Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1506
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 07 Nov 2017, 3:38 pm

...scaring the nation with their guns and amunition."

I can live with Americans having the right to own guns for hunting, sport and self defense.

I am forever curious as to why the NRA refuses to budge on:

1. restricting certain types of guns that are clearly not needed for hunting or sport or self defense.
2. The types of people allowed to own guns.

It seems logical that we would experiment with restrictions on guns. I wonder what the homicide stats would look like if restrictions were in place? Please don't point to Chicago. That analogy doesn't work.

We need new legislation and creative enforcement of that legislation. We've got to try something and whatever that something is needs to be enforced throughout the country consistently, and not simply in cities that tend to vote blue.

I'm sure this topic has come up here before and some of you have covered ad nauseum already but I can not see for the life of me why the NRA will not budge on anything of substance. Nor can I understand why politicians seem bought and sold when it comes to the NRA. My guess is they know who funds their campaigns.

I yield to you redscapers who are much more adept at arguing this topic than I am, to comment here.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Nov 2017, 3:44 pm

dag hammarsjkold wrote:It seems logical that we would experiment with restrictions on guns. I wonder what the homicide stats would look like if restrictions were in place?


So, what kind of "experiments" do you propose? You know, ones that will lower homicide rates.

Go ahead. I'll wait.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10890
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 08 Nov 2017, 8:12 am

dag
I am forever curious as to why the NRA refuses to budge on: ....

They are bought and paid for...
This is a little dated but:

Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.
The NRA also made $20.9 million — about 10 percent of its revenue — from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-indu ... nra-2013-1

dag
Nor can I understand why politicians seem bought and sold when it comes to the NRA. My guess is they know who funds their campaigns.

Your guess is right...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ators.html

fate
So, what kind of "experiments" do you propose? You know, ones that will lower homicide rates.
Go ahead. I'll wait

I take it from this that you would exclude any "experiment" that you thought might infringe on the 2nd amendment?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Nov 2017, 8:26 am

rickyp wrote:dag
I am forever curious as to why the NRA refuses to budge on: ....

They are bought and paid for...
This is a little dated but:

Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.
The NRA also made $20.9 million — about 10 percent of its revenue — from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-indu ... nra-2013-1

dag
Nor can I understand why politicians seem bought and sold when it comes to the NRA. My guess is they know who funds their campaigns.

Your guess is right...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ators.html

fate
So, what kind of "experiments" do you propose? You know, ones that will lower homicide rates.
Go ahead. I'll wait

I take it from this that you would exclude any "experiment" that you thought might infringe on the 2nd amendment?

I am asking for specific “experiments.” I put no limit on them other than they must be efficacious.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2979
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 08 Nov 2017, 10:00 am

The thing is, I suspect if you put all people who all people who own guns or all members of the NRA together and said we have a problem...fix it. They would fix the problem. But they think...or enough of them think...that if they give an inch, then gun control proponents will take a mile. So nothing gets done.

I would think a civilized society would want to try and come up with a solution that at least attempts to stop some nut from shooting a bunch of people on a regular basis. The NRA's solution is for our country to be like the Wild West with everyone carrying guns. Maybe people should start carrying guns into churches...

I think we can do better. It's a problem: how do we limit the damage a person can do with a gun without unduly restricting gun rights and assure gun owners it's not a slippery slope? We can't come up with a solution that addresses all this?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2979
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 08 Nov 2017, 10:13 am

Maybe the abortion issue is analogous in a way. I do believe there are moral issues in how we treat fetuses...but any solution should come from women and not be imposed by men. Maybe the same should be true with gun aficionados. We cannot seem to get gun control over their objection, so maybe they can figure out a solution. They are not bought and paid for like the NRA and the politicians the NRA influences so maybe they can come up with something reasonable.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Nov 2017, 12:19 pm

freeman3 wrote:Maybe the abortion issue is analogous in a way. I do believe there are moral issues in how we treat fetuses...but any solution should come from women and not be imposed by men. Maybe the same should be true with gun aficionados. We cannot seem to get gun control over their objection, so maybe they can figure out a solution. They are not bought and paid for like the NRA and the politicians the NRA influences so maybe they can come up with something reasonable.


I heard another liberal (non-pejorative) use the same analogy last Thursday night at dinner. I didn't debate him. The problem with that analogy is it's not true. Women are not to abortion what gun owners are to gun control. "Women" are nowhere near as homogeneous in their views on abortion as gun owners are on gun rights.

So, again, I ask the gun control advocates: what *specific* "experiments" do you want to try?

And, please keep in mind, that, as far as we know, the evil idiot in Texas should not have had a gun. The system failed.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2979
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 08 Nov 2017, 12:43 pm

Why bother? Your use of scary quotes indicates you're not going to listen anyway. Maybe there will be a particularly bad mass shooting one day--as if Vegas wasn't bad enough--and then people will demand change . For whatever reason...my sense is people as a whole are not there, yet. But seeing as how these mass shootings keep getting worse and worse...I think there will be a shift in attitude. But we're not there, yet. California already has pretty reasonable gun control laws, but nothing we can do about the rest of the country.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Nov 2017, 12:54 pm

freeman3 wrote:Why bother? Your use of scary quotes indicates you're not going to listen anyway. Maybe there will be a particularly bad mass shooting one day--as if Vegas wasn't bad enough--and then people will demand change . For whatever reason...my sense is people as a whole are not there, yet. But seeing as how these mass shootings keep getting worse and worse...I think there will be a shift in attitude. But we're not there, yet. California already has pretty reasonable gun control laws, but nothing we can do about the rest of the country.


How well do California's gun control laws work? How many crimes will background checks on ammo purchases stop? http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-gov ... 79952.html

The 2016 statewide crime data show 174,701 violent crimes last year, an increase of 4.9 percent from the 166,588 violent crimes in 2015. Last year’s total is 15.4 percent higher than the violent crime tally in 2014.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3183
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 08 Nov 2017, 1:09 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:So, again, I ask the gun control advocates: what *specific* "experiments" do you want to try?


I try and stay out of these debates, but there are jurisdictions that restrict the sale of handguns and have things like weapon charges, if you're caught carrying one without a license, which is darn near impossible for a regular citizen to get.

Gun laws in NY are strict, but gun laws in NYC are ridiculously strict:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York

Have very strict gun laws, and it will make it hard for regular people to have guns in their residence or on their person. Personally, I have seen the difference between a place like Detroit and NYC in the number and presence of guns and the difference can't be over stressed: in one place it's really easy to get guns and in the other it's not.

I understand that the lunatic that drove that truck down the bike path last week jumped out with a paint ball gun, not a real gun. They're really hard to get in NYC.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2979
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 08 Nov 2017, 1:25 pm

Pretty sure if that guy in New York could have gotten a gun...that would have been his preferred weapon. Not a truck.

There are two elements here: (1) is keeping ANY gun out of people whose history of violence, criminality, or mental illness indicates they should not have one, and (2) limiting the carnage that even people entitled to buy guns can do. DF is arguing that gun control laws don't have an impact on violent crime. With states having porous borders and so many guns out there--pretty hard for that to have an impact. But I am not even talking about that. Mass shootings are something we should be trying to limit in and of themselves.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6705
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 08 Nov 2017, 1:53 pm

How about this (As a multiple gun owner):

Open carry
Mental issue and DV perps are not allowed to have firearms (20 year sentence, no parole)
Criminals are prohibited from having firearms (20 year sentence, no parole, in addition to other crimes if any)
Weapons augmented to permit automatic fire are illegal (20 year sentence, no parole)
Teachers, staff and administration are allowed to carry firearms
At least 1 person/50 students in a school MUST be carrying weaponry
Explosive/rocket/artillery et.al. are not allowed for general citizenry
Death penalty for homicide via firearm
Basic firearm training for purchase
Addition of 20 years for the commission of any crime involving a firearm

I do not want to restrict or punish ANY law abiding citizen when it comes to firearms with the exception of explosives/rockets/artillery et. al. I am all for hammering the criminals to the point of death when it comes to firearms related crimes.

Honestly,I believe I am more harsh on firearm crimes than those on the left. I am for the death penalty with firearms. Normally, that is off the table as an option when it comes to those on the left.

I think Fate's question about California is valid. If a state has (as you say) reasonable gun control laws, why is there gun related violence at a higher rate before right to carry laws come into effect.
Image
Image
Image

A bad person with a gun needs a good person with gun to stop them.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Nov 2017, 2:14 pm

geojanes wrote:Have very strict gun laws, and it will make it hard for regular people to have guns in their residence or on their person. Personally, I have seen the difference between a place like Detroit and NYC in the number and presence of guns and the difference can't be over stressed: in one place it's really easy to get guns and in the other it's not.


Why? Why prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against criminals and lunatics?

The same guy I mentioned re the abortion/gun control debate related a story that is apropos. One person at our table called for a ban on guns. My friend, let's call him "Bobby," said "I disagree." He went on to tell about a good friend of his who was recently the victim of a burglary. Two guys came in through his front door. The criminals fled . . . when they heard him rack a round into his shotgun. Who would want to deprives someone from defending themselves, their family, and their home?

I understand that the lunatic that drove that truck down the bike path last week jumped out with a paint ball gun, not a real gun. They're really hard to get in NYC.


I'd put a bet on that. Someone who was willing to rent a truck and who had even scouted the area he intended to hit was, imnsho, capable of obtaining a gun too. It is pure speculation as to why he did not have one. As far as I know, he never tried to get one, so any theory about why he didn't have one is just that--a theory.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Nov 2017, 2:17 pm

freeman3 wrote:Pretty sure if that guy in New York could have gotten a gun...that would have been his preferred weapon. Not a truck.


Evidence?

There are two elements here: (1) is keeping ANY gun out of people whose history of violence, criminality, or mental illness indicates they should not have one, and (2) limiting the carnage that even people entitled to buy guns can do. DF is arguing that gun control laws don't have an impact on violent crime. With states having porous borders and so many guns out there--pretty hard for that to have an impact. But I am not even talking about that. Mass shootings are something we should be trying to limit in and of themselves.


Seems to me that the middle ground of making it hard for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves is the worst place to be. Liberals can have their repeal of the 2nd Amendment fantasies. The realists among us should have the unfettered right to keep and bear arms.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1506
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 08 Nov 2017, 2:42 pm

Fate,

Please do me a favor. I liked what Bbauska had to offer. I'm not hip to the death penalty but the harsh penalties he laid out I can live with for sure. Thank you BB.

The favor is this....can you outline for me a plan for gun control that could be implemented on the national level that would walk between the raindrops of the various positions out there and be something both sides could live with? It would have to be an improvement on what we currently have in place but still respect a citizen's right to a gun for hunting, sports and self defense.

I know my strengths and having anything of depth on this topic to offer is not one of them.