Leave the guns alone!!! - DPChallenge Forums

01/13/2011 01:54:43 PM · #301

Originally posted by coryboehne:

As for a "reasonable" gun control measure? Sure, that's easy - figure out how to increase the efficiency of what is already in place.

Soooo, how about banning gun shows? They are a regulatory nightmare. Same rules and restrictions we got now, nothing more, but you have to buy your gun at a brick and mortar store that is set up to efficiently perform the requisite background checks.

Sound reasonable? (I sense it won't...)

01/13/2011 02:01:01 PM · #302

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
As for a "reasonable" gun control measure? Sure, that's easy - figure out how to increase the efficiency of what is already in place.

Soooo, how about banning gun shows? They are a regulatory nightmare. Same rules and restrictions we got now, nothing more, but you have to buy your gun at a brick and mortar store that is set up to efficiently perform the requisite background checks.

Sound reasonable? (I sense it won't...)

Nah, I agree, get rid of those damned things, they are a regulatory nightmare.... Or at least, make it required that more control is enacted on site.

You do, of course, realize that a primary source of guns for gangsters is actually black-market purchases of stolen weaponry though right? Not that it means gun shows aren't a problem, I just don't think they really are as much of a problem as some people would like to think they are...

I've been to many gun shows, and I've seen a very few neo-nazi types there, a few biker-gang looking people, and that sort, but never, ever, have I seen a gangster (street, not mafia), or a raving lunatic, or any of the other clearly problematic categories of human. I do however see something much more worrisome, old old old conservative men...

01/13/2011 02:02:32 PM · #303

Just a curiosity question, can you actually list any assault that has occurred with a weapon that was proven to have been bought at a gun show? Seems to me that Brick&Mortars seems to sell all of the firearms used in this type of crime.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/13/2011 02:10:48 PM · #304

Originally posted by coryboehne:

"In 1996, over 14, 000 Americans died in gun-related homicides. Gun shows have always offered a way for "straw purchasers" to funnel weapons into the hands of criminals. Waiting periods and background checks for gun shows will make it more difficult for guns to get into the hands of violent criminals. The inconvenience of a background check at these shows is a small price to pay, if the stricter controls will save lives. The NRA argues that this violates the rights of gun owners, but ultimately President Clinton's new proposals would not make gun ownership any more complicated than getting a drivers' license.
The 1996 firearms death rate among male teenagers aged 15 to 19 (36.3 per 100,000) was nearly three times higher than the firearms death rate among all Americans (12.9 per 100,000).

"Straw purchasers" are legal gun buyers who are acting as surrogates for the criminal who wants the gun. Straw purchases have been federal felonies since 1968.

A February 1999 report by the ATF found approximately 10 percent of the guns used in crimes by juveniles and children were sold at gun shows and flea markets.

Between 2,000 and 5,000 gun shows are held annually in the United States each year."

source

I googled "Gun show weapons used in crimes" and that was just the first hit. The article, as a whole, explores both sides of the issue briefly.

R.

Message edited by author 2011-01-13 14:11:37.

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

01/13/2011 02:11:26 PM · #305

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So bans on weapons designed primarily to kill people do not work. Especially when they are lifted. 31 rounds? Other than killing a lot of people quickly, what need is there for this? These modifications are intended only to take the life of a fellow person.

The two classic replies:

A) That violates my rights. So don't do it.
B) That won't work. So don't do it.

All gun control measures fall under either A or B so advocates have their bases covered.

To prove this, I'd like to hear from some of the vocal crew what they think would be a reasonable example of an increased gun control measure? Anything at all. Your choice.

You see, that's where we have our disconnect... I was under the impression that we have quite enough already, it's that we simply can't effectively enforce what we've already enacted - and you seem to think that somehow piling more layers of shit on the pile is somehow going to make it smell better....

As for a "reasonable" gun control measure? Sure, that's easy - figure out how to increase the efficiency of what is already in place.

Besides, a gun didn't do this... A psychotic lunatic did this with a gun. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves what failing of the mental heath system has allowed people like this to fail so miserably at integration into society, and yet, until they do something tragic, there's not a damn thing that can be done... Do you really think your great(x1000)Grandfather, when he was sitting in his little group of neolithic people, would have let a person who was obviously a threatening sort of crazy, to setup a camp nearby? Nah, I'd bet that those sort of early humans were much better at dealing with persons who found unreasonable difficulty in societal integration.

Are you proposing that society attempt to do something that actually makes sense? Attack the actual cause of a problem instead of its symptoms? Find solutions that really help people?

Are you insane? How is that going to help any politicians get elected?

What blasphemy!!!

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/13/2011 02:13:30 PM · #306

Originally posted by David Ey:

What does having those three attributes qualify you for?

Probably being able to vote in Montana's Republican Primary Election and receiving government-provided health care through the Department of Veterans' Affairs (nee VA) clinics and hospitals.

01/13/2011 02:17:58 PM · #307

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
Just a curiosity question, can you actually list any assault that has occurred with a weapon that was proven to have been bought at a gun show? Seems to me that Brick&Mortars seems to sell all of the firearms used in this type of crime.

"In 1996, over 14, 000 Americans died in gun-related homicides. Gun shows have always offered a way for "straw purchasers" to funnel weapons into the hands of criminals. Waiting periods and background checks for gun shows will make it more difficult for guns to get into the hands of violent criminals. The inconvenience of a background check at these shows is a small price to pay, if the stricter controls will save lives. The NRA argues that this violates the rights of gun owners, but ultimately President Clinton's new proposals would not make gun ownership any more complicated than getting a drivers' license.
The 1996 firearms death rate among male teenagers aged 15 to 19 (36.3 per 100,000) was nearly three times higher than the firearms death rate among all Americans (12.9 per 100,000).

"Straw purchasers" are legal gun buyers who are acting as surrogates for the criminal who wants the gun. Straw purchases have been federal felonies since 1968.

A February 1999 report by the ATF found approximately 10 percent of the guns used in crimes by juveniles and children were sold at gun shows and flea markets.

Between 2,000 and 5,000 gun shows are held annually in the United States each year."

source

I googled "Gun show weapons used in crimes" and that was just the first hit. The article, as a whole, explores both sides of the issue briefly.

R.

Wow, I had no idea that juveniles and children were such threats to our society!

So, basically, they suspect that somehow, someway, the criminals are eventually getting the guns from gunshows... I guess my biggest problem with this is that the "Straw purchasers" can go to a regular gun shop just as easy as a gun show... And, stealing the darn things is still easier and cheaper.

*shrug* I could care less about the gun shows, and guns too for that matter, what I dislike is the thought process that leads some to believe that if we only enact more laws it'll solve our problems, when in reality we have quite enough laws, and fail to enforce them well.

Aside from all of this, getting back to the original impetus, it's important for all of us to realize that an unexpected, unpredictable attack from an unknown assailant is highly likely to succeed, no matter what the weapon of choice, no matter what the venue, no matter what the laws. So our real challenge, if we want security, is to detect this type of individual and enact measures to reduce the threat they pose to our society. But, now that does start to sound a bit 1984 doesn't it?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/13/2011 02:22:16 PM · #308

Originally posted by Mick:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Mick:
Being a vet from Montana who loves Reagan doesn't necessarily mean he knows shit from Shinola.

I assume you speak from a position of authority, having made a careful comparison study yourself.

Absolutely. I tested a large number of Reagan loving Montana veterans using a Craftsman model 1019 Laboratory Edition Signature Series bullshit meter. The kind used by Caltech high energy physicists. And NASA engineers. A split second before the bullshit meter was applied to each test subject, it had been calibrated by top members of the state AND federal Department of Weights and Measures... to be dead on balls accurate! Here's the certificate of validation. The test results clearly showed that a significant percentage of the subjects were full of shit.

Satisfied?

Thank you for the clear explanation of your Materials and Methods. I believe you have provided enough information for me to complete my National Science Foundation grant application to attempt to replicate and verify your results. Publishing concurrently in a peer-reviewed journal (perhaps we can get a recommendation from The Gun GuyÂ®) will lend credence to any similar findings, or we could co-author a single article if necessary ... ;-)

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/13/2011 02:29:11 PM · #309

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Wow, I had no idea that juveniles and children were such threats to our society!

Huh. You previously implied you live in the gritty reality section of our society. You never heard of gangs before?

01/13/2011 02:33:50 PM · #310

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
Wow, I had no idea that juveniles and children were such threats to our society!

Huh. You previously implied you live in the gritty reality section of our society. You never heard of gangs before?

And what about Columbine etc...?

R.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/13/2011 02:35:21 PM · #311

Originally posted by coryboehne:

As for a "reasonable" gun control measure? Sure, that's easy - figure out how to increase the efficiency of what is already in place.

I think most gun-control advocates if the more restrict of the current laws (regarding acquisition primarrily) were uniformly enforced nationwide. The reason the current "system" doesn't work effectively is that in most places where there are restrictions in place -- such as an effective background check, certification of competency, etc. -- a person usually has to drive less than an hour to find a place without those safeguards.

I believe that the NRA believes in "responsible" gun ownership and use. I think the government as part of its duty to protect all citizens has the right and responsibility to ensure that anyone attempting to aquire a firearm [i]IS[/u] a responsible, competent, law-abiding adult, just like they do in licensing drivers, licensing doctors and pharmacists, licensing proprietors who serve alcohol, and likewise restricting the activities of any number of people in a position to cause great harm to the public if they f*** up.

FWIW I have shot guns before, but nothing high-caliber and not for a long time; lately I've returned to archery for my target shooting.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/13/2011 02:41:08 PM · #312

Originally posted by coryboehne:

You do, of course, realize that a primary source of guns for gangsters is actually black-market purchases of stolen weaponry though right?

Isn't allowing your firearm to be stolen the definition of irresponsible gun ownership? Isn't requiring your firearm to be under your personal control or securely locked up a "reasonable" requirement for someone to be able to own a gun? How about being required to carry liability insurance (say, ten $Million) to repay the victims hurt with their stolen gun?

01/13/2011 02:43:52 PM · #313

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

When I read juveniles and children, I see an implied status of non-gang member.. As gang-member carries soo much more weight, it's kinda like the "order of operations" in math, that I'd expect to see it instead of juveniles and children. And, no, not a hell of a lot of gang members are under 8.. I expect they might be talking as much about horseplay at home that involved a gun and someone lost their proverbial eye.. *shrug*

01/13/2011 02:45:38 PM · #314

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
Wow, I had no idea that juveniles and children were such threats to our society!

Huh. You previously implied you live in the gritty reality section of our society. You never heard of gangs before?

And what about Columbine etc...?

R.

Not sure, did they get their guns at a gun show?

I'm afraid I've not managed to keep close tabs on all of our famous psychos, never really having cared much about them - the odd street criminal is more of my concern, since statistically I know that's the much larger threat.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/13/2011 02:50:18 PM · #315

Originally posted by Louis:

I can't tell you how completely tasteless it seems to me to show off weapons during a discussion such as this.

There really is no accounting for taste, is there?

Look, part of my personal artistic statement is to make images that are deliberately provocative and poke at things that make many people uncomfortable. You'll see it again and again in my photography and illustration. I have no great, overarching goal in mind, it's just my thing. Maybe I'm uninspired, lazy, or just going for the easy shock. I'm fine with that. I like to ape the violence of our media, pushing it to absurdity, to get a reaction. Apparently that worked.

Now, why did I post them? I guess I'll have to spell it out. They're an example of the use of firearms to create something. I like shooting (how appropriate) pictures of guns. Half the reason I own them is to use them in photography, to capitalize on their symbolism, or to invert it. The weapon as theater. Pink footed PJs with a gun and a beard as clashing symbols of childhood and adulthood. In Soviet Russia, horse puts you down (or: a twisting of western cowboy culture patriotism, if you consider the eagle plaque). Believe it or not, one of my concerns about access to firearms is artistic... I don't want to be cut off from making the photographs I enjoy making, particularly when I see them as a commentary on the debate itself. You can read that as selfish, putting my hobby above the lives of other people, but I simply don't see it that way. Guns are embedded deep in American culture, and we should be able to make statements about them, even photographic statements.

Given the discussion, I thought the images were quite topical and support my point about seeing guns as tools and symbols. I've used them both ways here. I don't for a moment buy into the idea that it's too soon or the wrong forum for these images just because people were recently killed and injured. Yes, it was a tragedy, but I'm not here to discuss those events... I'm here to provide my perspective on the gun rights debate. If anything, I feel it's now more important for people to see firearms in a different light, even if it's polarizing.

And you know what? A lot of people have questioned the taste of those images even outside of this context... just because they have guns in them. Just because guns make some people uncomfortable.

Good!

That's kind of the point.

Edit:

And of course, juvenile humor about jizzing on Jesus is the epitome of taste in this context, right?

Message edited by author 2011-01-13 14:57:38.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/13/2011 02:50:32 PM · #316

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
Wow, I had no idea that juveniles and children were such threats to our society!

Huh. You previously implied you live in the gritty reality section of our society. You never heard of gangs before?

And what about Columbine etc...?

R.

Not sure, did they get their guns at a gun show?

I'm afraid I've not managed to keep close tabs on all of our famous psychos, never really having cared much about them - the odd street criminal is more of my concern, since statistically I know that's the much larger threat.

YOU made the statement, bolded above, and it didn't have any gun-show qualifier appended to it, it was sort of a sidebar comment. Doc and I are merely pointing out a couple real world examples of juveniles that DID/DO do bad things with guns. But i see you've already brushed Doc off with the entire unwarranted presumption that juvenile gangsters aren't included in the "juvenile" statistic because of some sort of personal hierarchy of coding you are postulating. You're a slippery one, Cory :-)

R.

Apple iPhone 5

01/13/2011 02:51:35 PM · #317

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Do you really think your great(x1000)Grandfather, when he was sitting in his little group of neolithic people, would have let a person who was obviously a threatening sort of crazy, to setup a camp nearby? Nah, I'd bet that those sort of early humans were much better at dealing with persons who found unreasonable difficulty in societal integration.

Yes. They ate them.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/13/2011 02:52:13 PM · #318

The Hidden Life of Guns -- Washington Post
How Thousands of U.S. Guns Fuel Crime in Mexico -- NPR/Fresh Air (audio and transcript available)
Arizona Gun Laws Among Most Lenient In US -- NPR/Fresh Air (audio and transcript available)

Message edited by author 2011-01-13 15:53:55.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/13/2011 02:53:08 PM · #319

Probably they are labelled as juveniles because the gang members forget to check the "gang affiliation" box on the survey...

01/13/2011 02:55:36 PM · #320

Originally posted by JH:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
Do you really think your great(x1000)Grandfather, when he was sitting in his little group of neolithic people, would have let a person who was obviously a threatening sort of crazy, to setup a camp nearby? Nah, I'd bet that those sort of early humans were much better at dealing with persons who found unreasonable difficulty in societal integration.

Yes. They ate them.

Yup. Or drove them off their territory (best case) or enslaved them, or just killed them. What they DIDN'T do is welcome non-tribe members with open arms, ever. This tribalism is something we've been trying to transcend as long as we've been developing civilization. Tribes became nations: now if we're to survive, we sort of need all nations to become one tribe. Guns won't help.

But I'm a dreamer. It's my saving grace, however, that I can't abide granola :-)

R.

01/13/2011 02:59:58 PM · #321

Originally posted by GeneralE:

....

I believe that the NRA believes in "responsible" gun ownership and use. I think the government as part of its duty to protect all citizens has the right and responsibility to ensure that anyone attempting to aquire a firearm [i]IS[/u] a responsible, competent, law-abiding adult, just like they do in licensing drivers, licensing doctors and pharmacists, licensing proprietors who serve alcohol, and likewise restricting the activities of any number of people in a position to cause great harm to the public if they f*** up.

....

As do I. However, that being said - how exactly can you EVER really ensure that someone is a responsible, competent, law-abiding adult? Oh, wait - you said just like in drivers licenses --- really? Cause that doesn't seem to work to well if you ask me, at least once a week I find myself sharing the road at close proximity to someone that CLEARLY should not have a drivers license. If you went around using your gun as unintelligently as some people drive, then I'm pretty sure you'd lose the weapon before the license..

In short, it'd be nice if we could actually tell if someone was qualified to own a weapon, or a car, or to do a job, or . or. or. In truth, we can't, we can do our due diligence, we can have them take tests, we can do everything imaginable, but it won't stop some from getting them the right way that should have them, and it can't prevent those who get it the wrong way either...

I know someone will ask me how I can stand to drive my car, I mean, I didn't put the lugnuts on my tires (I did actually check them, but that's beside the point), so how can I trust that the tire guy didn't do something that will cause my car to crash, or maybe it was the road crew, there could be a huge sinkhole under that pavement... I guess it requires a certain amount of faith *(of which I have little) or a certain amount of nihilism (of which I've been accused, even in this very thread).. The real trick is blending that certain amount of faith or nihilism with just the right amount of caution, preparation, and readiness for the unexpected. For me, part of that equation does include having a firearm at the ready when it seems prudent(Like carried on my person when I'm going to go photograph some place I know there are hostile drug dealers operating in the area, or Mexican nationals who might get nervous about a GWC), or is exceedingly convenient (like in my home)... Far, far more important parts are stuff like having a fire extinguisher, and wearing my seatbelts, driving the speed limit, having good condition tires on my vehicle, and a blanket in there too (I've needed that several times, sometimes just to keep warm, other times for trauma victims).. I could go on, but you should get the idea.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/13/2011 03:13:11 PM · #322

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by Louis:
I can't tell you how completely tasteless it seems to me to show off weapons during a discussion such as this.

There really is no accounting for taste, is there?

Look, part of my personal artistic statement is to make images that are deliberately provocative and poke at things that make many people uncomfortable. You'll see it again and again in my photography and illustration. I have no great, overarching goal in mind, it's just my thing. Maybe I'm uninspired, lazy, or just going for the easy shock. I'm fine with that. I like to ape the violence of our media, pushing it to absurdity, to get a reaction. Apparently that worked.

He Was My Brother (Paul Simon Lyrics Challenge)
Bits and Pieces (Eponymous Challenge)
License to Kill (Authorrity Challenge)
Razor Bak (Product Shot Challenge)

01/13/2011 03:13:39 PM · #323

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
Wow, I had no idea that juveniles and children were such threats to our society!

Huh. You previously implied you live in the gritty reality section of our society. You never heard of gangs before?

And what about Columbine etc...?

R.

Not sure, did they get their guns at a gun show?

I'm afraid I've not managed to keep close tabs on all of our famous psychos, never really having cared much about them - the odd street criminal is more of my concern, since statistically I know that's the much larger threat.

YOU made the statement, bolded above, and it didn't have any gun-show qualifier appended to it, it was sort of a sidebar comment. Doc and I are merely pointing out a couple real world examples of juveniles that DID/DO do bad things with guns. But i see you've already brushed Doc off with the entire unwarranted presumption that juvenile gangsters aren't included in the "juvenile" statistic because of some sort of personal hierarchy of coding you are postulating. You're a slippery one, Cory :-)

R.

:) Yes I am Rob, I have told you that I sold cars for a living once right? ;)

Seriously enough though, I thought you were referencing the gunshow thing..

As for the Doc, I'm not sure how unwarranted it was, as that was certainly what I was thinking. My overarching point, implied as it was, is that statistically I suspect that children make up a VERY small percentage of the public gun crime, juvenile is a broad age range, and granted can include a huge number of socioeconomic statuses, so perhaps he was talking about gangsters... yeah, they're a threat, a very real one.

Speaking of, it reminds me of a story from when I lived in D.C., (Arlington actually), and the new year, a couple of kids (I'll use that term to not be derogatory) from the Ville, robbed an older woman who was loading her groceries into her car, they then shot her (both of them IIRC) several times, now mind you this was just after dawn, and their reason for killing her - when they were caught? They just wanted to be the first ones to kill somebody that year... Great, awesome reason, I remember just how strongly it struck me that these really were amazing pieces of human waste - and the scary part was that it was crystal clear that they lived in a subculture that recognized that type of thought pattern as normal and commendable... Wow.. Bet you're pretty happy the Ville isn't next door to you huh?

As for the threat they pose? Huge in that context, those little f-wads have a serious moral deficit - and I suspect the parents are more to blame than the media, but yeah, we've got a whole big-ass generation of even more self-entitled shitheads just around the corner I fear - my generation was pretty bad about it, but boy did we manage to instill it in our children. Of course, I don't really view that sub-segment as "normal" children and juveniles... Now the types of cases you're talking about are more "normal" suburban types, "sleepers" if you will.. They don't actually pose a huge danger, due to infrequency, but their effectiveness is undeniable.

And, well, I guess I just see that as yet another darn good reason to keep myself well armed and prepared.

Message edited by author 2011-01-13 15:24:46.