Be a Supporter!

Gun confiscation

  • 5,092 Views
  • 218 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 12:36 PM Reply

At 1/17/13 02:03 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/17/13 09:35 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: Have you tried reading the executive orders? All they really do is enforce already existing laws. Even some of the most nit wit gun nuts that have read the executive orders have calmed down. I don't even think Fox News is freaking out.

Speaking of Obama's executive orders... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/19/gun-lovers-
freak-over-obama-s-executive-actions.html

Listen closely to the predictable fulminations against President ObamaâEUTMs recent moves to reduce gun violence, in part through executive action. Conservative blogs and Fox News have been filled with indignant protests over ObamaâEUTMs âEUoeabuse of powerâEU and the manifestation of âEUoetyrannyâEU by the âEUoepower-grabbingâEU president. Sen. Rand Paul went on the Christian Broadcast Network to accuse Obama of acting like a âEUoeking or monarch.âEU

But when you scratch even a little beneath the surface of all the hyperbole, one thing becomes clear: The presidentâEUTMs actions donâEUTMt violate the Constitution; they only violate his criticsâEUTM political positions. In fact, based on the nature of the outcry, itâEUTMs ObamaâEUTMs most strident foes who could use a lesson in the Constitution. Or, as Andy Borowitz jokingly (but not inaccurately) put it this week, âEUoeRepublicans Accuse Obama of Using Position as President to Lead Country. "

So once again, Obama let's down and betrays his base by going soft or contradicting the issue. Good.

So compromising while trying to govern is going soft or contradicting the issue? As far as I know that's called good governing.

I don't know how Democrats and liberals can still support him.

#1) Because he is our President
#2) Because he is pushing for progressive policies, on everything from economics and gun violence to climate change and immigration.
#3) Because he actually has the will and political capital to endure these fights (remember ACA?)

More war

Um, what nation have we unilaterally invaded and lost thousands of US troops in as a result of an Obama push for war?

more corporate welfare

Obama has been pushing to end corporate welfare, only to be opposed by the GOP in Congress

extension of the Patriot Act

This is one where I will lean to agree with you on, although I will say, despite my opposition to the Patriot Act, it
has not produced all the evils that liberals said it would.

and Gitmo (things people said Bush should be impeached for)

Gitmo remains open because Congress has included amendments in spending bills barring him from doing anything about Gitmo, not because he has given up the fight. Learn the facts.

more catering to the banking industry

Yeah, because regulatory reform in Dodd-Frank is set up to make the lives of bankers sooo much easier. -.-

and now he's pussing out on gun control. lol

Not really, legislation on gun control is expected to hit Congress soon.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 01:43 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 02:20 AM, Feoric wrote: You may be right! You may also just want your paranoia to be confirmed, but like I said, time will tell. I think that's just insane political suicide with zero chance of ever passing Congress and guaranteeing whatever party wrote that kind of legislation to not win any election for a long time, but I'll be here all day.

That's why they're using stepping stones and not letting bloodshed go to waste. It starts with the "assault" weapons, while the misinformed are calling for the banning of all semi-autos. Then it will go to semi-autos once someone uses handguns or a non spooky looking rifle, with people saying you can still have bolt action and pump, so it isn't an infringement and leaves plenty of guns. This isn't some THEYRE TAKING ALL MY GUNS NOW bullshit, this is laying the groundwork for doing so down the line.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 01:45 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 12:36 PM, theburningliberal wrote: Speaking of Obama's executive orders... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/19/gun-lovers-
freak-over-obama-s-executive-actions.html

I have no problem with his exec. orders as they seem pretty benign. What I do have a problem with is a proposed AWB, and his failure to address the actual problem with gun violence, which is violent or mentally ill people.

Listen closely to the predictable fulminations against President ObamaâEUTMs recent moves to reduce gun violence, in part through executive action. Conservative blogs and Fox News have been filled with indignant protests over ObamaâEUTMs âEUoeabuse of powerâEU and the manifestation of âEUoetyrannyâEU by the âEUoepower-grabbingâEU president. Sen. Rand Paul went on the Christian Broadcast Network to accuse Obama of acting like a âEUoeking or monarch.âEU

Obama was acting like a monarch long before the gun issue came up

But when you scratch even a little beneath the surface of all the hyperbole, one thing becomes clear: The presidentâEUTMs actions donâEUTMt violate the Constitution; they only violate his criticsâEUTM political positions. In fact, based on the nature of the outcry, itâEUTMs ObamaâEUTMs most strident foes who could use a lesson in the Constitution. Or, as Andy Borowitz jokingly (but not inaccurately) put it this week, âEUoeRepublicans Accuse Obama of Using Position as President to Lead Country. "

In my eyes, any removal of any gun, (outside military grade weapons) from civilian hands, is a violation of the second amendment, and even then I'm kind of 50/50.

So compromising while trying to govern is going soft or contradicting the issue? As far as I know that's called good governing.

He's gone soft on every issue his base wants him to fix. Corporate exceptionalism (here corporations, have some free money, fuck everyone else), civil rights (gays are okay, I'm just not gonna let them get married), and war (I got a nobel peace prize, now watch me drone strike this village)

#1) Because he is our President
#2) Because he is pushing for progressive policies, on everything from economics and gun violence to climate change and immigration.
#3) Because he actually has the will and political capital to endure these fights (remember ACA?)

1) No facist killer is a president of mine
2) So republican policies are "progressive" now? That's a new one. He has continued in Bush's footsteps on nearly every issue.
3) Oh, ACA? You mean the bill that basically requires americans to give billions to insurance moguls and CEOs? Yeah, I remember

Um, what nation have we unilaterally invaded and lost thousands of US troops in as a result of an Obama push for war?

Obama has started wars in Somalia, Yemen, and Libya, and has sent thousands of more troops to Afghanistan.

Obama has been pushing to end corporate welfare, only to be opposed by the GOP in Congress

How? By giving corporate America billions while actual job creators like small business are foreced to close their doors? By forcing americans to buy things from his insurance CEO pals?

This is one where I will lean to agree with you on, although I will say, despite my opposition to the Patriot Act, it
has not produced all the evils that liberals said it would.

Yes it has

Gitmo remains open because Congress has included amendments in spending bills barring him from doing anything about Gitmo, not because he has given up the fight. Learn the facts.

He can executive order it to be closed tomorrow, if he cared.

Yeah, because regulatory reform in Dodd-Frank is set up to make the lives of bankers sooo much easier. -.-

At the same time, he gave them billions in taxpayer money

Not really, legislation on gun control is expected to hit Congress soon.

If he really cared about the dead kids at sandy hook, why not just ban all guns outright?

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 01:47 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 01:43 PM, RacistBassist wrote: This isn't some THEYRE TAKING ALL MY GUNS NOW bullshit, this is laying the groundwork for doing so down the line.

I really do not understand how people can not see this. Not only has this exact path been seen throughout the 20th century in other nations like Italy and Germany, but it's also apperant in US government as well

Fim
Fim
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 47
Audiophile
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 01:55 PM Reply

At 1/18/13 10:41 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 1/18/13 09:56 AM, Fim wrote: I am from the UK, and so I've been brought up in a society that is unshakably anti-gun. I think guns are dangerous murder weapons, but I understand in America it seems like you have some morbid fascination with them, and that's fine. Even if I get exasperated every time I see a news story about gun crime, or a school shooting in the US, I just shake my head and dismiss it as a natural up shot of the situation you have put yourself in over there.
Do you think that it is possible that since you are from the UK and therefore not brought up in an enviroment where guns are a norm...you lack some insight into the topic?

That's almost like saying because I've never been to Palestine or Jerusalem I can't have an opinion on the middle east, as
long as I understand the facts my opinion is as valid as yours, and I have actually shot a rifle and a pistol before although that was a few years ago.

I can only assume that my point regarding New Zealand and their gun control scheme is pretty water tight because nobody here has even tried to rebuttle it.

For example...why have different classifications for different guns? And if you're going to...would military style semi-autos be the ones you want to be the most or least restrictive on?

Yep, I think owning semi-autos should have tighter restrictions than less powerful weapons. I think a similar scheme to what they have in New Zealand where they grade weapons on a scale of severity would be ideal.

At 1/18/13 10:51 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 1/18/13 09:56 AM, Fim wrote: ... You aren't doing yourself a favour by risking getting into a confrontation because if you carry a gun you are more likely to get killed yourself.
Just caught this...

Actually you are wrong on this account. We've had concealed carry in this country for almost 30 years now. We have a corresponding reduction in crime. We also have less injuries when a civilian uses a firearm than when cops use theirs.
At 1/18/13 11:44 PM, Kellz5460 wrote:
At 1/18/13 10:51 PM, TheMason wrote:
more likely...eh?

Sorry but that's you're opinion. If you're going to make claims like that, then back them up with real evidence.

As I said, Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher. If you are in a sticky situation with a criminal (which is still a very unlikely scenario) you don't play rambo, you give them what they want, and then you claim everything you lose back on your insurance. And you entrust the police to deal with them effectively. Getting involved yourself is needlessly dangerous.

At 1/19/13 01:58 AM, RacistBassist wrote:
At 1/19/13 12:00 AM, Feoric wrote:
This is just being dense. "Oh no legislation has been introduced yet, I'm just going to ignore peoples stated intents and the stepping stones up to confiscation and that people are already calling for complete confiscation"

Surely you can only speculate about actions the government is actually implementing? Anything else is just rumors / people's opinions. There are plenty of people advocating a huge range of different policies on gun control but what they say is pretty meaningless unless the government listens to them.

What Obama has put forward to congress seems completely reasonable. He isn't taking all your guns away from you. He's advocating better background checks and the same assault weapons ban that was supported by Reagan. It would be political suicide to try and change America's gun culture too drastically.


BBS Signature
CaveStoryGrounds
CaveStoryGrounds
  • Member since: Jan. 3, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Writer
Fim
Fim
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 47
Audiophile
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 02:30 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 02:09 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:
At 1/19/13 01:45 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Obama was acting like a monarch long before the gun issue came up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_e xecutive_orders
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/di sposition.html

How?

Yeh he wears a golden crown sits atop a throne and issued fewer executive orders than any president in a century.


BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 04:16 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 01:45 PM, LemonCrush wrote: If he really cared about the dead kids at sandy hook, why not just ban all guns outright?
At 1/19/13 01:47 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I really do not understand how people can not see this. Not only has this exact path been seen throughout the 20th century in other nations like Italy and Germany, but it's also apperant in US government as well

Huh, very interesting. So, if Obama doesn'tban All Da Guns he doesn't care about dead children, but if he does ban All Da Guns, then he's a fusion of Mussolini's and Hitler's ghosts wrapped up unto one convenient package. What a catch 22!

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 04:22 PM Reply

Well lets be honest about it. There would be less fatalities and more wounded if "Assault Weapons" were the only things ever used in mass shootings.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 07:33 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 04:22 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Well lets be honest about it. There would be less fatalities and more wounded if "Assault Weapons" were the only things ever used in mass shootings.

You make many assumptions in that statement.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 07:53 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 04:16 PM, Feoric wrote: Huh, very interesting. So, if Obama doesn'tban All Da Guns he doesn't care about dead children, but if he does ban All Da Guns, then he's a fusion of Mussolini's and Hitler's ghosts wrapped up unto one convenient package. What a catch 22!

I'm saying if he had conviction, he would do what he thinks needs to be done. Instead of giving way to his critics. Get it?

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 07:54 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 02:09 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: How?

Passing laws requiring citizens to buy shit from people he dictates seems pretty Mussolini to me.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 10:24 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 07:53 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I'm saying if he had conviction, he would do what he thinks needs to be done. Instead of giving way to his critics. Get it?

So his Executive Actions and calls to Congress, in your opinion, don't reflect his conviction and he isn't doing what he thinks needs to be done, and every proposal and EO is just giving way to critics? Is that what you're saying?

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 11:05 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 07:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/19/13 04:22 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Well lets be honest about it. There would be less fatalities and more wounded if "Assault Weapons" were the only things ever used in mass shootings.
You make many assumptions in that statement.

IF you bothered looking at statistics and knew about bullets and firearm design you'd know that an "assault weapon" was never designed to make death inevitable. But the use of HP rounds most certainly does, and those are used in pistols.

CaveStoryGrounds
CaveStoryGrounds
  • Member since: Jan. 3, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Writer
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 11:38 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 07:54 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/19/13 02:09 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: How?
Passing laws requiring citizens to buy shit from people he dictates seems pretty Mussolini to me.

Without Obamacare tens of thousands would die annually due to the very lack of healthcare. Seems like a pretty smart idea to stop as many of those deaths as possible.

TheKlown
TheKlown
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 20th, 2013 @ 06:08 AM Reply

This guy would kick the shit out of President Obama in a debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2DRlIB6r2U


I bleed Orange, Green, and Red.
Flyers, Eagles, Phillies, and Sixers.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 20th, 2013 @ 02:37 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 10:24 PM, Feoric wrote: So his Executive Actions and calls to Congress, in your opinion, don't reflect his conviction and he isn't doing what he thinks needs to be done, and every proposal and EO is just giving way to critics? Is that what you're saying?

Absolutely. He's doing just enough so idiots say "See? He's a good guy". Much like he did with, say, gay marriage.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 20th, 2013 @ 02:40 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 11:38 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: Without Obamacare tens of thousands would die annually due to the very lack of healthcare. Seems like a pretty smart idea to stop as many of those deaths as possible.

Tens of thousands will die annually no matter what. You cannot stop people from dying.

As it stands now, pre-Obamacare, people are not just keeling over because they don't have insurance.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 20th, 2013 @ 02:43 PM Reply

At 1/20/13 02:40 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Tens of thousands will die annually no matter what. You cannot stop people from dying.

As it stands now, pre-Obamacare, people are not just keeling over because they don't have insurance.

Also, you seem to forget this thing called...CHOICE. You know, where you choose to buy insurance based on risk of injury or death. Forcing people to pay his buddies is definitely not the answer, especially when most uninsured people (people who can't afford it in the first place), will now have another bill to pay.

Obamacare will drive up costs of insurance, because only (currently) premium plans will be available, because Obama says the other ones don't cover enough). So, it's more likely that people will be dying of starvation, because they are now required to should another astronomical bill

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 20th, 2013 @ 06:35 PM Reply

At 1/20/13 02:37 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Absolutely. He's doing just enough so idiots say "See? He's a good guy". Much like he did with, say, gay marriage.

Can you tell me what he did and what he should have done instead?

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 20th, 2013 @ 07:21 PM Reply

At 1/20/13 06:35 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 1/20/13 02:37 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Absolutely. He's doing just enough so idiots say "See? He's a good guy". Much like he did with, say, gay marriage.
Can you tell me what he did and what he should have done instead?

He said "I support gays," when it was financially/politically convenient for him, and repealed Dont Ask Dont Tell.

What he should have done is proposed legislation to bring equal marriage rights to gays.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 20th, 2013 @ 08:45 PM Reply

At 1/20/13 07:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote: He said "I support gays," when it was financially/politically convenient for him, and repealed Dont Ask Dont Tell.

What he should have done is proposed legislation to bring equal marriage rights to gays.

I should have been more clear. I meant in the context of gun legislation, not gay marriage.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 20th, 2013 @ 09:40 PM Reply

At 1/20/13 08:45 PM, Feoric wrote:
What he should have done is proposed legislation to bring equal marriage rights to gays.
I should have been more clear. I meant in the context of gun legislation, not gay marriage.

I think, he should focus on fixing availability of guns, to people of unstable minds. Or better yet, try to figure out why there are so many crazy kids out there killing people. The issue is not guns themselves. In nations where gun control is loose, there is no gun violence. Hell, even in the US, we did not have mass shootings until fairly recently. It's a problem with people, and if I was a betting man, I'd say it has to do with the food/water or over-medication of Americans...point is, there is something bigger that needs to be looked at, and banning guns based on their looks, is not the answer.

He's done nothing that will help the issue. He issued some BS EO's about gun education and a "Stricter enforcemnt" of stuff that's already in place.

Let's assume for a moment, that availability of guns is the issue. Don't you think we should be banning "dangerous" guns, based on...caliber, or rate of fire, or something, instead of how they look?

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 20th, 2013 @ 11:39 PM Reply

At 1/20/13 09:40 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I think, he should focus on fixing availability of guns, to people of unstable minds. Or better yet, try to figure out why there are so many crazy kids out there killing people.

Have you had a look at what his plan is? He has multiple Executive Orders that address just that. In fact, most them in one way shape or form address this:

- Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

- Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

- Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

- Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

What do you think he is focused on instead? To me, it seems pretty clear that his main goal isn't a door-to-door search of homes to confiscate guns, but is instead focusing on tying up loose ends within the laws which are currently on the books while encouraging a dialogue about mental health. It actually sounds pretty good to me, and I have to be honest, I'm pleasantly surprised.

Now, we can absolutely have a discussion about how effective those measures may be, how those measures would be implemented, and even other ideas which may be more effective at trying to solve the problems you mentioned. But you can't claim that this isn't part of his focus, because the bulk of the items he proposed directly or tangentially address the problems you stated.

The issue is not guns themselves. In nations where gun control is loose, there is no gun violence.

Honestly, I have no idea! I've seen studies that support this, and I've seen studies that don't. I think the issue is way too complex for us to understand completely, and we haven't really figured out a way to get strong conclusive data. It's an extraordinarily complex issue which involves tons of other complex issues in and of themselves like culture, poverty, healthcare and psychology just to name a few.

I mean, I could sit here all day and shit out studies that have different methodologies which would back any opinion I have about the root causes of gun violence, but you could do the same as well. That doesn't really get us anywhere. But you're right, the issue is not guns themselves. Nor is the issue not-not being guns, either. The issue is realizing that there is no one issue. It's not going to be 100% this or 100% that.

Hell, even in the US, we did not have mass shootings until fairly recently.

That's not really true. From looking at the list it seems things started to happen more often during the 90s, but I have no idea what happened in 2012. Stress? The economy? Media coverage?

It's a problem with people, and if I was a betting man, I'd say it has to do with the food/water or over-medication of Americans

What food, what water, and what medication? Because if you're talking about fluoridated water, well, we've been doing that for 65 some-odd years now. How do you explain the delay? The food? Well, sure, we're a pretty unhealthy country. But TV dinners and fast food have been around since the 50s. Again, why now? Medication? Interesting, and the most likely out of the things you mentioned here, but don't you think that's putting the cart before the horse? Is it that SSRIs make people more likely to shoot up innocent people, or is it that people who are more likely to shoot up innocent people are more likely to be on SSRIs? That's something you'd have to demonstrate.

Let's assume for a moment, that availability of guns is the issue. Don't you think we should be banning "dangerous" guns, based on...caliber, or rate of fire, or something, instead of how they look?

Sure! However, no matter what, I ultimately believe that guns bans will always be an arbitrary endeavor. But how would you feel if that actually came to fruition? Would you value your right to bear arms more heavily than stopping gun related crime?

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 21st, 2013 @ 02:11 AM Reply

At 1/20/13 11:39 PM, Feoric wrote: - Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

And what is defined as "relevant data"? Anything specific he has in mind, or did he keep it vague so it can change..I mean "evolve" down the road.

- Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

The attorney general who says it's okay to sell guns to Mexican druglords, and protects militant Black Panthers in front of polling places? Yeah, I trust him to handle it.

- Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Fair enough

- Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Right. We all know how well "national dialouges" accomplish things

What do you think he is focused on instead? To me, it seems pretty clear that his main goal isn't a door-to-door search of homes to confiscate guns, but is instead focusing on tying up loose ends within the laws which are currently on the books while encouraging a dialogue about mental health. It actually sounds pretty good to me, and I have to be honest, I'm pleasantly surprised.

Obviously he isn't proposing confiscation tomorrow. But historically, it's this type of proposed legislation (weapon bans), that paves the way for confiscation

Now, we can absolutely have a discussion about how effective those measures may be, how those measures would be implemented, and even other ideas which may be more effective at trying to solve the problems you mentioned. But you can't claim that this isn't part of his focus, because the bulk of the items he proposed directly or tangentially address the problems you stated.

Again, banning guns based on looks is not the answer, and that idea shouldn't even be floating around in his stupid head.

Honestly, I have no idea! I've seen studies that support this, and I've seen studies that don't. I think the issue is way too complex for us to understand completely, and we haven't really figured out a way to get strong conclusive data. It's an extraordinarily complex issue which involves tons of other complex issues in and of themselves like culture, poverty, healthcare and psychology just to name a few.

Absolutely. And just saying "oh, banning adjustable stocks will solve this" has nothing to do with any of that.

I mean, I could sit here all day and shit out studies that have different methodologies which would back any opinion I have about the root causes of gun violence, but you could do the same as well. That doesn't really get us anywhere. But you're right, the issue is not guns themselves. Nor is the issue not-not being guns, either. The issue is realizing that there is no one issue. It's not going to be 100% this or 100% that.

And just like in most cases and issues, Obama wants to push through the band-aid quick solution. This problem is much deeper than a knee jerk reaction you come up with in a couple weeks or months. As is healthcare, as is war. Obama lacks foresight. He instantly jumps to the quickest, most convenient (for him) solution, instead of actually looking at deeper answers.

That's not really true. From looking at the list it seems things started to happen more often during the 90s, but I have no idea what happened in 2012. Stress? The economy? Media coverage?

1990's is what I meant. There were no mass shootings in 1960 was there? It's a recent problem in the last 20 years or so. Which happens to coincide with the era of over-medication, and fucking with the food and water.

What food, what water, and what medication? Because if you're talking about fluoridated water, well, we've been doing that for 65 some-odd years now. How do you explain the delay? The food? Well, sure, we're a pretty unhealthy country. But TV dinners and fast food have been around since the 50s. Again, why now? Medication? Interesting, and the most likely out of the things you mentioned here, but don't you think that's putting the cart before the horse? Is it that SSRIs make people more likely to shoot up innocent people, or is it that people who are more likely to shoot up innocent people are more likely to be on SSRIs? That's something you'd have to demonstrate.

Well, the food is filled with chemicals, hormones and genetically altered. There's lead, and yes, fluoride in the water, along god knows what else. Nearly everyone in this nation is on something. The US consumes 90% of the world prescription drugs. Doctors are glorified pill salesman. Kids are being prescribed medications constantly.

Sure! However, no matter what, I ultimately believe that guns bans will always be an arbitrary endeavor. But how would you feel if that actually came to fruition? Would you value your right to bear arms more heavily than stopping gun related crime?

I value OTHER'S right to bear arms. If they exercise that right, gun violence against them would be a non issue

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 21st, 2013 @ 05:25 AM Reply

At 1/21/13 02:11 AM, LemonCrush wrote: And what is defined as "relevant data"? Anything specific he has in mind, or did he keep it vague so it can change..I mean "evolve" down the road.

Good question! I don't know the specifics about every item, but I feel safe in assuming that the relevant data is specifically in the context of the NICS. Wikipedia gives a rundown of the criteria which is used to define whether a person is prohibited from shipping/receiving/possessing firearms.

The attorney general who says it's okay to sell guns to Mexican druglords, and protects militant Black Panthers in front of polling places? Yeah, I trust him to handle it.

F&F was certainly a black eye to the Holder and the administration, but wow, Black Panther-gate again? This was that voter intimidation case in Philadelphia circa 2008, right? I thought this was settled by now. The case was downgraded to a civil case during the Bush administration, 26 days before Eric Holder became AG. The decision not to pursue criminal charges against these "militant Black Panthers" wasn't made by Obama's admin. There's also the fact that literally zero voters filed a complaint or claimed that they were intimidated, which is integral for perusing a voter intimidation case to start with (but maybe that's because they were intimidated!!) and that Abigail Thernstrom, then Republican chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights went on record saying that the whole ordeal was "overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges." Then there's also the issue of the whistleblower who made the story to begin with. I'll just leave it at that. There's literally nothing there, just a now obscure media fury that lasted two weeks years ago. If you have a bone to pick with Holder over F&F, fine! You know what? I do too. But this Black Panther story is a complete non issue.

Right. We all know how well "national dialouges" accomplish things

I understand the skepticism, but the plan doesn't seem overtly political in nature, so it actually might serve some good depending on it's execution. This is from a PDF the White House released a few days ago:

"Launch a national conversation to increase understanding about mental health: The sense of shame and secrecy associated with mental illness prevents too many people from seeking help. The President is directing Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan to launch a national dialogue about mental illness with young people who have experienced mental illness, members of the faith community, foundations, and school and business leaders."

Obviously he isn't proposing confiscation tomorrow. But historically, it's this type of proposed legislation (weapon bans), that paves the way for confiscation

As long as the 2nd amendment is there there is absolutely no way no how any possibility of any sort of federal level confiscation or mandatory buyback program being implemented, especially during Obama's admin. Heller was in 2008, there is no precedent of the Supreme Court overturning old rulings in such a short period of time. Your right to bear arms is here to stay for a very long period of time. If I'm unable to quell your anxiety about that, then I'm sorry I can't help you.

Again, banning guns based on looks is not the answer, and that idea shouldn't even be floating around in his stupid head.

The idea of Congress renewing the AWB only exists as a bargaining chip for future negotiations as I explained in my post in the other thread.

Absolutely. And just saying "oh, banning adjustable stocks will solve this" has nothing to do with any of that.

Fortunately this isn't a key component of what Obama wants to implement, which I was scared to death of happening.

1990's is what I meant. There were no mass shootings in 1960 was there?

That depends on how you define "mass shooting" (wikipedia tells me 4 during the 60s) but there were absolutely shootings in schools in the 60s, for example. The most famous one was the University of Texas massacre, which left 14 people dead. It's interesting to note how many of these perpetrators committed suicide, and how many of then surrendered or were subdued. It tells me that not everybody who does this kind of stuff goes into doing it with the same mind set.

It's a recent problem in the last 20 years or so. Which happens to coincide with the era of over-medication, and fucking with the food and water.

The food and water was already "fucked" with way before 20 years ago (which would be 1992), so I really doubt that this has anything to do with it unless you can find any medical studies that looked into this.

Well, the food is filled with chemicals, hormones and genetically altered. There's lead, and yes, fluoride in the water, along god knows what else. Nearly everyone in this nation is on something. The US consumes 90% of the world prescription drugs. Doctors are glorified pill salesman. Kids are being prescribed medications constantly.

Well, I dunno, when you have jackasses like Alex Jones going on national television calling anti-depressants "suicide pills" it seems kinda detrimental to the cause of improving the state of mental healthcare in this country, doesn't it? It's definitely true that SSRIs like Prozac can cause suicidal tendencies, and that some school shooters were on SSRIs at the time they committed the attack, but, like I hear from the pro-gun side all the time, "correlation does not equal causation." It seems kinda wonky to tackle the issue of mass shooters through the perspective of fluoridated water, but if there's any scientific literature on the subject that makes a connecting between fluoridation and mental illness, I'll be happy to read it.

I value OTHER'S right to bear arms. If they exercise that right, gun violence against them would be a non issue

But we're talking in a hypothetical scenario where all the evidence in the world concluded that the availability of guns was the root cause of the gun problem in this country, and the only way to solve it was through a gun ban. Would you support a federal gun ban to solve the issue? What about the 2nd amendment?

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 21st, 2013 @ 11:54 AM Reply

At 1/21/13 05:25 AM, Feoric wrote: Good question! I don't know the specifics about every item, but I feel safe in assuming that the relevant data is specifically in the context of the NICS. Wikipedia gives a rundown of the criteria which is used to define whether a person is prohibited from shipping/receiving/possessing firearms.

That's fine, but "relevant data" is pretty vague.

If you have a bone to pick with Holder over F&F, fine! You know what? I do too. But this Black Panther story is a complete non issue.

Bullcrap. If there were KKK members in front of polling paces trying to intimidate voters, they would be in prison right now.

"Launch a national conversation to increase understanding about mental health: The sense of shame and secrecy associated with mental illness prevents too many people from seeking help. The President is directing Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan to launch a national dialogue about mental illness with young people who have experienced mental illness, members of the faith community, foundations, and school and business leaders."

That's great. So this is gonna lead to stupid PSA's and shit on TV 24/7, I can see it already. Just like Michelle Obama and her fat kids cause or Nancy Reagan and her Just Say No cause. They're going to spend money for TV ads, and not actually solve the problem. It's a face-saving measure. What we need is actual neurologists and doctors doing studies on this crap, not "launching a dialogue" of talking to people.

As long as the 2nd amendment is there there is absolutely no way no how any possibility of any sort of federal level confiscation or mandatory buyback program being implemented, especially during Obama's admin.

Well, there is no nation who just does it overnight. As for the bill of rights...that doesn't mean shit anymore. As far as Obama goes, we've had a guy thrown in jail without trial for making an anti-muslim video, we have people in gitmo with no trial, we have the patriot act, and most recently, we just passed a federal law that requires states to participate in a money grabbing scheme.

The idea of Congress renewing the AWB only exists as a bargaining chip for future negotiations as I explained in my post in the other thread.

We don't need to be playing a game of "bargaining chips"

Fortunately this isn't a key component of what Obama wants to implement, which I was scared to death of happening.

That's what the assault weapons ban is.

That depends on how you define "mass shooting" (wikipedia tells me 4 during the 60s) but there were absolutely shootings in schools in the 60s, for example.

Fair enough. Notice the guns used were not what the government defines as "assault weapons". Hell, one of the was a 22 pistol. Which under the proposed ban, will not be touched. Nor will 12 gauge shotguns (another gun used). The type of gun, is not the problem...fully automatic, military style weapons are already banned.

The food and water was already "fucked" with way before 20 years ago (which would be 1992), so I really doubt that this has anything to do with it unless you can find any medical studies that looked into this.

Yes, I know..I didn't mean LITERALLY 20 years ago...

Well, I dunno, when you have jackasses like Alex Jones going on national television calling anti-depressants "suicide pills" it seems kinda detrimental to the cause of improving the state of mental healthcare in this country, doesn't it? It's definitely true that SSRIs like Prozac can cause suicidal tendencies, and that some school shooters were on SSRIs at the time they committed the attack, but, like I hear from the pro-gun side all the time, "correlation does not equal causation." It seems kinda wonky to tackle the issue of mass shooters through the perspective of fluoridated water, but if there's any scientific literature on the subject that makes a connecting between fluoridation and mental illness, I'll be happy to read it.

Alex Jones is not a doctor, his opinion on the matter should not even be in the discussion.

My point was, where's medications in water run off, the food is filled with hormones, and even genetically modified...and they don't even know the risks of genetic modification yet! Other nations do not seem to have the violence issues we do. I'm just saying, the food and water should be something we look at.

But we're talking in a hypothetical scenario where all the evidence in the world concluded that the availability of guns was the root cause of the gun problem in this country, and the only way to solve it was through a gun ban. Would you support a federal gun ban to solve the issue? What about the 2nd amendment?

If that was the case, I'd still support the second amendment.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 22nd, 2013 @ 08:06 AM Reply

At 1/19/13 01:55 PM, Fim wrote:
At 1/18/13 10:41 PM, TheMason wrote:
That's almost like saying because I've never been to Palestine or Jerusalem I can't have an opinion on the middle east, as
long as I understand the facts my opinion is as valid as yours, and I have actually shot a rifle and a pistol before although that was a few years ago.

Actually, it is nothing like that. My point is: do you really understand the facts?

Also, shooting a firearm once or twice gives you more basis than the person who has never fired a gun...it does not mean that you understand the facts. Also, please know that while I may be blunt...I do not mean to be rude. I am merely pointing out that just by following the news and having an idea of what guns are (formed through media and pop culture) may not be the most firm foundation upon which to form an opinion. After all, my ex-wife is a Doctor and I've removed my own stitches before...that does not mean my opinion on medicine is as valid as hers.

So the question is, in order to understand the facts do you know:
* Where on the spectrum of power as it relates to velocity and foot pounds on target...an 'assault rifle' falls on the spectrum relative to pistols, shotguns and hunting rifles? (This means what rounds, and what guns are designed to shoot those rounds, cause 'maximum damage'?)
* Which firearms are used in crime...and which are not?
* The trend of crime, especially gun crime, in the US...is it going up or is it going down?
* What do the academic journals say about the causes of all crime...including gun crime?
* What do the academic journals say about the causes of mass shooters/killers?


I can only assume that my point regarding New Zealand and their gun control scheme is pretty water tight because nobody here has even tried to rebuttle it.

Not water tight at all.

* Assault rifles are not used in crime because they are not effective for criminal purposes. Furthermore, they are not the lethal killing machines you see in the media.
* Comparing the crime rates between countries is problematic. The root causes of gun crime is NOT guns nor their availability. Root causes are economic in nature (access to education, economic opportunity for all demographics, presence/non-presence of ethnic minorities treated as permanent second class citizens). These problems are unique to each country and is what explains differences in crime rates...not guns.
* The geography is different. NZ is an island whereas the US shares a long and very porous border with a country riddled with criminal cartels that make billions if not trillions off of smuggling drugs and people into the US. They would make even more money smuggling illegal firearms into the US to fill demand of gangs.

The New Zealand law wouldn't effect US crime rates at all.


For example...why have different classifications for different guns? And if you're going to...would military style semi-autos be the ones you want to be the most or least restrictive on?
Yep, I think owning semi-autos should have tighter restrictions than less powerful weapons. I think a similar scheme to what they have in New Zealand where they grade weapons on a scale of severity would be ideal.

Then semi-auto 'assault rifles' would be the least restrictive.

1) They are not 'powerful weapons'. By definition an assault rifle shoots a round that is intermediate between a pistol and a hunting rifle. Furthermore, military ammo is far less destructive to flesh than hunting ammo, self-defense ammo for pistols, and most shotgun ammo.

2) Higher rates of fire means far, far less accuracy since muzzle rise and recoil makes you shoot into the ceiling.

3) Assault rifles are heavier and more cumbersome than pistols and sawed-off shotguns. That is why pistols are used in 75-85% of gun crime and shotguns in 12-18%. ALL rifles make up the remaining 2-5%, with assault rifles used (most years) <1% of the time. They cannot be concealed. Their length makes them unwieldy in any situation inside a building. They are much heavier. And they tend to leave behind witnesses because they are not all that good at killing. A jacketed hollow point that weighs as much as a pistol bullet going at subsonic speeds (or buckshot and/or a slug in the case of shotguns) is far, far, far more likely to kill than even a hollow point fired from an AR-15.

====

In the end, your suggestions seem to fit within those commonly found by people who are largely ignorant of the realities of what guns are, what they are capable of, how they are used in crime, and what the real causes of crime are.

I do not think what you suggest is unreasonable. In fact they are logical. However, once you understand things such as ballistics and trends in crime this reason, rationality, and logic begins to dissapate as you move from ignorance to knowledge. And you see that these suggestions are impractical and counter-productive in that they divert resources away from addressing real problems...that will save lives.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 22nd, 2013 @ 08:32 AM Reply

At 1/19/13 01:55 PM, Fim wrote: Sorry but that's you're opinion. If you're going to make claims like that, then back them up with real evidence.

As I said, Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher. If you are in a sticky situation with a criminal (which is still a very unlikely scenario) you don't play rambo, you give them what they want, and then you claim everything you lose back on your insurance. And you entrust the police to deal with them effectively. Getting involved yourself is needlessly dangerous.

How about this:

* The Branas study has some flawed methodology in that it only deals with shootings. The vast majority of defensive gun use never involves a single shot fired. I for one have had to use a firearm twice in self-defense. The first time, the cops refused to come because they were busy. It wasn't until my ex-wife called back saying the guy was still there doing crazy shit to get into the house...and that I was armed that the police came. Had I not been armed...the cops would not have come until the guy was inside my home with myself and my ex-wife who was four months pregnant at the time. The next time the person was actually in the house and fled when they realized I was armed.

By not taking defensive uses of guns into the picture where shots are not fired (>95% of civilian firearm usage) and focusing on 1% of defensive uses of guns Branas is not following good social science methodological practices. By excluding these uses of guns he grossly overinflates his numbers. And he's flat out wrong.

* RAMBO: I totally agree that you do not play Rambo. In the cases where I have used a gun in self-defense they were home invasion scenarios. I retreated to the bedroom, locked the door and called 911. In this way I was in control of the sitiuation since I could take cover. I knew where the intruder was coming from and therefore covered the door ready to fire if he decided to break in. However, he did not know where in the room I or my wife was...or what cover we had. Therefore, if he intended harm...I could quickly take him out of the picture.

Secondly, if he only intended to take my TV or rob me (and not do me physical harm)...I had the chance to warn him that I had a gun. If it is only a robbery in 99% of cases he will flee the house. See, I do not want to shoot anyone...it would be a horrible burden for the rest of my life. And I don't want that. Furthermore, this is what most self-defense experts (and the NRA) teach people to do.

Now if I was out and about on the street it would depend on the situation. When you get your concealed carry permit you are taught not to draw if the bad guy has already drawn on you. If they have a knife or are attacking you melee and are within 21 feet of you...do not draw. In those cases you do not have the time to get off a shot before you are shot, stabbed, or bludgeoned and your gun taken away from you. In those cases it is best to comply.

* Overall, numerous studies by criminologists such as Dr. Gary Kleck, have shown that guns do defuse these situations. Furthermore, many of these studies like Branas' have been shown to be methodologically lacking. For example, they also tend to include suicides which have been shown that those deaths would occur with or without a gun because the gun is not the root cause of the death and substitution effects come into play.

====

In the end, yes it is my opinion. But it is an opinion formed by formal training in social science methodology. Experience with guns. And having spent the majority of my adult life immersed in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 22nd, 2013 @ 01:19 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 01:55 PM, Fim wrote: Yep, I think owning semi-autos should have tighter restrictions than less powerful weapons. I think a similar scheme to what they have in New Zealand where they grade weapons on a scale of severity would be ideal.

In terms of power, I thought I'd provide you with a picture. From left to right according to category:
Pistol Rounds
9mm (common police and military pistol round)
.45 ACP (1911 series pistols)
.38 (used recently in Georgia)
.44 Rem Mag (pistol round useful for deer hunting)

Assault Rifle Rounds
7.62x39 (AK-47)
.223 or 5.56mm (M-16, NATO assault rifles...note the .22LR shell in front of it; the bullet of the M-16 is only .003 of an inch larger.)

Hunting Rifle Round
.270 winchester

Now which bullet is the high power one? The one used for deer hunting (.270) or one of the assault rifle rounds?

Also, which ones will kill you faster? If you look at the shape of the bullet (projectile) of the assault rifle rounds they are pointed (even though the AK round is a hollow point). This means that, especially with the AR-15/M-16 round, the bullet is cased in a metal shell that makes expansion/deformation less likely. This means that since the bullet is traveling at a high velocity...it is going to over penetrate and not cause much damage.

But look at the pistol rounds. They have three things going for them: weight, shape and slow speed. These three things combined mean three things for the person hit with them:
A) A slower, heavier round will transfer more energy to the victim causing more bludgeoning damage.
B) The shape will slow the bullet's momentum meaning it is more likely to stay inside the body...and more likely to tumble tearing up internal organs.
C) The above factors give hollow points (HP) and jacketed hollow points (JHP) more of a chance to expand creating more bludgeoning damage and adding (in the case of JHP) shredding damage.

Finally, hunting ammo has the same effect of the pistol ammo...only effective at a longer range. The make-up of a soft-core round (pictured) or a HP or JHP will allow it to transfer more energy to a body and have a greater chance of expansion. Now, they do make hunting ammo for the AR-15 and the AK-47. However, in the case of the AR-15 many states make it illegal to hunt with this round because of how ineffective it is at killing. The AK deer round is a great hunting round for short ranges and wooded areas. It actually makes hunting safer because it will travel less distance if you miss. However, the rounds are scarce and expensive at $1/rd (at least) compared to the $0.27 I paid for the round pictured.

Now do you still think assault rifles are extraordinarily lethal killing machines that Obama claimed?
C)

Gun confiscation


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature