|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/22/2012 11:36:39 AM · #376 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Check out the Guns International Listings: thousands of guns for sale, many (if not most) by private parties, tons of handguns. |
Bear - lots of items are for sale all over the world. It doesn't change the laws requirements upon buying or selling. The most eggregious act of violating the law was our own Justice Department - who coerced law abiding FFL dealers to sell illegal guns to illegal buyers. Your focus on illegal guns reads like verbage from the anti-gun activists - who are about as accurately informed as MSNBC. |
You keep referring to private sales as illegal. You are wrong. An individual in most states can sell a handgun to anybody over the age of 18 without a background check and without verifying their identity. These are NOT illegal sales.
Only six states (California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows, including sales by unlicensed dealers. Three more states (Connecticut, Maryland and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Eight other states (Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Nebraska and North Carolina) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the gun show loophole. |
|
|
|
06/22/2012 11:47:59 AM · #377 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
You keep referring to private sales as illegal. |
No I have not. Please re-read my posts. I said there are laws governing selling and buying. I have not addressed the laws for private sales yet.
What you are implying is that lawful gunowners who have passed a background check and are otherwise upstanding citizens of their communities, all of a sudden go rogue and because of a couple hundred dollars, sell their registered handgun to a criminal. A criminal who doesn't follow the law after obtaining their firearm. ]
What I believe you are trying to write is that there are isolated instances of illegal firearm transactions, which to you are not acceptable. So therefore, all firearms should be banned. |
|
|
|
06/22/2012 12:00:41 PM · #378 |
No, what we're SAYING is that there's a vast, open, easily-accessed gun market in America. That hundreds of thousands of guns change hands every year. That it's not difficult to qualify to legally own a gun in America. That it's not difficult for criminals to get ahold of guns in America. That all of the laws and regulations you keep throwing at us as if they actually make a measurable "difference", don't. That we, as a nation, are awash in a sea of firearms and that (in my opinion, at least) there's no excuse for it.
Message edited by author 2012-06-22 12:01:01.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2012 12:06:46 PM · #379 |
From your link at the Huffington Post-
"But the exemption for private sellers was intended to cover occasional sales from personal gun collections, a father selling a gun to his son-in-law, for example, not regular sales that supplement income. Virginia law uses the language, "occasional sales of curios and relics." Many of the private sellers sold new, or very recently manufactured, guns -- hardly curios or relics."
Your article is disingenuious on many fronts (from the video of an egyptian AK to the mention of military arms implying that .50 calibers are sold regularly to criminals, etc), but certainly what I would expect from the Huffington Post. The italicised quote above sums up my position as I posted a couple posts up. The Virginia lesgislature has already addressed the action of bypassing FFL requirements and noted specific circumstances for the exception. The articles example of a "private sale" termed "cash and carry" does not follow the Legislatures law as written. It is more striking to note the number of FFL dealers who do follow the law in Virginia's haven of easy sales. |
|
|
|
06/22/2012 12:12:54 PM · #380 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, what we're SAYING is that there's a vast, open, easily-accessed gun market in America. That hundreds of thousands of guns change hands every year. That it's not difficult to qualify to legally own a gun in America. That it's not difficult for criminals to get ahold of guns in America. That all of the laws and regulations you keep throwing at us as if they actually make a measurable "difference", don't. That we, as a nation, are awash in a sea of firearms and that (in my opinion, at least) there's no excuse for it. |
Bear - the gun sales you report, the "hundreds of thousands" that change hands every year, are covered under a number of laws. If something is illegal, and a person chooses to do that which is illegal, then it becomes a law enforcement issue. Your fight is not with the lawful lawabiding gun owners, it is with the criminals. |
|
|
|
06/22/2012 12:15:41 PM · #381 |
Hmm....duplicate post....
Message edited by author 2012-06-22 12:16:56.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2012 12:15:42 PM · #382 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Again, it's simply not that hard. I live in a fairly rural area, and there are quite a few good ol' boys buying and selling guns in and out of their collections who aren't really all that concerned about background checks and legalities. I also live near enough to a city where "The Projects" are readily available and you can buy anything you want.....if you're brave enough to venture there. |
Originally posted by Flash:
So you have personal knowledge of neighbors illegally selling firearms. And you remain quiet - preferring to boast of it on a photography site. You are the problem. If your rural good
'ol boys are selling firearms without regard to "legalities" as you posted, then you should call the ATF. |
Sigh......Flash, you're foaming at the mouth. Settle down.
It is *not* illegal here in Pennsylvania to one gun owner to sell his gun to another. And I'm merely making you aware of something that happens in areas where you obviously have no knowledge. I also don't ask for a sales slip when I buy something at a yard sale. That doesn't mean that the seller and I are involved in interstate transport and fencing of stolen goods.
As far as calling the ATF, I think they'd probably want complete details of specific incidents, and also want whomever calls to testify to same. Considering that I haven't specifically gone out to entrap someone who *might* be involved in illegal transactions, I pretty much mind my own business. I don't have any reason to believe there's a black market amongst the people I know who target shoot for sport and hunters.
Originally posted by Flash:
What I suspect you really mean is that some farmers who are upstanding citizens in their own right, who have passed background checks for the guns in their collections, are having a private sale with another person who has previously passed a background check and adding a firearm to their collection. That scenario is vastly different than the implied rampant illegal sale of fireamrs and the total disregard for the law by otherwise law abiding gunowners. |
Flash, I said what I meant. You don't have to have a background check to buy rifles and shotguns here. And I have no idea what the particular laws are in this area regarding collector pieces, such as old handguns that have been in the family for years, or whatever......again, it's none of my business. This isn't a debate, Flash, I'm simply pointing out what happens in real life, and speaking of the way things are.
And if you don't think that there are gun equipment junkies, just like there are camera junkies, then you're seriously mistaken. One guy I know happens to collect assault rifles, and I know he's doing it legally.
Originally posted by Flash:
Fess up - which is it? Are you the problem or trying to make one up? |
Let me think.......I would want to make what I'm talking about up so that you can argue with me about what's actually going on out here, have you misconstrue my meaning, and have you attack me exactly why?
I would suggest that you look around you rather than try to negate what people here are telling you about the specific areas where they live, and events and experiences they have personal knowledge.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2012 12:21:49 PM · #383 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, what we're SAYING is that there's a vast, open, easily-accessed gun market in America. That hundreds of thousands of guns change hands every year. That it's not difficult to qualify to legally own a gun in America. That it's not difficult for criminals to get ahold of guns in America. That all of the laws and regulations you keep throwing at us as if they actually make a measurable "difference", don't. That we, as a nation, are awash in a sea of firearms and that (in my opinion, at least) there's no excuse for it. |
Originally posted by Flash:
Bear - the gun sales you report, the "hundreds of thousands" that change hands every year, are covered under a number of laws. If something is illegal, and a person chooses to do that which is illegal, then it becomes a law enforcement issue. Your fight is not with the lawful lawabiding gun owners, it is with the criminals. |
Again......there are grey areas, and loopholes. That doesn't automatically make criminals.
I'm assuming that from your adherence to your position that you must be one of those people who never drives 2 mph over the speed limit, and doesn't put a recyclable plastic bottle in a trash can, right?
Stop arguing so hard and take note of what you can learn.....
|
|
|
|
06/22/2012 12:56:59 PM · #384 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, what we're SAYING is that there's a vast, open, easily-accessed gun market in America. That hundreds of thousands of guns change hands every year. That it's not difficult to qualify to legally own a gun in America. That it's not difficult for criminals to get ahold of guns in America. That all of the laws and regulations you keep throwing at us as if they actually make a measurable "difference", don't. That we, as a nation, are awash in a sea of firearms and that (in my opinion, at least) there's no excuse for it. |
Bear - the gun sales you report, the "hundreds of thousands" that change hands every year, are covered under a number of laws. If something is illegal, and a person chooses to do that which is illegal, then it becomes a law enforcement issue. Your fight is not with the lawful lawabiding gun owners, it is with the criminals. |
No, my beef is with the "culture of guns". With the availability of guns. With all that rationales that people use to justify their ownership of tools that have no purpose whatsoever except the dispensing of death. I think we need to outgrow this stage of our development. I'm well aware it's an uphill battle.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2012 01:06:10 PM · #385 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It is *not* illegal here in Pennsylvania to one gun owner to sell his gun to another. |
But there is paperwork required when that happens - for handguns. Even private sales of handguns require the buyer to register as the new owner of that firearm. Here there are 4 copies. 1 to the seller, 1 to the buyer, 1 to the local PD/Sheriff, and 1 to the State Police. And that is with a CCW/CPL where the buyer has already passed a background check and has their fingerprints on file. Can a person choose to not comply with this law? Sure - but then they become a criminal and it is now a law enforcement issue not a gun sales issue. The law is clear and I suspect that your area has similar laws - that you may not know about - and thus misunderstand the ease of hand gun sales.
Long guns are a different matter. State Legislatures have addressed those on a state by state basis - taking into account their states particular needs and requirements. Bear's post regarding gang members and handguns is an entirely different matter you chose to interject yourself into. Bear's point is there are too many guns in America and thus in his opinion that is inexcusable. I have no problem with you or Bear or dahkota choosing to not own a firearm. I do have a problem when you use distorted information to advance a cause of confiscation and restriction against those who choose to lawfully own them. |
|
|
|
06/22/2012 01:34:35 PM · #386 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, my beef is with the "culture of guns". With the availability of guns. With all that rationales that people use to justify their ownership of tools that have no purpose whatsoever except the dispensing of death. |
Perhaps this is the crux of our impasse. An efficient tool to stop a criminal assault upon me or one under my care seems a reasonable expectation to me. |
|
|
|
06/22/2012 01:43:47 PM · #387 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Perhaps this is the crux of our impasse. An efficient tool to stop a criminal assault upon me or one under my care seems a reasonable expectation to me. |
You see them as a tool to stop criminal assaults. Statistically, the criminal is far more likely to use a gun in the commission of his crime than the victim is to defend himself. Handguns are designed to kill people, you see that action as defensive, I see that action as offensive. |
|
|
|
06/22/2012 01:48:01 PM · #388 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Flash:
Perhaps this is the crux of our impasse. An efficient tool to stop a criminal assault upon me or one under my care seems a reasonable expectation to me. |
You see them as a tool to stop criminal assaults. Statistically, the criminal is far more likely to use a gun in the commission of his crime than the victim is to defend himself. Handguns are designed to kill people, you see that action as defensive, I see that action as offensive. |
Again another example of words posted that are commonly believed to be true yet when analyzed with actual data are found to be quite inaccurate. John Lott has a long history of research regarding the use of firearms in self defense and crime prevention. Perhaps a review of his research would be insightful. |
|
|
|
06/22/2012 02:15:56 PM · #389 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Flash:
Perhaps this is the crux of our impasse. An efficient tool to stop a criminal assault upon me or one under my care seems a reasonable expectation to me. |
You see them as a tool to stop criminal assaults. Statistically, the criminal is far more likely to use a gun in the commission of his crime than the victim is to defend himself. Handguns are designed to kill people, you see that action as defensive, I see that action as offensive. |
Again another example of words posted that are commonly believed to be true yet when analyzed with actual data are found to be quite inaccurate. John Lott has a long history of research regarding the use of firearms in self defense and crime prevention. Perhaps a review of his research would be insightful. |
John Lott's latest blog post:
Originally posted by blogspot[/quote:
"Gun-toting advocates protest charges against teen in Birmingham"
I lived in the Birmingham area off and on when I was a kid and I have one memory of kids walking down the street where we lived with rifles. I suppose that things have changed a fair amount. While I generally prefer concealed carry, this article still provides an interesting discussion of the emotions at play. From the Detroit News:
". . . At issue is the April 13 arrest of Sean M. Combs, a Troy High School student, after he strolled Old Woodward Avenue in downtown Birmingham with a M-1 rifle strapped to his back.He faced three misdemeanor charges for brandishing a weapon, resisting and obstructing police, and disturbing the peace ΓΆ€” each punishable by up to 93 days in jail.
Gun enthusiasts and supporters of "open carry" flocked to the regularly scheduled meeting of the commission, which was not expected to take action or address the charges, to voice their opposition.
They say the penalties ignore a right protected by law, even if that might be unpopular among some. They also called for improved police training.
"Why ruin the life of an 18-year-old man for the actions of an overzealous police officer?" said John Roshek, president of the Citizens League for Self Defense, a group that works to educate people on their Second Amendment rights and open carry. . . ." |
A teenager strolled his neighborhood streets with an M-1 rifle slung across his back, and in your world this is OK? You don't have an issue with this? You think it's a good idea to have armed citizens strolling the streets of our cities? 'Cuz John Lott apparently advocates it, though to be fair he says he "prefers" concealed carry.
R.
Message edited by author 2012-06-22 14:16:29.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2012 02:27:38 PM · #390 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
John Lott's latest blog post:
Originally posted by blogspot |
"Gun-toting advocates protest charges against teen in Birmingham"
I lived in the Birmingham area off and on when I was a kid and I have one memory of kids walking down the street where we lived with rifles. I suppose that things have changed a fair amount. While I generally prefer concealed carry, this article still provides an interesting discussion of the emotions at play. From the Detroit News:
". . . At issue is the April 13 arrest of Sean M. Combs, a Troy High School student, after he strolled Old Woodward Avenue in downtown Birmingham with a M-1 rifle strapped to his back.He faced three misdemeanor charges for brandishing a weapon, resisting and obstructing police, and disturbing the peace ΓΆ€” each punishable by up to 93 days in jail.
Gun enthusiasts and supporters of "open carry" flocked to the regularly scheduled meeting of the commission, which was not expected to take action or address the charges, to voice their opposition.
They say the penalties ignore a right protected by law, even if that might be unpopular among some. They also called for improved police training.
"Why ruin the life of an 18-year-old man for the actions of an overzealous police officer?" said John Roshek, president of the Citizens League for Self Defense, a group that works to educate people on their Second Amendment rights and open carry. . . ."[/quote:
A teenager strolled his neighborhood streets with an M-1 rifle slung across his back, and in your world this is OK? You don't have an issue with this? You think it's a good idea to have armed citizens strolling the streets of our cities? 'Cuz John Lott apparently advocates it, though to be fair he says he "prefers" concealed carry.
R. |
The articles I read and the report on the local news was that it was a pellet rifle and the kids were target practicing in a backyard violating an ordinance. They openly carried the rifle from one persons house to another. Hardly what I would call a wave of illegal gunrunning. The responding officers informed the youths of the ordanance. Of course when first reported it was much more "emotional" before the "rest of the story" got out. |
|
|
|
06/22/2012 02:33:05 PM · #391 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The articles I read and the report on the local news was that it was a pellet rifle and the kids were target practicing in a backyard violating an ordinance. They openly carried the rifle from one persons house to another. Hardly what I would call a wave of illegal gunrunning. The responding officers informed the youths of the ordanance. Of course when first reported it was much more "emotional" before the "rest of the story" got out. |
That's as may be, but that's not what Lott was commenting on, is it? I quoted this (merely his latest blog post, mind you) to show just where this "informed authority" of yours was coming from, ideologically.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2012 03:08:47 PM · #392 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
The articles I read and the report on the local news was that it was a pellet rifle and the kids were target practicing in a backyard violating an ordinance. They openly carried the rifle from one persons house to another. Hardly what I would call a wave of illegal gunrunning. The responding officers informed the youths of the ordanance. Of course when first reported it was much more "emotional" before the "rest of the story" got out. |
That's as may be, but that's not what Lott was commenting on, is it? I quoted this (merely his latest blog post, mind you) to show just where this "informed authority" of yours was coming from, ideologically. |
My "informed authority" as you post it has over 90 published articles and several books. He has painstakingly researched the defensive use of handguns and chronicled that data publicly for review and rebuttal. Some disagree with his conclusions and that is available for persons like you or I to read and assess for ourselves. But rather than attack the author's ideology, perhaps a better response would be to acctually refute his data.
That afterall is your point - that there are too many guns thus more crime - whilst he has published a book that specifically shows more guns equal less crime. So enough of the ideology and present your years of research that show he doesn't know what he is writing about. Take his book, pull excerpts and refute them based on the data. Simple. Or maybe not, because his data is sound.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2012 03:22:10 PM · #393 |
I never said "too many guns equals more crime". That's not my point at all. But I'm out of this one. I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of manipulated statistics, which is where these discussions always end up.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2012 03:36:09 PM · #394 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Again another example of words posted that are commonly believed to be true yet when analyzed with actual data are found to be quite inaccurate. John Lott has a long history of research regarding the use of firearms in self defense and crime prevention. Perhaps a review of his research would be insightful. |
Lott was trained as an economist, and has the flaws of an economist in his arguments. He teases out narrow strands of data to support his theories and ignores or diminishes those that run counter to his argument.
from wiki siting some of those who had problems with his work; "Other reviews claimed that there were problems with Lott's model. In the New England Journal of Medicine, David Hemenway argued that Lott failed to account for several key variables, including drug consumption, and that therefore the model was flawed;[19] however, Lott's book did account for other variables such as cocaine prices.[20] Others agreed, and some researchers, including Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue, claimed that the model contained significant coding errors and systemic bias.[21] Gary Kleck considered it unlikely that such a large decrease in violent crime could be explained by a relatively modest increase in concealed carry,[22] and others claimed that removing portions of the data set caused the results to still show statistically significant drops only in aggravated assaults and robbery when all counties with fewer than 100,000 people and Florida's counties were both simultaneously dropped from the sample.[23]
In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found "no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime."[24] James Q. Wilson dissented from that opinion, and while accepting the committee's findings on violent crime in general,[25] he noted that the committee's own findings in several tests showed "that shall-issue laws drive down the murder rate".[26]"
To say that because an academic is well respected he alone gets to define the basis for a policy argument is rather silly. Lott pulls examples to bolster his argument and gets well funded for it, while someone like Arthur Kellermann approaches guns from the perspective of a public health issue, and the NRA has congress de-fund his research.
Of course the primary flaw is assessing the value of any local law on Conceal Carry (or any other limitation of clip size or frankly anything to do with guns) is the fact that these laws are regional and we have no effective method of keeping guns restricted to areas with liberal gun laws. Without border enforcement, gun laws don't work. Is it a surprise that D.C.'s restrictive gun laws failed, when Virginia has much more lax laws? National laws work to make a population safer from gun violence, but local laws are about as pointless as drug free zones around high schools.
Message edited by author 2012-06-22 15:54:55. |
|
|
|
06/22/2012 04:29:23 PM · #395 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I have no problem with you or Bear or dahkota choosing to not own a firearm. I do have a problem when you use distorted information to advance a cause of confiscation and restriction against those who choose to lawfully own them. |
Would you please give us the post number(s) of the posts where any of the three of us stated anything remotely like....
"advance a cause of confiscation and restriction against those who choose to lawfully own them."?
I'm also pretty amused at your calling anyone's discussing their personal knowledge and experience with firearms and people they have been involved with relating to same as "distorted information".
You don't know anything about me, the people I know, live and work with, and the area where I live. I'm probably one of the only people where I work who doesn't own a gun. You can be damn sure I'll eat their venison, though.
I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing, or why.
Message edited by author 2012-06-22 16:29:43.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2012 11:28:40 AM · #396 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Flash:
Again another example of words posted that are commonly believed to be true yet when analyzed with actual data are found to be quite inaccurate. John Lott has a long history of research regarding the use of firearms in self defense and crime prevention. Perhaps a review of his research would be insightful. |
Lott was trained as an economist, and has the flaws of an economist in his arguments. He teases out narrow strands of data to support his theories and ignores or diminishes those that run counter to his argument.
from wiki siting some of those who had problems with his work; "Other reviews claimed that there were problems with Lott's model. In the New England Journal of Medicine, David Hemenway argued that Lott failed to account for several key variables, including drug consumption, and that therefore the model was flawed;[19] however, Lott's book did account for other variables such as cocaine prices.[20] Others agreed, and some researchers, including Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue, claimed that the model contained significant coding errors and systemic bias.[21] Gary Kleck considered it unlikely that such a large decrease in violent crime could be explained by a relatively modest increase in concealed carry,[22] and others claimed that removing portions of the data set caused the results to still show statistically significant drops only in aggravated assaults and robbery when all counties with fewer than 100,000 people and Florida's counties were both simultaneously dropped from the sample.[23]
In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found "no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime."[24] James Q. Wilson dissented from that opinion, and while accepting the committee's findings on violent crime in general,[25] he noted that the committee's own findings in several tests showed "that shall-issue laws drive down the murder rate".[26]"
To say that because an academic is well respected he alone gets to define the basis for a policy argument is rather silly. Lott pulls examples to bolster his argument and gets well funded for it, while someone like Arthur Kellermann approaches guns from the perspective of a public health issue, and the NRA has congress de-fund his research.
Of course the primary flaw is assessing the value of any local law on Conceal Carry (or any other limitation of clip size or frankly anything to do with guns) is the fact that these laws are regional and we have no effective method of keeping guns restricted to areas with liberal gun laws. Without border enforcement, gun laws don't work. Is it a surprise that D.C.'s restrictive gun laws failed, when Virginia has much more lax laws? National laws work to make a population safer from gun violence, but local laws are about as pointless as drug free zones around high schools. |
The point that you are missing is that a law violation action on the part of a person, transforms them into a lawbreaking criminal. The rub I have with several posts above is the blanket references using terms like "easy", "awash", "anyone" etc. These terms are simply not true regarding gun sales and the gun restriction debate. Even in areas with more liberal gun laws. I don't understand how DC's crime rate is blamed on Virginia's lax gun laws while Virginia's crime rate is convieniently excluded - and that is where the supposed "gun haven" is. Isn't it logical that if lax gun laws were the root cause of high crime rates, then Virginia should have the highest crime rate in the nation? Yet you and others fail to address this obvious problem with that argument.
Then we have posters claiming first hand knowledge of illegal gun sales and refusing to notify the authorities - preferring instead to spout off on how easy it is to buy and sell guns and why that should be restricted. Yet when I provide specific rebuttal regarding the requirements of private sales and handguns and even those who have a CCW/CPL and have passed a background check and have their finger prints on file, even THEY have to complete 4 copies of the sale and submit it to law enforcement - this lawful transaction requirement is ignored.
Further, I find it incredulous that the millions of law abiding gun owners who file the paperwork and obey the law with zero incidents, are ignored over the emotional fever of the actions of crimonals. The sport of shooting and the practice of hunting are ignored as reasonable uses of firearms. Additionally, the very real possibility of using a firearm in self defense (Lott claims 95% while other say it is closer to 70-80%)is ignored as well. These stats are published and can be reviewed and refuted if the data supports that - but instead I read about how the author (Lott) is either biased or well paid or has an ideology - so what - refute the data. Regardless of whether he is biased - either his data is sound or it isn't. If it is sound - which brings us back to the above question of why is DC's crime rate higher than Virginia's - then one has to re-evaluate the hype of lax guns laws and easy sales and the awash of america in guns.
Guns are not the problem. Crinimals are the problem. Please do not confuse criminal action and an intentional skirting of gun laws as a problem with gun laws or firearms. No more so than someone using a bludgeon that happens to be a Canon 5D is testament to all users of Canon cameras and thus should be restriceted/outlawed.
The title of this thread is "Guns don't kill people" - and they don't - people kill people. It is a crime issue not a gun issue.
Virginia crime rate stats 1960-2011
Message edited by author 2012-06-23 11:42:02. |
|
|
|
06/23/2012 11:41:35 AM · #397 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, what we're SAYING is that there's a vast, open, easily-accessed gun market in America. That hundreds of thousands of guns change hands every year. That it's not difficult to qualify to legally own a gun in America. That it's not difficult for criminals to get ahold of guns in America. That all of the laws and regulations you keep throwing at us as if they actually make a measurable "difference", don't. That we, as a nation, are awash in a sea of firearms and that (in my opinion, at least) there's no excuse for it. |
Bear - the gun sales you report, the "hundreds of thousands" that change hands every year, are covered under a number of laws. If something is illegal, and a person chooses to do that which is illegal, then it becomes a law enforcement issue. Your fight is not with the lawful lawabiding gun owners, it is with the criminals. |
No, my beef is with the "culture of guns". With the availability of guns. With all that rationales that people use to justify their ownership of tools that have no purpose whatsoever except the dispensing of death. I think we need to outgrow this stage of our development. I'm well aware it's an uphill battle. |
I was waiting until someone crossed this line. I knew it would happen.
I'm pro gun ownership rights. I think guns should be available to those who choose to acquire them, even if the reason is as simple as "I want a gun". I then expect the guns to be used legally, and if not, the law should severely punish people using them illegally, for a crime they've actually committed.
First, an olive branch: I, apparently like most here, believe that using guns for self defense is a pointedly stupid rationale for gun ownership. It's BS. It doesn't work. People don't function well in high stress situations, and most people making the self defense argument do not maintain the sort of constant training that is required to respond correctly in case of an attack. Even if they do, the situations in which firepower can be used for self defense 'safely', without putting others at risk yourself (say, by shooting at a robber in a convenience store full of other people... are you really scanning the background like you might do at the range?) are vanishingly small, and you are almost always better served by being non-confrontational or retreating. It is incredibly unfortunate that self defense seems to be the rationale offered by most gun rights advocates, and believe me, it makes me less comfortable knowing how many gun owners think this way. I like the person behind the trigger to be rational.
However, the idea that the ONLY use for guns is 'dispensing death' is also BS. I own guns. I have put thousands of rounds through them and yet I have not killed a single living creature with a gun. Have I been doing it wrong this whole time?
I own a semiautomatic pistol. One of those notorious 'people killing' guns that you don't use on deer. But I use it to shoot paper, as a sport. It is an incredibly gratifying social pass-time. It combines the good clean fun of Boy Scouts practicing archery with the constant tension and release of a 4th of July fireworks display. Loud noises are fun. Explosions are fun. Influencing stuff that's far away from you in a the blink of an eye is fun (see: laser pointers). Poking holes in things is fun (see: lasers). And above all, practicing a skill and improving the results over time in a measurable way you can assign a score to, to compare your skills with your peers, is fun. Yes, I am saying that guns are fun and that alone is justification enough for owning one.
I grew up in VT, a state with some of the most liberal gun laws in the country (seriously, they were basically giving kids guns there) and one of the lowest rates of gun violence per capita. I just don't buy the correlation between availability and crime.
Now for an analogy. When I was a kid, my father got a blasting license in VT. It's like a gun license, but for dynamite. At the time, these were easy to get, much like a gun is in VT today. After all, they handed them out to nerd-glasses engineers working at IBM to blow up rocks, beaver dams, and concrete cisterns in the basement. (Stay out of the house kids!) That is a low bar indeed. My dad then proceeded to blow stuff up around town for years, no worries. And I have to say, dynamite is a heck of a lot of fun.
Dynamite. The sort of thing you could use for terrorist acts on a huge scale, just sitting in some random dude's barn, ready for all kinds of mischief. Danger in a box, basically. Totally legit at the time. But now that we had some dudes fly planes into some buildings, your average homemaker can't get those licenses without a lot of extra red tape, if at all. What if a terrorist got ahold of some dynamite? Better keep a close eye on all fertilizer sales, too! The disincentives are now too great, so my father has let his license lapse. I am sure he would still use it if he could, even at his age. It's fun! Sometimes we would just hang a stick off a tree to watch it explode.
What has changed? Criminals can still get (or make) explosives, but my father can't remove tree stumps the easy way. I think he should be able to. I think I should be able to, if I chose to. But nope.
That is the gun rights debate in a nutshell.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2012 02:14:27 PM · #398 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If it is sound - which brings us back to the above question of why is DC's crime rate higher than Virginia's - then one has to re-evaluate the hype of lax guns laws and easy sales and the awash of america in guns. |
At a certain point in the argument over guns, it often becomes a question of faith. I will argue facts, but not faith. When you keep circling around to why if gun laws work, DC has a higher crime rate than Virginia, then there is no point in going on with the conversation, we have entered the echo chamber; as the man said "What we have here is a failure to communicate".
Originally posted by Flash:
The title of this thread is "Guns don't kill people" - and they don't - people kill people. |
Do scissors cut cloth? Do hammers hit nails? It seems to me they do. They are tools, and they do a specific job. Guns are a tool that make holes in objects at a distance. Some tools are more dangerous than others. Anyone can buy a hammer. I would hope that to use a wrecking ball you would have to be licensed and insured.
The more dangerous the tool, the more people who are killed and injured by it's misuse, the more reasonable regulating that tool becomes. Cars are killer number one, so we licence drivers, force them to insure their vehicles, inspect them annually and have a whole section of law dedicated to making driving safer. And still driving is dangerous. Does this mean that vehicular laws are a failure and ought not to exist? Of course not, we are looking for safer, with no expectation of absolute safety.
The refrain from the NRA and some gun owners is the notion that guns are a special and sacred icon, a tool set apart from all other tools. They foster the notion that those who are tired of seeing guns in the hands of the insane and street gangs must of course begin by eradicating all legal gun ownership. That somehow this is a digital issue, either there are no gun laws or their are no guns. If Teflon coated rounds are made illegal, then inevitably all other bullets and guns must be confiscated. It is a false assumption. The notion that the only thing you can do in response to the number of guns on the street is to loosen CC, slap a laser sight on your 45 and outgun everyone else, is a pretty sad response. |
|
|
|
06/23/2012 02:56:38 PM · #399 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Flash:
If it is sound - which brings us back to the above question of why is DC's crime rate higher than Virginia's - then one has to re-evaluate the hype of lax guns laws and easy sales and the awash of america in guns. |
At a certain point in the argument over guns, it often becomes a question of faith. I will argue facts, but not faith. When you keep circling around to why if gun laws work, DC has a higher crime rate than Virginia, then there is no point in going on with the conversation, we have entered the echo chamber; as the man said "What we have here is a failure to communicate".
Originally posted by Flash:
The title of this thread is "Guns don't kill people" - and they don't - people kill people. |
Do scissors cut cloth? Do hammers hit nails? It seems to me they do. They are tools, and they do a specific job. Guns are a tool that make holes in objects at a distance. Some tools are more dangerous than others. Anyone can buy a hammer. I would hope that to use a wrecking ball you would have to be licensed and insured.
The more dangerous the tool, the more people who are killed and injured by it's misuse, the more reasonable regulating that tool becomes. Cars are killer number one, so we licence drivers, force them to insure their vehicles, inspect them annually and have a whole section of law dedicated to making driving safer. And still driving is dangerous. Does this mean that vehicular laws are a failure and ought not to exist? Of course not, we are looking for safer, with no expectation of absolute safety.
The refrain from the NRA and some gun owners is the notion that guns are a special and sacred icon, a tool set apart from all other tools. They foster the notion that those who are tired of seeing guns in the hands of the insane and street gangs must of course begin by eradicating all legal gun ownership. That somehow this is a digital issue, either there are no gun laws or their are no guns. If Teflon coated rounds are made illegal, then inevitably all other bullets and guns must be confiscated. It is a false assumption. The notion that the only thing you can do in response to the number of guns on the street is to loosen CC, slap a laser sight on your 45 and outgun everyone else, is a pretty sad response. |
The facts are; that the root cause of a problem - once identified - should adress the problem. If the root cause of higher DC crime rate is loose gun laws in Virginia, then we should see high crime rates in Virginia. The fact you choose to ingore the obvious fallacy in the argument is illimination enough - instead choosing to focus on a "failure to communicate". I do not see how it could be any simpler. If the root cause of high crime like DC has, is weak or lax gun laws, then LA should be a bastion of safety. A) it is along way from Virginia and B) they have very restrictive gun laws. Same with Chicago. Is anyone arguing that the high crime rate in Chicago is its proximity to Virginia? No. It's a bogus argument. Not a faiulure to communicate. Its false.
Regarding dangerous tools and their regulation. You and others keep implying that firearms are not regulated. I submit (and have submitted) that firearms are quite regulated, have been for years, and will likely continue to be in the future. The repeated mantra of "easy", "awash", and "anyone" are merely emotional words meant to deceive. They are inaccurate and cannot go unchallenged - lest a less informed person believe the hype and errantly vote for further restricting an item that is already restricted. Examples noted in prior posts.
sp edit
Message edited by author 2012-06-23 15:02:23. |
|
|
|
06/24/2012 05:53:44 PM · #400 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Unless you have the right of executive privilege. |
...or get pardoned right?
Ray |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 05/19/2025 06:01:35 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/19/2025 06:01:35 AM EDT.
|
