans on handguns and other easily concealed weapons and call it a day.

Ultimately I find a lot of the things people are perfectly willing to submit to are often at odds with their claims. As I mentioned above if something like mental health or criminal activity is a good reason to prevent someone from owning a weapon wouldn't an oppressive government find a goddamn excuse to make things illegal and or broaden both the scope and enforcement of mental issues? I know that's what I would do. (For the record I think that if your goal is public safety that you're shooting yourself in the foot with that kind of pattern. Ideally people who are suffering from mental conditions would actively seek help. I'm not saying I want crazy people owning guns, I'm saying that I want crazy people seeking help and I think if you start telling the people who think that someone is after them that if you seek help you can't own a gun to protect yourself they are not going to seek help.) I see some people who claim they are okay with registration. Well if you're concerned that Obama is about to round up all the gun owners and put you in FEMA camps I would think that a handy dandy list of who owns guns would be the exact sort of thing you would oppose for obvious fucking reasons.

 

[I_jerk_off_alot]

Sean, first call me Jerk. It's just easier.

Second, my main point has always been that there is inherent risk in anything. The Peanut butter analogy was in reference to Salmonella. If you make it wrong, like that one plant did last year, you end up with tainted peanut butter and sick people. Everything has a risk, life is essentially risk, that is especially true in a free society like ours.

That is why I do not call it an acceptable price, I can't. It's not, it simply is the way things are. Gun, Knives, Cars, Hammers are all tools. They have certain mutable and immutable uses. Some are more useful than others in more situations. This is where I agree with you on usefulness.


I do support checks and balances on use and ownership. Look at refrigerants. You have to be licensed to buy, sell and use them. Use or dispose of them wrong and POOF! There goes your right to pursue happiness earning a living working on AC and possibly go to jail.

Same with guns, you misuse them, commit a crime with one or are simply unfit to reasonably control for whatever reason and you have that right taken away.

It's the same thing. I am a big believer in the idea that some rights have to be earned, occasionally that extends even to the inalienable ones.

By the way, unless I knew that someone was in my house to actively try to kill me. If there was a intruder in my house, I wouldn't pull a gun on them. I'd pull a knife. Why? I also believe very strongly in the 21 foot rule. Inside 21 feet if you haven't got that gun in your hand, I can get to you and slice you up before you can pull, draw and accurately fire on me. Plus, more people are afraid of knives than guns. 99% of people have never been shot. They see people shot in the movies and they seem fine. Almost everyone has been cut. That shit hurts. They fear that. A knife can be scarier, especially if I've already cut you once.

One last thing. Obama is not out to take our guns away. The government isn't either. The real gun nuts think the government is going to take us over. Take over what? They're already in charge.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

That's fine. I don't disagree. I'm simply willing to admit it and frame it as such. I'd point out that however that the 2nd Amendment has to varying degrees been ignored where and when it suits the powers that be and for the most part people don't complain.

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.

A few things have to be addressed here. First and possibly most importantly the Constitution doesn't grant rights, those are inherent with being alive. Whether you believe they were handed down from deity or agreed upon by society the Constitution presumes that these (and many more that are never listed explicitly) are assumed to exist independent of the Constitution. What the Constitution does is prevent the government from taking these rights away. Second, I'm failing to see the part that says "if your crazy or a criminal you don't have said rights." This is important because lets be fair, if you're running a government and you intend to oppress some folk and it's legal if they are "deemed unfit" or are convicted criminals you're going to broaden the scope of those things. Worse the people who are going to rebel are by definition criminals.

Most of us seem to be in agreement that those people should have limited if any access to firearms. Which by the by the Constitution doesn't protect.

I have no interest in forcing anybody to choose. As it stands I'm not overly concerned here. I own guns, I enjoying going to shoot. I'm not worried at all about my government rounding me up nor do I really believe that me and my weapons would do more than put me at the front of the line to be executed if the government ever did make that decision.

I made no such claim that the deaths caused by automobile deaths are more defensible than those caused by guns. Jerk off claimed that the percentage of gun owners/operators who cause deaths are lower than the percentage of automobile owner/operators who do the same. He then offered up Missouri as proof. that was post #100. There were in 2010, 321 gun murders and 819 fatalities (in 776 crashes) in the same year. By his logic that makes cars more deadly than guns. However, and I admit that part of this is an assumption. Who knows for sure how many people who come through my office are carrying concealed weapons. It could be all of them for all I know. That aside I operate my car at least twice a day five days as week. Going to work and fro work. I feel safe assuming this is fairly average (if a bit low) for most Americans. Especially if you factor in riding in a car or bus instead of driving. On the flip side people who's professions do not involve firearms directly are unlikely to operate or depending on how strictly you choose define it (my guns are in my walk in closet so every day when I grab my shirt and pants I'm in the room with a gun. if we're being technical) otherwise I can easily go weeks or months without (knowingly) being in a room with a firearm. That is of course assuming the mail lady isn't packing.

Ultimately that boils down to ownership percentage and frequency of use and exposure. If my car had a 1/1000 chance of spontaneously blowing up and killing me I'd be lucky to make it through a year and almost certainly wouldn't make it through two years. If my gun had a 1/10 chance of doing the same I'd probably make it two or three years since I shoot on average once every three months.

In short, cars kill more people annually per year and by a wide margin. Firearms being used however are more likely in any given circumstance than a car. Though by Jerk and a lot of Conservative's argument I'm not really clear on why my car isn't constitutionally protected. I mean common sense says no, but if anything can be used as a weapon which is the crux of the "if you take away guns they'll use knives, if you take away knives they'll build fertilizer bombs, if you take a fertilizer they'll use rocks. Well since my car can be used as a weapon why isn't it a weapon?

I will state that I do think that automobiles (and similar vehicles) have a MUCH greater utilitarian purpose than guns. If my guns were confiscated tomorrow I'd be pissed, I wouldn't be able to go out and shoot for fun and hypothetically I might not be able to defend myself from someone breaking into my place. (I'm not really sold that unless I was dealing with a very polite burglar that the amount of time it took me to open my safe and load my weapon would be less than the amount of time it took him to shoot me but whatever.) IF my car gets towed I'm not going to work. If trucks were taken off the road I don't eat. I don't live on a farm, I shop at Vons. That however really wasn't the point i was making as stated above.

I agree the number of people killed annually by cars is a fair price. I reject that the two are a fair comparison however. If for the sake of argument the government mandated breathalyzers to start your vehicle I'm less inclined to say that my right to drive after mouth wash or cold medicine is worth the lives that would (assuming it worked as advertised for the sake of argument) save by preventing drunk drivers.

At the moment I'm not particularly concerned with what is or isn't protected by law. Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of the law. I submit to the law whether or not I agree with it. And in most cases I don't do things that are wrong regardless of if they are legal or not. That of course isn't iron clad or anything.

Finally I am not supporting a ban on firearms. If I were I would remove nearly all restrictions on rifles and shotguns, put in place strong regulations and/or bans on handguns and other easily concealed weapons and call it a day.

Ultimately I find a lot of the things people are perfectly willing to submit to are often at odds with their claims. As I mentioned above if something like mental health or criminal activity is a good reason to prevent someone from owning a weapon wouldn't an oppressive government find a goddamn excuse to make things illegal and or broaden both the scope and enforcement of mental issues? I know that's what I would do. (For the record I think that if your goal is public safety that you're shooting yourself in the foot with that kind of pattern. Ideally people who are suffering from mental conditions would actively seek help. I'm not saying I want crazy people owning guns, I'm saying that I want crazy people seeking help and I think if you start telling the people who think that someone is after them that if you seek help you can't own a gun to protect yourself they are not going to seek help.) I see some people who claim they are okay with registration. Well if you're concerned that Obama is about to round up all the gun owners and put you in FEMA camps I would think that a handy dandy list of who owns guns would be the exact sort of thing you would oppose for obvious fucking reasons.

Given all that, then, particularly with respect to your own ownership of guns, I'm not certain where you stand on the gun "control" debate -- your definition of the problem and theoretical solution.

Just curious.

 

[Que]

Pointing out that when a gun is used it is more likely to result in a death then when a car is used is more likely to result in a death is sort of like pointing out that hammers tend to drive nails.

A much more relevant measure would be how often are guns misused as opposed to cars in misused. Not every time when a car or gun is misused does a death occur but a car is misused far more often than guns are.

Swimming pools result in far more negligent accidents than guns..

However many hundred million guns you believe are in the United States there is no way to eliminate them so talking about any measure to reduce their numbers is pointless. Since anyone who could or would missuse a gun already has easy access to one' allowing responsible people to arm themselves if they wish improves the safety and security of society.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Given all that, then, particularly with respect to your own ownership of guns, I'm not certain where you stand on the gun "control" debate -- your definition of the problem and theoretical solution.

Just curious.

I'm for reasonable gun control and I think in most cases we do have reasonable or close to it gun control. I think much of the arguing from both sides either misses the point entirely or simply isn't supported by the facts. Like the above mentioned cars being more dangerous than guns. Dogs kill more people per year than mountain lions, that doesn't make mountain lions suitable pets or dogs incredibly dangerous.

I personally would have no problem with registration. I don't hold the illusion that I'm going to fight off the government with my friends and weapons not for any real length of time. (And that's ignoring that they could do something simple like cut the water and just wait for us to come out) I don't see any particular reason why the Constitution would forbid it either.

Given the facts on gun crime I would probably make owning a handgun more difficult and fewer restrictions on most other weapons. Nobody is going to haul a .50 cal around to rob a liquor store.

Finally as a matter of sheer practicality I would make gun safety a mandatory part of K-12 education. I'd leave the details up to professionals but I don't think there is any reason at all why you could not or should not teach children the basics. Things like don't point the weapon at anything you don't intend to shoot, don't remove the safety until you are ready to shoot (and show them what the safety is), keep your finger off the trigger. This is how to unload the weapon, this is how make sure it's cleared. This is the proper way to hand a weapon to someone else. So on and so forth. Personally I'd take them shooting eventually but that might be a bridge too far.

Pointing out that when a gun is used it is more likely to result in a death then when a car is used is more likely to result in a death is sort of like pointing out that hammers tend to drive nails.

A much more relevant measure would be how often are guns misused as opposed to cars in misused. Not every time when a car or gun is misused does a death occur but a car is misused far more often than guns are.

Swimming pools result in far more negligent accidents than guns..

However many hundred million guns you believe are in the United States there is no way to eliminate them so talking about any measure to reduce their numbers is pointless. Since anyone who could or would missuse a gun already has easy access to one' allowing responsible people to arm themselves if they wish improves the safety and security of society.

First you've got a few things wrong. If a car is used properly nobody dies, pretty much period. If a car is misused someone may die. That's undeniable. If a gun is used properly there is a decent chance someone dies. If it's misused again someone may die.

I use my car a LOT more than I use my guns. Which as I mention above with my dogs vs mountain lions deal is kind of important.

I see you're again using the term negligent accidents when arguing pools vs guns. According to the CDC there were an average of 3533 drownings in the US between 2005-2009. That's the total number mind you, not just pools but all accidental drownings. By contrast intentional gun murders hover around 9800. There are fewer than twenty intentional drownings per year in that period. I didn't look up or at the moment really care how many people are killed accidentally by guns. It is a problem largely with education which I addressed above. Sure sometimes shit just happens, but I heavily suspect that a lot of those cases you hear about six year olds shooting their parents are "Oh my look at this toy. BANG DADDY I. . .Daddy why won't you get up?" Either way I'm not looking that up right now. So no swimming pools in particular and drowning in general does not claim the same number of lives as fire arms.

Unless we are sticking to strictly to unintentional but then that's not really fair either, very few people choose drowning as their weapon of choice.

The estimates for guns in the US is generally accepted at around 300 million. I've always been highly suspect of that number personally. I know when my grandfather died a few years back I got his guns. And by guns I mean I mean I got some clubs that were roughly gun shaped. He clearly hadn't taken care of them as he got older and while they may have been salvagable had I put in the work I sure as fuck didn't care enough to do so. And then there are however many have slipped into the country illegally.

Anyway as I mentioned previously there is no reason to believe we cannot reduce the numbers and do so fairly responsibly. We will not for a number of reasons but will not and cannot are different things. More to the point you seem to be using 'misuse' to mean whatever you want. See if someone dies with a car it's almost certainly an accident. If I murder you with a gun I did not 'misuse' the gun. I used a weapon for it's intended purpose. Putting bodies in the ground. As you put it a hammer usually drives nails. That's it's purpose. I can use one as a weapon, as a prybar, as a paperweight or a doorstop. These are all improper uses no matter how effective they may be. Likewise I can use a gun to drive home a nail, or as a paper weight, or a doorstop. These are improper uses. Shooting someone is not. I can't use a pool for much other than a pool or possibly storage, but if someone drowns that was an accident (most likely) not a proper use or strictly speaking a misuse.

 

[DaddyFrank]

I have fired a Colt 1911, and like it a lot. But from what I've seen the maintenence is a bit more than I'm interested in dealing with.

Don't think I'll be concealing it at all, so a full-size gun is alright; maybe even prefer more heft to absorb recoil.

Also, definitely prefer all-metal to polymer. Although sometimes I will still want to shoot a Glock 19.

Do really enjoy the SIG P226 (I think) but those are pricey!

I shoot .45 pistols in competition and always shoot a 1911 style Kimber Gold Match II. Once you get used to the maintenance they are really very simple to take apart and clean, but you do need a special tool to take them down. If you're looking for a full size .45 I suggest a Ruger P345. they are half polymer and half steel. The weight is good and they are very accurate. I took mine out shooting three days ago and even my girlfriend's son (13 years old) was able to handle it with no problem. They are a snap to take down for cleaning as well.

 

[eyer]

I took mine out shooting three days ago and even my girlfriend's son (13 years old) was able to handle it with no problem.