a message from Gun Owners of America to me

[shmogie]

Owning a firearms is a constitutionally guaranteed right, period.

What society thinks about any of my guaranteed rights is irrelevant. We do not live in a democracy where the mob rules, we live in a representative Constitutional Republic.

If you don´t like me having that right, then you have two options, amend the constitution so my right is totally flayed away, which is what you want, or see that there is a convention of the states to eliminate my right.

Always, always in some peoples minds more authority to the government will solve problems.

It very rarely does.

Australiaś murder rate by firearms is rising, apparently some didn´t get the memo, and they never will.

Gun control advocates remind me of Don Quixote, I studied him for an entire quarter in a Spanish Lit. class.

He imagined he had the answers to a lot of problems in society. He and Sancho Panza wandered around, interjecting themselves into peoples business with utterly flawed concepts.,His motives were of the highest order, yet in reality, he simply was a pain in the butt for those with whom he had contact.

Finally he identified the greatest problem to society, a monster. Like a true knight with a pure heart he charged the monster, but in the end had to admit the monster was a windmill.

Gun control advocates are after the windmill of a hunk of steel that if fully loaded and put on a boulder and left alone by people, would not harm anyone for a million years. In fact, when I teach basic firearms training to newbies, before they even touch a firearm, I make them stare at a loaded one on the bench for ten minutes, then ask them how long they would have to watch before the gun jumped up and began firing. They get the message that the problem is people, not guns.

You are transfixed by the rolling shiny ball, and totally ignore who rolled it and why.

It won´t work.

Because of the slaughter by knives in the UK, they have knife control laws now.

Onvce again the shiny ball wins, and no one has to worry about the actual social causes and the people who murder.

 

[shmogie]

It's either that or look at the reality of a draft should things get bad.

The draft was needed and implemented in WW1, WW2, VN.

 

[PureX]

Use regulation and oversight. Funny I don´t find those words in the Constitution.

You don't find the world "automobile use and oversight regulation", either, and yet for the sake of pubic safety, which is one of the main responsibilities of government, those regulatory laws now exist.

In 25 years as a LEO, I found that the crooks who carried and used guns didn´t give a rats *** about any laws restricting their having a gun or using it.

That changes when the consequences of breaking the law becomes significant enough to them make them rethink their ignorance. Nevertheless, we will always have some people who will break the laws, yet that's certainly no reason not to have laws. There will always be rapists, for example, in spite of our laws against it, but this is no reason to eliminate the laws against rape? I can't imagine that you'd be stupid enough to be suggesting that. Yet for some reason you seem to be suggesting that because the criminals are ignoring the laws against gun possession and use, that we should just eliminate them.

Use regulation and oversight, i.e. more government intrusion into ones life, is aimed at the good citizen who will jump through the hoops to obtain a firearm. The good guy,

It's the government's purpose to "intrude in one's life". That's what the establishment of government is for. Human behavior has to be regulated and moderated for humans to live together in a cooperative society.

The social problem of bad people who do bad things, including laughing at any gun control laws that might exist, while they carry their illegal gun, is ignored.

Yes, and that's because we Americans have such an insane gun fetish that we refuse to effectively regulate the access to and use of them to the degree that is required to actually control it appropriately.

I support thorough background checks, and a short basic firearm safety presentation at the [point of purchase, perhaps by DVD, and that is it, period.

Well, that isn't going to be effective, and many innocent citizens will continue to die each year because you can't accept effective regulation. And you apparently just don't care about them.

I find it somewhat disingenuous when gun control advocates demand more and more restrictive laws on guns, be
cause of their huge anxiety over firearms deaths.

Yes, what fools they are pretending to care so much about all those dead and injured fellow citizens, just so they can force the gun fetishists to behave responsibly.

Yet I could easily design a set of laws relating to motor vehicles and their use that would take a huge bite out of the 50,000 or so deaths on the highway, perhaps 50%.

You may think so, but at some point the laws outstrip the people's ability to comply with them, and they will then ignore them. This is not the case with our current motor vehicle regulatory system, of course. And it would not be the case with a similar firearm regulatory system. At some point we have to realize that all the laws we can write will not eliminate crime. But as already stated, that doesn't mean the only reasonable solution is having no laws, and no regulation of human behavior. The goal is EFFECTIVE regulation. Both for the responsible citizens who want to have guns, and for the irresponsible citizens that need to be kept away from them.

Everyone depends on motor vehicles, and apparently accept the deaths as a price someone else has to pay for their convenience.

Everyone understands that we have already established as effective regulation as is reasonably possible to impose. This clearly is NOT the case with firearms.

Most gun control advocates who support draconian laws, do not own guns, and perhaps are afraid of them. It is no skin of their nose if a law abiding citizen must have his second amendment rights trashed so they can think they have ¨ done something ¨.. I once heard one of these ignorant ones state in a news conference that an AR - 15 fired 1,000 rounds in a second.

There is no such thing as a "draconian gun law". That sort of hyperbole is just foolishness. No one will suffer and die because they are denied a license to possess a gun based on their past irresponsibility.

Under no circumstance should the government intrude itself into the lawful exercise of a Constitutional right.

Yeah, you really have no idea why humans create governments, do you.

 

[Jonathan Bailey]

You don't find the world "automobile use and oversight regulation", either, and yet for the sake of pubic safety, which is one of the main responsibilities of government, those regulatory laws now exist.
That changes when the consequences of breaking the law becomes significant enough to them make them rethink their ignorance. Nevertheless, we will always have some people who will break the laws, yet that's certainly no reason not to have laws. There will always be rapists, for example, in spite of our laws against it, but this is no reason to eliminate the laws against rape? I can't imagine that you'd be stupid enough to be suggesting that. Yet for some reason you seem to be suggesting that because the criminals are ignoring the laws against gun possession and use, that we should just eliminate them.

Somebody might get murdered because they were threatened or stalked, denied a gun for some petty reason or a screw-up in the background check system and the criminal prevailed.

Gun rights, after all, are protected under the Second Amendment: the privilege to drive a car is not Constitutionally-protected.

The government has a hidden agenda, an ulterior motive, for "gun control'. It's not for your "safety", your children's "safety" or mine.

Any American who would forfeit liberty, including the right to be armed for self-preservation in the name of a false sense of safety (while the real motive for such disarmament is tyranny) deserves no genuine safety, no liberty and no self-preservation.

 

[shmogie]

You don't find the world "automobile use and oversight regulation", either, and yet for the sake of pubic safety, which is one of the main responsibilities of government, those regulatory laws now exist.
That changes when the consequences of breaking the law becomes significant enough to them make them rethink their ignorance. Nevertheless, we will always have some people who will break the laws, yet that's certainly no reason not to have laws. There will always be rapists, for example, in spite of our laws against it, but this is no reason to eliminate the laws against rape? I can't imagine that you'd be stupid enough to be suggesting that. Yet for some reason you seem to be suggesting that because the criminals are ignoring the laws against gun possession and use, that we should just eliminate them.

We in the NRA have been demanding strict enforcement of existing gun laws, with strong mandatory sentences for decades. It isn´t happening. Your government at work, and you want to add more laws when the existing ones are not enforced.

You do not seem to understand the concept of an unalienable right. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it.

How important are the lives of those killed in auto accidents ?

If we mandated $3,000 worth of additional safety equipment on cars, and reduced the maximum speed limit to 50 mph, then doubled the size of the highway patrols in each state, I guarantee a 50% reduction in deaths. Are you with me ? And driving is not even a right it is a privilege, so doing these important steps to save 25,000 lives should be easy ! Lets do it !

I am certainly not against laws, I will wager I know more about the law and the people who break it more than you.

I am against draconian laws, which are overly restrictive, intrusive, and are said to exist for a small percentage who require them, yet they are unConstitutional burdens on millions, and are an excuse for more bloated bureaucrats to be poking their fingers into our lives.

The results will be more people left undefended, and more crooks packing guns.

Nope, your ideas are simply ineffective eyewash. A crook can get an illegal gun in any city within an hour.

Your draconian laws will do nothing to this illegal traffic. Massive amounts of firearms are smuggled across the border every year, right along with illegal aliens, there will always be an illegal firearms bazaar going on, and all of your laws will be irrelevant to itś buyers and sellers.

Why don´t you let me teach you how to shoot, you might enjoy it, itś great fun, and btw, you aren´t taking my guns away.

 

[shmogie]

Somebody might get murdered because they were threatened or stalked, denied a gun for some petty reason or a screw-up in the background check system and the criminal prevailed.

Gun rights, after all, are protected under the Second Amendment: the privilege to drive a car is not Constitutionally-protected.

The government has a hidden agenda, an ulterior motive, for "gun control'. It's not for your "safety" or mine.

An American who would forfeit liberty, including the right to be armed for self-preservation in the name of a false sense of safety (when the real motive for such disarmament is tyranny) deserves no genuine safety, no liberty and no self-preservation.

Yes, my daughter, trained by me, has a concealed carry permit. she is all of 5 feet tall. When coming home late from work one night, a guy jumped the wall of her gated community and came running toward her, she simply took her pistol out of her purse and said ¨ five more feet and you are dead¨. He ran back to the wall, jumped over it out of the complex and was never seen again.

 

[Jonathan Bailey]

We in the NRA have been demanding strict enforcement of existing gun laws, with strong mandatory sentences for decades. It isn´t happening. Your government at work, and you want to add more laws when the existing ones are not enforced.

You do not seem to understand the concept of an unalienable right. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it.

How important are the lives of those killed in auto accidents ?

If we mandated $3,000 worth of additional safety equipment on cars, and reduced the maximum speed limit to 50 mph, then doubled the size of the highway patrols in each state, I guarantee a 50% reduction in deaths. Are you with me ? And driving is not even a right it is a privilege, so doing these important steps to save 25,000 lives should be easy ! Lets do it !

I am certainly not against laws, I will wager I know more about the law and the people who break it more than you.

I am against draconian laws, which are overly restrictive, intrusive, and are said to exist for a small percentage who require them, yet they are unConstitutional burdens on millions, and are an excuse for more bloated bureaucrats to be poking their fingers into our lives.

The results will be more people left undefended, and more crooks packing guns.

Nope, your ideas are simply ineffective eyewash. A crook can get an illegal gun in any city within an hour.

Your draconian laws will do nothing to this illegal traffic. Massive amounts of firearms are smuggled across the border every year, right along with illegal aliens, there will always be an illegal firearms bazaar going on, and all of your laws will be irrelevant to itś buyers and sellers.

Why don´t you let me teach you how to shoot, you might enjoy it, itś great fun, and btw, you aren´t taking my guns away.

If I could work my will, the ATF would be disbanded and the Gun Control Act of 1968 as well as the National Firearms Act of 1934 would be abolished. None of these three gun-control forces have ever saved a single innocent person to date, I do believe. Nearly every mass shooter in American mass shooting history got their guns from FFL gun dealers while still in full compliance with all the hoops and hurdles of the ATF, FBI/NICS, GCA of 1968 and NFA of 1934. These anti-gun forces do, however, prevent a lot of honest Americans from defending themselves due to technical screw-ups in the system. In California, there was even a policeman who was denied a gun under NICS!

 

[PureX]

Somebody might get murdered because they were threatened or stalked, denied a gun for some petty reason or a screw-up in the background check system and the criminal prevailed.

That's an irrelevant "what if". And it wouldn't be the laws fault.

Gun rights, after all, are protected under the Second Amendment: the privilege to drive a car is not Constitutionally-protected.

Our rights do not negate our responsibilities. The whole point of establishing a government, and laws, is to both limit and protect those rights, equitably, for the sake of life, liberty, and opportunity of all. Our right to have a gun does not negate our fellow citizen's right to a reasonably safe environment. And since these rights do conflict (because guns are very dangerous and humans are often reckless), laws must be imposed to equitably distribute and regulate those conflicting rights.

The government has a hidden agenda, an ulterior motive, for "gun control'. It's not for your "safety", your children's "safety" or mine.

No it doesn't.

Any American who would forfeit liberty, including the right to be armed for self-preservation in the name of a false sense of safety (while the real motive for such disarmament is tyranny) deserves no genuine safety, no liberty and no self-preservation.

Every citizen everywhere on Earth forfeits some degree of their personal liberty so that their fellow citizens can have some degree of personal liberty. It's the price we pay to live in an organized, civilized society of human beings. To facilitate this mutual sacrifice societies establish governments, and laws, and methods of enforcement. No one gets to do whatever they want just because they want to.

 

[Shad]

fellow citizen's right to a reasonably safe environment.

No such right.

 

[shmogie]

That's an irrelevant "what if". And it wouldn't be the laws fault.
Our rights do not negate our responsibilities. The whole point of establishing a government, and laws, is to both limit and protect those rights, equitably, for the sake of life, liberty, and opportunity of all. Our right to have a gun does not negate our fellow citizen's right to a reasonably safe environment. And since these rights do conflict (because guns are very dangerous and humans are often reckless), laws must be imposed to equitably distribute and regulate those conflicting rights.
No it doesn't.
Every citizen everywhere on Earth forfeits some degree of their personal liberty so that their fellow citizens can have some degree of personal liberty. It's the price we pay to live in an organized, civilized society of human beings. To facilitate this mutual sacrifice societies establish governments, and laws, and methods of enforcement. No one gets to do whatever they want just because they want to.

Guns are very dangerous ? Really ? Do they bite, or hunt people down ? Maybe they just explode for no reason ? Guns are no more dangerous, actually less so than my stereo system. A gun has never electrocuted anyone.

People are dangerous, guns are innocuous.

Tort and criminal law are the avenues of redress if someone feels a gun owner has infringed upon their safety.

No further laws need to be implemented to ¨regulate´ my 2nd amendment rights. I have never shot anyone with s gun, I have never been accused of recklessness with a firearm, so what makes you think my rights should be trifled with ?

Drunk people kill others by driving, the only solution from your reasoning, return to prohibition.

People die every year from falling off of ladders, your solution, make people get licensed to be a ladder owner, and have a government inspector check their ladders once a year.

As a retired LEO I can assure you that firearms are a piece of personal safety equipment. There are many thousands alive today because they had a firearm when they were threatened.

In the LA riots of the 90ś there was an entire block of businesses destroyed, except one. The Korean American owner and his sons stayed at their store, with pistols and shotguns, very visible, the mob avoided them. The firearms preserved their means of support without firing a shot.

In the small Arizona town where I live, every household has firearms. This is required because the nearest Sheriffs deputy may be 50 miles away. The crooks know that if you break into an occupied home, you die.


We have very few burglaries because neighbors with guns also watch out for others. Assaults are virtually unheard of. deaths by accident with firearms don´t exist, there have been a couple of suicides, their life, their choice.

Compare this community with a comparable sized piece of LA, NY, or Chicago where draconian gun laws exist. Note the firearms slaughter, your laws are impotent, note the number of innocents murdered with no means of self defense, your laws support the murder of innocents.

We are just a small community 40% Hispanic, 60% Anglo, yet it is a peaceful community and most agree that ownership of firearms preserves that peace.

Do you even care why cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the most firearm deaths ? Are there no sociological dynamics that might be causing it ?

Do you honestly think that more gun laws will change this ? Are you that Naive ?

I doubt it. Actually the target of your draconian gun laws is the law abiding citizen, who causes no one any harm. You want to restrict he/she from ready access to a firearm, and you want to harass them while they own it, with absolutely no reason to believe they will ever break any law related to their firearm.

There are many millions of us who own firearms and have never been a problem with them.

You, of course, recognize that laws along the lines you propose will be bitterly fought, the response will be very substantial.

If you truly care about deaths from firearms, I cannot understand why you have no interest in learning why people decide to kill another, and mitigating that.

A true enigma

 

[PureX]

This issue has been so bombarded with lies and hyperbole by corporate interests, politicians, and the media that it is not possible to have a reasoned or polite conversation about, anymore. And even if it were, I won't do battle with other people's willful ignorance. It's waste of time. I've posted my observations and comments, and I'm done here.

 

[shmogie]

This issue has been so bombarded with lies and hyperbole by corporate interests, politicians, and the media that it is not possible to have a reasoned or polite conversation about, anymore. And even if it were, I won't do battle with other people's willful ignorance. It's waste of time. I've posted my observations and comments, and I'm done here.

Hmmmmm, scapegoats are always valuable, and large institutions are great targets.

Willful ignorance. Therefore you know more about an issue than anyone else. Wow, an authority.

Scuttle off, like the emperor and his new clothes, you have preserved your dignity and authority.

At least, in your mind

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Guns are very dangerous ? Really ? Do they bite, or hunt people down ? Maybe they just explode for no reason ? Guns are no more dangerous, actually less so than my stereo system. A gun has never electrocuted anyone.

People are dangerous, guns are innocuous.

So you believe that access to firearms in no way increases the likelihood of death, injury or criminal activity?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household MembersA Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians
Weapons in the Lives of Battered Women
Review of More Than 130 Studies Provides Powerful Evidence That Gun Control Saves Lives

 

[shmogie]

So you believe that access to firearms in no way increases the likelihood of death, injury or criminal activity?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household MembersA Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians
Weapons in the Lives of Battered Women
Review of More Than 130 Studies Provides Powerful Evidence That Gun Control Saves Lives

You modified my meaning. I said nothing about people using guns for nefarious purposes. I was addressing the intrinsic, inherent danger of a firearm. There is none.

Access to firearms is a given to those intent upon criminal purposes. Most have no legal right to firearms, yet they are easily acquired in the criminal firearms market, which laws have not and will not effect.

Certainly firearms are used in suicides. I don¨t know how many suicides you are familiar with, but as a 25 year LEO I saw them trying to jump from buildings, dying from an overdose of drugs, in one case using a razor on their own throat, hanging is used as well.

People bent upon killing themselves without intervention, find a way to do it. Firearms do not drive suicides.

Accidents with firearms occur, just as accidents with automobiles occur. In both cases an irresponsible person is responsible. In most cases, people ignore what they know, basic firearms safety.

Laws could be passed defining firearms storage, or procedures for cleaning a firearm, or stupidly and dangerously goofing around with a gun. How would these be enforced ?

Laws restricting the right of every citizen to own a firearm, to deter a tiny minority who misuse them would certainly work regarding the law abiding citizen. Criminals would welcome it as well. They would be able to obtain a firearm quite easily, as they do now, and have a safer environment and more vulnerable victims as a result.

So then it is always a behavior issue, always.

There are a number of firearms laws on the books that are simply not enforced. The NRA has demanded rigorous enforcement of these laws, to no avail.

Penalties for the use of firearms in a crime are bargained away in plea deals. Strict penalties for those on parole or ex felons with a firearm often suffer the same fate.

Yet draconian laws aimed at the law abiding citizen are going to solve the problem ? no.

These will significantly help.

Strict enforcement and mandatory sentences for use of a firearm in ANY illegal activity .

Firearm safety courses in schools, like it once was.

Proper co ordination of civil agencies in identifying those that not help, then proper intervention to provide help.

Concentration on people and behavior, that is how to effect firearms problems.

Punishing millions of responsible gun owners in a kneejerk futile collection of laws that do little.

Proper co ordination between

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You modified my meaning. I said nothing about people using guns for nefarious purposes. I was addressing the intrinsic, inherent danger of a firearm. There is none.

But that's an incredibly silly argument to make. By the same logic, there's no "intrinsic" danger to an atomic bomb, but we still don't allow people to keep those either. The question isn't whether guns magically somehow cause death on their own - the question is whether they harm more than they help, or if access to guns decreases security and increases the likelihood of injury, death or criminal behaviour. Most studies say yes.

Access to firearms is a given to those intent upon criminal purposes. Most have no legal right to firearms, yet they are easily acquired in the criminal firearms market, which laws have not and will not effect.

But consider the reason why there are so many guns available in said market. It's because of the lack of regulation of American gun manufacturers who flooded the country with guns, and a largely ambivalent political system stymied further by an extremely powerful gun lobby failing utterly to rain in this excess.

Certainly firearms are used in suicides. I don¨t know how many suicides you are familiar with, but as a 25 year LEO I saw them trying to jump from buildings, dying from an overdose of drugs, in one case using a razor on their own throat, hanging is used as well.

People bent upon killing themselves without intervention, find a way to do it. Firearms do not drive suicides.

Wrong. Studies show that someone who lives in a household with a gun is not only more likely to make a suicide attempt, but is also significantly more likely to succeed:
Household Firearm Ownership and Suicide Rates in the United States on JSTOR
https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(18)32383-3/fulltext
More youth suicides seen in states with high gun ownership rates - Reuters

The logic that "gun or no gun, someone intent on killing themselves will do so" simply doesn't stand up against the facts and against reason. It makes perfect sense that, if someone is considering suicide, they will find that decision much easier to make if they have a quick, efficient, painless and almost guaranteed way to carry it out nearby. To ignore this is not only to ignore facts, but to be utterly ignorant about psychology.

Accidents with firearms occur, just as accidents with automobiles occur. In both cases an irresponsible person is responsible. In most cases, people ignore what they know, basic firearms safety.

The difference is that cars carry out their functions billions of times every day for billions of people with extremely low rate of injury. Gun's don't, because they are specifically designed to injure and kill. That is their function. A gun use resulting in injury is not a malfunction - it is the gun working entirely as intended.

Laws could be passed defining firearms storage, or procedures for cleaning a firearm, or stupidly and dangerously goofing around with a gun. How would these be enforced ?

The same way they are enforced in other countries with tighter gun control, and significantly less gun death, than the USA. Universal background checks, yearly follow-ups, stricter licensing and bans out high-caliber assault weaponry.

Laws restricting the right of every citizen to own a firearm, to deter a tiny minority who misuse them would certainly work regarding the law abiding citizen. Criminals would welcome it as well. They would be able to obtain a firearm quite easily, as they do now, and have a safer environment and more vulnerable victims as a result.

That is the fault of your broken system. The facts show that doing nothing about it won't make things any better either, and the facts also show that owning a firearm does not make anybody actually safer. It's a fantasy. Ensuring that less guns end up in the hands of people who are unfit to use them should categorically NOT cause people to be less safe.

So then it is always a behavior issue, always.

There are a number of firearms laws on the books that are simply not enforced. The NRA has demanded rigorous enforcement of these laws, to no avail.

The NRA have literally lobbied to government to defund research into the causes of gun violence. They are a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Penalties for the use of firearms in a crime are bargained away in plea deals. Strict penalties for those on parole or ex felons with a firearm often suffer the same fate.

Yet draconian laws aimed at the law abiding citizen are going to solve the problem ? no.

How about "sensible laws aimed at people taking advantage of a broken system", then? Sound mroe reasonable?

These will significantly help.

Strict enforcement and mandatory sentences for use of a firearm in ANY illegal activity .

Firearm safety courses in schools, like it once was.

Proper co ordination of civil agencies in identifying those that not help, then proper intervention to provide help.

Concentration on people and behavior, that is how to effect firearms problems.

Punishing millions of responsible gun owners in a kneejerk futile collection of laws that do little.

You can have sensible gun control and all of those things as well, you know. Why not consider that an option?

 

[shmogie]

But that's an incredibly silly argument to make. By the same logic, there's no "intrinsic" danger to an atomic bomb, but we still don't allow people to keep those either. The question isn't whether guns magically somehow cause death on their own - the question is whether they harm more than they help, or if access to guns decreases security and increases the likelihood of injury, death or criminal behaviour. Most studies say yes.


But consider the reason why there are so many guns available in said market. It's because of the lack of regulation of American gun manufacturers who flooded the country with guns, and a largely ambivalent political system stymied further by an extremely powerful gun lobby failing utterly to rain in this excess.


Wrong. Studies show that someone who lives in a household with a gun is not only more likely to make a suicide attempt, but is also significantly more likely to succeed:
Household Firearm Ownership and Suicide Rates in the United States on JSTOR
https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(18)32383-3/fulltext
More youth suicides seen in states with high gun ownership rates - Reuters

The logic that "gun or no gun, someone intent on killing themselves will do so" simply doesn't stand up against the facts and against reason. It makes perfect sense that, if someone is considering suicide, they will find that decision much easier to make if they have a quick, efficient, painless and almost guaranteed way to carry it out nearby. To ignore this is not only to ignore facts, but to be utterly ignorant about psychology.


The difference is that cars carry out their functions billions of times every day for billions of people with extremely low rate of injury. Gun's don't, because they are specifically designed to injure and kill. That is their function. A gun use resulting in injury is not a malfunction - it is the gun working entirely as intended.


The same way they are enforced in other countries with tighter gun control, and significantly less gun death, than the USA. Universal background checks, yearly follow-ups, stricter licensing and bans out high-caliber assault weaponry.


That is the fault of your broken system. The facts show that doing nothing about it won't make things any better either, and the facts also show that owning a firearm does not make anybody actually safer. It's a fantasy. Ensuring that less guns end up in the hands of people who are unfit to use them should categorically NOT cause people to be less safe.


The NRA have literally lobbied to government to defund research into the causes of gun violence. They are a wolf in sheep's clothing.


How about "sensible laws aimed at people taking advantage of a broken system", then? Sound mroe reasonable?


You can have sensible gun control and all of those things as well, you know. Why not consider that an option?

I can tell that you are totally ignorant of firearms. Like most gun banners. Guns are not designed to kill or maim anyone. They are designed to fire a bullet.

Some are better suited for self defense than others, yet all firearms are used in a variety of sports by many millions of people., target shooting has always been an inherent part of the modern olympics. Your statement that firearms are designed to kill is pure nonsense.characterization.

¨¨Assault weapons ¨ is not a term that means anything, it is a political term.

So called assault weapons, semi automatic rifles that have mean looking stocks, or barrel shrouds are the most popular hunting rifles in the country. They are not large caliber, they are small caliber. I would however agree that high capacity magazines could be restricted. I have owned one for 47 years , and shot nothing but targets with it. You apparently rely on various studies to inform your views, which is fine. Have you read the study that showed the previous assault weapon ban had no effect on deaths from firearms ? In fact this study is why ¨assault weapons¨ are legal today. I have had one for 47 years years and killed nothing

My concentration on the intrinsic danger of a firearm was in response to another who said ¨guns are dangerous¨ They are not, the person using the firearm can be dangerous.

You discuss automobile use as being an occurrence of billions of times a day. True.

Since most governments ensure that their citizens are essentially unarmed, We cannot use the world as an example.

However, firearms are used safely in the US millions of times a day.

The anti gunner position seems to be that deaths on the highway are acceptable, with no further major efforts needed to mitigate them.

Yet deaths by firearms are totally unacceptable, and every effort must be made, infringing on a Constitutionally guaranteed right ,to prevent them. It seems that in the antigunner mind, those killed by firearms are somehow deader than those killed by car accidents.

Back to your studies. I have two degrees, one in criminal justice, and one in criminology. As a student I collaborated in studies.

In the later stages of my career I was responsible for promulgating some studies.

I know, how biases can potentially effect them. I believe most firearm studies are politically biased, especially those from organizations who exist to deny citizens their 2nd amendment rights.

You make a big deal about firearms manufacturers being able to produce as many guns as they choose, so what ? Why you think the government should have the right to tell a manufacturer how many units of a legal product they can make or sell ?

It is clear that high performance cars ( I have one now and have had others) are involved in traffic deaths more than a bloated buick. Wouldn´t it be wise to deny manufacturers the right to manufacture and sell them ? Think of the lives saved if everyone would drive a 4 cyl. car with a speed governor on it.

You want licensing, why ? To be better able to control the buyer of legal firearms, it serves no other purpose. Firearm registration has only one purpose, to generate a list for confiscation when the government chooses.

The Second amendment is as clear as a bell, ¨ the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ¨. This is a right, not a privilege granted and removable by the government.

Black folk have the right to go where they choose and patronize any business they choose. This a sacred right, yet it is no more binding on the government than the right to keep and bear arms.

Firearms have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of American citizens. My hundred pound daughter was saved when she used her legally owned firearm to deter a man bent on doing her harm. She could have been just another dead victim without it.

In 25 years I saw that scenario often, regardless of what you believe. Of course, twice I was on the wrong end of a firearm pointed unlawfully at me. Did that instill in me the desire to restrict the ownership of firearms for tens of millions of people who use their firearms in a completely safe manner ? Absolutely not.

You are afraid of guns, fine, stay away from them. In your desire to prevent firearms deaths you yearn to restrict others, which I guarantee will have little effect.

The NRA for years has produced legal and detailed proposals to deal with behavior of those abusing firearms. We have demanded mandatory sentences for crimes with firearms, we have demanded strict enforcement of existing law, all to no avail. The issue is too valuable as a political tool, and common sense approaches might detract from it. Instead, we have gun free zones that are laughable at preventing firearms deaths, and contribute to them when responsible people can´t carry firearms for the common defense for all the targets. They just stand and die, at the hands of someone usually known to be psychologically unstable.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I can tell that you are totally ignorant of firearms. Like most gun banners. Guns are not designed to kill or maim anyone. They are designed to fire a bullet.

See, it's statements like the above that make it impossible to actually debate this issue.

1 - As said before, to ignore the intended function of guns is ridiculous. They are designed to kill. You can continue to pretend not to know this, if you want, but you're just going to look silly.
2 - I am not a "gun banner". I live in a country where guns are banned, and I am extremely happy about that, but I personally feel an outright ban on firearms is unworkable in America. I am in favour of stricter gun control laws, regulation on the gun industry and greater effort and research into the causes of gun violence. To simply paint me as a "gun banner" is dishonest.

Some are better suited for self defense than others, yet all firearms are used in a variety of sports by many millions of people., target shooting has always been an inherent part of the modern olympics. Your statement that firearms are designed to kill is pure nonsense.characterization.

Except the guns used in sports aren't the same kinds of guns often used in crime or self-harm, and multiple countries have absolutely no problem enabling people to own an operate recreational firearms while retaining strict regulations (or outright bans) on personal firearms. This isn't rocket science.

¨¨Assault weapons ¨ is not a term that means anything, it is a political term.

Oh dear. How dare I use a "political term". I must punish myself.

So called assault weapons, semi automatic rifles that have mean looking stocks, or barrel shrouds are the most popular hunting rifles in the country. They are not large caliber, they are small caliber. I would however agree that high capacity magazines could be restricted. I have owned one for 47 years , and shot nothing but targets with it. You apparently rely on various studies to inform your views, which is fine. Have you read the study that showed the previous assault weapon ban had no effect on deaths from firearms ? In fact this study is why ¨assault weapons¨ are legal today. I have had one for 47 years years and killed nothing

Please present this study. I don't care about your personal experience - I assume you're a responsible gun owner. But the fact is that your right to shoot at targets should categorically not outweigh the rights of the dozens (if not hundreds) of victims of mass shootings. Your recreation is not more important than people's lives.

My concentration on the intrinsic danger of a firearm was in response to another who said ¨guns are dangerous¨ They are not, the person using the firearm can be dangerous.

This is just semantic nonsense. You know perfectly well what is meant when people say "guns are dangerous", and being obtuse isn't helping the debate.

You discuss automobile use as being an occurrence of billions of times a day. True.

Since most governments ensure that their citizens are essentially unarmed, We cannot use the world as an example.

Actually, you can. Because many countries HAD guns, then either enacted stronger laws or outright bans and saw a significant decrease is death rates. To ignore this and to only focus on studies of the USA (a country that, due to decades of poor regulation, has more guns per head than people) is to deliberately ignore relevant facts.

However, firearms are used safely in the US millions of times a day.

Please provide evidence of this.

The anti gunner position seems to be that deaths on the highway are acceptable, with no further major efforts needed to mitigate them.

Strawman. Nobody said deaths on roads are "acceptable". They aren't: that's why there are strict laws regarding who can drive, who is qualified to drive, what they can drive, how fast they can drive it and where they can drive them. Apparently, you were unaware of this.

Yet deaths by firearms are totally unacceptable, and every effort must be made, infringing on a Constitutionally guaranteed right ,to prevent them. It seems that in the antigunner mind, those killed by firearms are somehow deader than those killed by car accidents.

This is an obvious mischaracterization, and a lie. As someone who has lost family and friends in car accidents, for you to suggest I don't care about car deaths is repulsive to me. You should be ashamed.

Back to your studies. I have two degrees, one in criminal justice, and one in criminology. As a student I collaborated in studies.

In the later stages of my career I was responsible for promulgating some studies.

I know, how biases can potentially effect them. I believe most firearm studies are politically biased, especially those from organizations who exist to deny citizens their 2nd amendment rights.

Present some studies, then.

You make a big deal about firearms manufacturers being able to produce as many guns as they choose, so what ? Why you think the government should have the right to tell a manufacturer how many units of a legal product they can make or sell ?

Because they make and sell a product designed to kill their citizens. Again, this isn't rocket science. If we were talking about the heroin industry I doubt you would employ the same logic.

Also, these companies are so powerful that they are literally manipulating politicians into not funding the causes of gun violence. To defend them is ridiculous.

It is clear that high performance cars ( I have one now and have had others) are involved in traffic deaths more than a bloated buick. Wouldn´t it be wise to deny manufacturers the right to manufacture and sell them ? Think of the lives saved if everyone would drive a 4 cyl. car with a speed governor on it.

The car industry is already heavily regulated, as is access to cars. Why do you not already know this?

You want licensing, why ? To be better able to control the buyer of legal firearms, it serves no other purpose. Firearm registration has only one purpose, to generate a list for confiscation when the government chooses.

And it's statements like this that make it clear that you really don't care about gun deaths. You're just afraid someone will take your toy away - and, be honest, it's just a toy to you.

The Second amendment is as clear as a bell, ¨ the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ¨. This is a right, not a privilege granted and removable by the government.

For the purpose of a "well-regulated militia", meaning that some regulation was always expected.

Black folk have the right to go where they choose and patronize any business they choose. This a sacred right, yet it is no more binding on the government than the right to keep and bear arms.

Sure. But the constitution specifies "well-regulated" in relation to firearms.

Firearms have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of American citizens. My hundred pound daughter was saved when she used her legally owned firearm to deter a man bent on doing her harm. She could have been just another dead victim without it.

Doesn't outweigh the deaths and crime caused BY guns. I'm glad your daughter's life was saved, but I've never once suggested people like her should have their guns taken away. I simply suggest more regulation. Do you honestly think your daughter wouldn't qualify?

In 25 years I saw that scenario often, regardless of what you believe. Of course, twice I was on the wrong end of a firearm pointed unlawfully at me. Did that instill in me the desire to restrict the ownership of firearms for tens of millions of people who use their firearms in a completely safe manner ? Absolutely not.

Because you can't see the bigger picture. You're not the main target of gun violence or crime - there are tens of thousands of people right now who don't have your ability to stand up for their right to life, because they didn't make it through their experience.

You are afraid of guns, fine, stay away from them. In your desire to prevent firearms deaths you yearn to restrict others, which I guarantee will have little effect.

You have no idea what you'r talking about.

The NRA for years has produced legal and detailed proposals to deal with behavior of those abusing firearms. We have demanded mandatory sentences for crimes with firearms, we have demanded strict enforcement of existing law, all to no avail. The issue is too valuable as a political tool, and common sense approaches might detract from it. Instead, we have gun free zones that are laughable at preventing firearms deaths, and contribute to them when responsible people can´t carry firearms for the common defense for all the targets. They just stand and die, at the hands of someone usually known to be psychologically unstable.

The NRA are funded by organizations who profit from gun manufacture and sales. Any attempts they make at lobbying for regulation are token at best and disguised gun lobbying at worst. Facts show that the NRA have no interest in preventing gun violence or death - their only interest is into their biggest funders: the gun makers and sellers.

 

[shmogie]

See, it's statements like the above that make it impossible to actually debate this issue.

1 - As said before, to ignore the intended function of guns is ridiculous. They are designed to kill. You can continue to pretend not to know this, if you want, but you're just going to look silly.
2 - I am not a "gun banner". I live in a country where guns are banned, and I am extremely happy about that, but I personally feel an outright ban on firearms is unworkable in America. I am in favour of stricter gun control laws, regulation on the gun industry and greater effort and research into the causes of gun violence. To simply paint me as a "gun banner" is dishonest.


Except the guns used in sports aren't the same kinds of guns often used in crime or self-harm, and multiple countries have absolutely no problem enabling people to own an operate recreational firearms while retaining strict regulations (or outright bans) on personal firearms. This isn't rocket science.


Oh dear. How dare I use a "political term". I must punish myself.


Please present this study. I don't care about your personal experience - I assume you're a responsible gun owner. But the fact is that your right to shoot at targets should categorically not outweigh the rights of the dozens (if not hundreds) of victims of mass shootings. Your recreation is not more important than people's lives.


This is just semantic nonsense. You know perfectly well what is meant when people say "guns are dangerous", and being obtuse isn't helping the debate.


Actually, you can. Because many countries HAD guns, then either enacted stronger laws or outright bans and saw a significant decrease is death rates. To ignore this and to only focus on studies of the USA (a country that, due to decades of poor regulation, has more guns per head than people) is to deliberately ignore relevant facts.


Please provide evidence of this.


Strawman. Nobody said deaths on roads are "acceptable". They aren't: that's why there are strict laws regarding who can drive, who is qualified to drive, what they can drive, how fast they can drive it and where they can drive them. Apparently, you were unaware of this.


This is an obvious mischaracterization, and a lie. As someone who has lost family and friends in car accidents, for you to suggest I don't care about car deaths is repulsive to me. You should be ashamed.


Present some studies, then.


Because they make and sell a product designed to kill their citizens. Again, this isn't rocket science. If we were talking about the heroin industry I doubt you would employ the same logic.

Also, these companies are so powerful that they are literally manipulating politicians into not funding the causes of gun violence. To defend them is ridiculous.


The car industry is already heavily regulated, as is access to cars. Why do you not already know this?


And it's statements like this that make it clear that you really don't care about gun deaths. You're just afraid someone will take your toy away - and, be honest, it's just a toy to you.


For the purpose of a "well-regulated militia", meaning that some regulation was always expected.


Sure. But the constitution specifies "well-regulated" in relation to firearms.


Doesn't outweigh the deaths and crime caused BY guns. I'm glad your daughter's life was saved, but I've never once suggested people like her should have their guns taken away. I simply suggest more regulation. Do you honestly think your daughter wouldn't qualify?


Because you can't see the bigger picture. You're not the main target of gun violence or crime - there are tens of thousands of people right now who don't have your ability to stand up for their right to life, because they didn't make it through their experience.


You have no idea what you'r talking about.


The NRA are funded by organizations who profit from gun manufacture and sales. Any attempts they make at lobbying for regulation are token at best and disguised gun lobbying at worst. Facts show that the NRA have no interest in preventing gun violence or death - their only interest is into their biggest funders: the gun makers and sellers.

You don´t live in America. Presumably you are not an American. Therefore your opinion
irrelevant to me.

ALL kinds of firearms are used in sporting events in the US. Quick draw competitions, defensive shooting courses, long distance pistol shooting, all kinds of firearms.

You address the militia part of the second amendment. The American revolution was substantially fought by militiaś. There were no restrictions on firearms ownership for anyone, their firearms ownership made them eligible for a militia. That is why the right of the people, not militiaś, but the people won´t be infringed in firearms ownership..

You think automobiles are safe and well regulated ? A 20 MPH reduction in the maximum speed limit would save untold lives, if life preservation is critical, why aren´t more steps being taken to make driving safer ?

It is apples and oranges as far as you and I discussing firearms. You live where you live, and have your set of laws to live under, which are totally alien to Americans.