Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

So maybe guns aren't the issue?

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.
Post a reply

Re: So maybe guns aren't the issue?

Unread postby davep » Mon 07 Jan 2013, 06:51:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')f course, not everyone can afford to put their guns in a Fort Knox safe at home either...


IMO, if you can't afford a safe you shouldn't buy guns. It's the most elementary security measure required.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: So maybe guns aren't the issue?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Mon 07 Jan 2013, 12:50:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrEnergyCzar', 'I')'d imagine most gun crimes aren't committed using a "rifle". That would be highly unlikely. It's an odd way of looking at it. Kind of like saying more people die from falling down then crashing a Toyota car. Improperly locked guns of all types is probably a huge issue. Of course, not everyone can afford to put their guns in a Fort Knox safe at home either...

MrEnergyCzar

Yes it is an odd way to look at it. That is the point. They are at this moment drafting legislation which will ban certain "rifles" based on there color, the shape of the hand holds or grips and how many rounds the magazine or clip holds. None of which effects anything down range when you consider that the vast majority of civilian gun fights end in the first shot. Hand guns are of course used in many more crimes because they are easy to conceal and human victims are seldom 100 to 300 yards away from the criminal that wants to rob them. But don't worry , as soon as they get the assault rifle ban passed they will start drafting the handgun ban and confiscation act.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: So maybe guns aren't the issue?

Unread postby vaseline2008 » Tue 08 Jan 2013, 13:16:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', 'B')ackground check - got a pretty darn good system right now. Background checks will never catch people who have no criminal record to be background

When purchasing guns from a private party background checks are not needed, just saying...that's why the gun shows get such a bad rap because a lot of used guns trade hands without any background checks. I live in California and I believe (after some google'ing) it is the only state where every gun transfer must be processed by a licensed dealer and the government must approve any gun buyer.
I'd rather be the killer than the victim.
The Money Badger don't care. Sucks to be poor!
User avatar
vaseline2008
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon 28 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: So maybe guns aren't the issue?

Unread postby Quinny » Tue 08 Jan 2013, 14:02:15

It's the handguns that need to be banned first. It's made a big difference here in the UK. They only have one purpose - killing people.

At least a rifle can be used for hunting.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrEnergyCzar', 'I')'d imagine most gun crimes aren't committed using a "rifle". That would be highly unlikely. It's an odd way of looking at it. Kind of like saying more people die from falling down then crashing a Toyota car. Improperly locked guns of all types is probably a huge issue. Of course, not everyone can afford to put their guns in a Fort Knox safe at home either...

MrEnergyCzar

Yes it is an odd way to look at it. That is the point. They are at this moment drafting legislation which will ban certain "rifles" based on there color, the shape of the hand holds or grips and how many rounds the magazine or clip holds. None of which effects anything down range when you consider that the vast majority of civilian gun fights end in the first shot. Hand guns are of course used in many more crimes because they are easy to conceal and human victims are seldom 100 to 300 yards away from the criminal that wants to rob them. But don't worry , as soon as they get the assault rifle ban passed they will start drafting the handgun ban and confiscation act.
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: So maybe guns aren't the issue?

Unread postby Pops » Tue 08 Jan 2013, 16:28:12

I didn't have any trouble buying a semi pistol in CA, no reason I should have, but I couldn't even get a response from the local chief as to a ccw, even though I had (at least what I consider) a reasonable need.

So I have a gun and no training on how to use it, store it, etc. Say someone breaks in and steals it (which I also had happen albeit years earlier). Now, an obvious bad guy has a gun that really CA didn't want me to have in the first place and I couldn't even get a hearing to carry legally.

This is the problem I see.
Hundreds of millions of guns "on the street".
Legitimately scared people who want to have one of their very own.
And a patchwork of laws that hobble the legitimate owner and punish a dope smoker more harshly than someone who steals a gun.

Either confiscate them all or make it so only legaly trained and licensed owners can own one and can carry it. Not halfway where they can be bought and stockpiled (until stolen) and never taken out of the safe without first consulting a lawyer.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: So maybe guns aren't the issue?

Unread postby Quinny » Tue 08 Jan 2013, 20:44:48

You should think yourself lucky that the gun was stolen. It would have more likely caused you death or serious injury if you'd tried to 'defend' yourself with it.
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: So maybe guns aren't the issue?

Unread postby MrEnergyCzar » Thu 10 Jan 2013, 01:07:57

I can't make the leap people are making. I know many people want to relate cleaning up background health gun checks and banning big magazines with taking away your right to own a normal handgun in your home but I just can't make that leap. Here in CT you take a class, range test, get a town temporary permit, then get the state license months later, similar to getting a driver's license. If you aren't a criminal and crazy you'll get the license. Sure it doesn't weed out every deranged person but one strict state will just push other's away to lenient states. Nothing will change unless it's national. Again, if they do make a national change, I can't make the leap to that meaning I can't own a normal handgun in my home. Maybe it's because I'm already in what people consider a stricter state.

MrEnergyCzar
User avatar
MrEnergyCzar
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue 30 Mar 2010, 21:52:04
Location: CT
Top

Re: So maybe guns aren't the issue?

Unread postby Thralen » Fri 11 Jan 2013, 00:08:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrEnergyCzar', ' ')I can't make the leap to that meaning I can't own a normal handgun in my home. Maybe it's because I'm already in what people consider a stricter state. MrEnergyCzar


The thought goes like this. As written some of the upcoming anti-gun laws require registration. Historically mandatory firearms registration has frequently lead to confiscation. The fear is that since the gun-ban proponents know that they cannot do it in one fell swoop they will try to chip away at it a tiny step at a time. Once they have a registration list, they know where to confiscate the weapons of any law-abiding folks that registered theirs if they later pass confiscation laws.

There are fears that any further restrictions on the second amendment now, will make it easier for them to continue to chip away at it later.

There are historical precedents for this occurring. You can look it up on Google if you like. Besides that, if they show that they have total disregard for portions of the constitution (the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment refer to individual ownership of firearms, regardless of what some people argue, that is what the SCOTUS ruled) such as the 2nd amendment, what is to keep them from continuing to chip away at the rights outlined in it or in other areas of the constitution.

Think of the possibility of the ban on "high capacity" magazines ( do they realize that 30 rounds is standard capacity for lots of weapons, high capacity would be the 100 round drums out there instead) and background checks as the chunk of packed snow you start a snowman with, its much easier to form the balls after you have a core to work with.

As an aside I haven't heard anyone gripe about the potential for mental health gun checks. The big gripe I hear about is for forcing gun checks on person to person sales, even if you are just Joe Schmoe on the street selling your old deer rifle because you got a better one.

The final thing that is really ticking people off, that I hear gripes about is the potential for Obama to attempt to (unconstitutionally) institute some of these additional measures through executive orders and not the normal process of law. Since that may be the only way some of the measures could possibly be passed, people are pissed that he would potentially violate the constitution in such a manner.

Anyhow, that's my view from what I've heard, hope it helps you understand and make that mental leap you said you were unable to make. Set yourself in the mindset where the government isn't your friend and wants to take things away from you and the leap should be much easier.

Thralen
Common sense is not all that common - Twain

Nowadays, common courtesy is even less common than common sense - Me
User avatar
Thralen
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon 12 Jan 2009, 04:00:00
Top

Re: So maybe guns aren't the issue?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 11 Jan 2013, 01:46:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') can't make the leap people are making. I know many people want to relate cleaning up background health gun checks and banning big magazines with taking away your right to own a normal handgun in your home but I just can't make that leap. Here in CT you take a class, range test, get a town temporary permit, then get the state license months later, similar to getting a driver's license. If you aren't a criminal and crazy you'll get the license. Sure it doesn't weed out every deranged person but one strict state will just push other's away to lenient states. Nothing will change unless it's national. Again, if they do make a national change, I can't make the leap to that meaning I can't own a normal handgun in my home. Maybe it's because I'm already in what people consider a stricter state.


as someone who lives in Canada (apparently according to one idiot on this site even though I hold dual Canadian citizenship because I was born in Scotland and immigrated I am a Scot, so bear with me) we have very strict laws with regards to handguns. I owned one for a time for the reason I was working in a part of the country where there were more grizzly bears than people and I know the restrictions. Restricted firearms acquisition certificate which required a visit to the local RCMP station (no they don't wear red and smoky the bear hats) where you were photographed and fingerprinted and at any time you had to move the fire arm you were required to get an additional permit. To my mind as far as handguns are concerned this is a good policy...if you need one you can get one but they know who has it and where it is at anytime. The problem in Canada, of course it the criminals can get pretty much any kind of weapon they want across the border and then sneak it back. As a consequence there is still a lot of handgun related shootings in Canada, but likely not as bad as the US.

I eventually turned in my handgun ....the reason being is that my view on things is that I was worried someone would break into my house and steal that weapon and use it for untoward purposes, something I would feel bad about for the rest of my life. I also realized that if I ever was in a home invasion situation (very unlikely but possible) the over under 12 gauge I own for purposes of upland bird hunting and skeet would probably make a more visible impact.

There are so many intricacies to this argument it seems hard to figure out what is the ultimate solution to my mind. On the one hand because of the violent nature in the US and the amount of home invasions etc it makes sense that people be able to have a detriment, on the other the more number of detriments out there the worse is the potential problem. As I said at the start of this thread I don't actually think it is a question about weapons out there but rather the state of mind of the average American or actually the small percentage who cause the problem. It is easy to say, yeah well thats a small percentage but in reality it is a bigger problem in the US than anywhere else (unless my stats are wrong) which suggests you need to understand why that is and try and fix it. Taking the stance the NRA does, will not help anyone nor will taking the stance that some of the anti-gun Democrats have taken...polarization on this issue won't result in a effective solution.

Unfortunately in a country where they can't agree on the fact they are broke and need to quit spending tells me that a reasonable solution is probably unlikely.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: So maybe guns aren't the issue?

Unread postby MrEnergyCzar » Fri 11 Jan 2013, 12:41:08

Again, I'm not concerned that a normal handgun will no longer be allowed to protect the home. CT has been so strict, it was like getting an advanced driver's license to get the permit. Many steps. I think that's good to wean out the felon's etc. Many think that's a bad process, I respectfully disagree with their opinion. Just like I disagree that fuel sipping plug-in cars are bad for the country. The for-profit gun industry has to be against anything to lower profits. Not much different than fossil fuel companies being against clean energy or fuel sipping cars. The gun industry has influenced people to be against anything that will go against their profits. It is legal in our country to financially influence our lawmaker's decisions. It is very similar to all the anti-plug-in car backlash people regularly give towards cars that oil dictator's and oil companies hate.... EV's etc... These backlashes are just the byproducts of the respective industries influences to protect their profits.

MrEnergyCzar
User avatar
MrEnergyCzar
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue 30 Mar 2010, 21:52:04
Location: CT
Top

Re: So maybe guns aren't the issue?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 11 Jan 2013, 22:43:03

One can deduce that the quality of your cognitive processes are equally distributed between the issues of electric hybrid vehicles and gun control. Therefor your positions on gun control are easily dismissed.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests



cron