Gun Control Petition

Political discussions of any type are welcome here. All we ask is that you try to respect everyone's views, and that you use facts to back up any claims that you make.

Moderators: BarbaraSher, Tituba

Re: Gun Control Petition

Postby Scenario Thinker » Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:11 pm

It will be interesting to see, no matter what happens, more gun control, etc., will there be another mass shooting in several months? Or will there be a more underlying issue dealt with that may address it and actually decrease these shootings over time.
S.Thinker
....o
^/v
/>
User avatar
Scenario Thinker
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 7331
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:01 pm
Location: near Chicago

Re: Gun Control Petition

Postby SquarePeg » Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:10 am

jcjm wrote:
Have you written any proposal in response to this event? If so, I don't recall reading it. I'm just curious what your solution would be?

My proposal was stated at the beginning, let the states regulate it. So that New York isn't telling New Mexico how to live.

Regulate how? I think it was you who wrote that Connecticut has the strictest gun control laws in the USA. Would you then say that Connecticut should ban guns outright? Bear in mind that there are rural areas as well as urban areas in the state. Those in the rural areas have to deal with coyotes and the occasional bear and therefore, as I think you also wrote, they need a gun that can fire many rounds in a short amount of time. If the state enacts even stricter legislation, the rural folks would be just as screwed as you say New Mexico would be should gun controls get enacted at the Federal level. And BTW, are you trying to say that New Mexico has no schools, malls, or movie theatres? Or is it some special place that has no wackos that would shoot up a place? You have made many valid points in this debate, but I don't think your approach is reasonable.
SquarePeg
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: Gun Control Petition

Postby SquarePeg » Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:13 am

jcjm wrote:I think it would be better to focus on the person who did the shooting than to restrict everyone else.
Are you not aware that the shooter is dead? How would you focus on him? He's unlikely to do it again, although reincarnation is a possibility, I suppose.
SquarePeg
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: Gun Control Petition

Postby SquarePeg » Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:20 am

Tituba wrote:I find it interesting how people are blaming the mother. They even don't count her death when they discuss the Newtown victims. This man was not a child. He is the one who is accountable. Granted, alot of factors go into how a person grows up. However, to blame a woman, who was shot in her sleep, is unfair.

"The man is not a child" is debatable. I have read that developmental pediatricians estimate that a child with autism has the emotional maturity of a child 2/3 his or her age. Since Asperger Syndrome is a form of autism, the shooters developmental age might've been about 14 years old, if you extrapolate the theory to adulthood linearly.
SquarePeg
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: Gun Control Petition

Postby jcjm » Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:09 pm

For clarification:

jcjm wrote:
I think it would be better to focus on the person who did the shooting than to restrict everyone else.Are you not aware that the shooter is dead?

How would you focus on him? He's unlikely to do it again, although reincarnation is a possibility, I suppose.


He is 1 person out of 315 million. Rather than make a law to restrict everyone else I would focus on him, not to punish (as he is already dead) but to find out what happened, why and how this could have been prevented. Thus being able to prevent a similar incident in the future.


jcjm wrote:
Have you written any proposal in response to this event? If so, I don't recall reading it. I'm just curious what your solution would be?
My proposal was stated at the beginning, let the states regulate it. So that New York isn't telling New Mexico how to live.

Regulate how? I think it was you who wrote that Connecticut has the strictest gun control laws in the USA. Would you then say that Connecticut should ban guns outright? Bear in mind that there are rural areas as well as urban areas in the state. Those in the rural areas have to deal with coyotes and the occasional bear and therefore, as I think you also wrote, they need a gun that can fire many rounds in a short amount of time. If the state enacts even stricter legislation, the rural folks would be just as screwed as you say New Mexico would be should gun controls get enacted at the Federal level. And BTW, are you trying to say that New Mexico has no schools, malls, or movie theatres? Or is it some special place that has no wackos that would shoot up a place? You have made many valid points in this debate, but I don't think your approach is reasonable.


The states already have the power to regulate firearms. Cities can regulate anything not specified by the state. Therefore it is possible for the ATF to keep its current status, have the state regulate however it wants and have the city place even stronger regulations if it desires.

Chicago has stronger laws than Illinois, showing both rural and city regulations can work side by side.

I'm just for doing it the way the constituion lays out, where states have the rights to make laws that aren't prescribed by the federal govt.


*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

This was for clarification althought it probably won't make much difference because as I also said but no one seems to want to touch,

Can anyone tell me a gun law that would have prevented this shooting, other than taking guns away from people who already own them legally.


With the absense of a gun law that could have prevented this shooting, looking at gun laws seems to be a waste.

There have probably been less than 50 "shooters" since a gunman took a hunting rifle to a tower on a Texas University back in the early 1960's. Although we have come up with SWAT teams and various other things to address a shooter, cut down on response time, etc. things still happen almost 50 years later.

Which to me points to the need to address the shooter before they commit the act. The gun and the act is the last part of the entire process.
jcjm
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 10:01 pm

Re: Gun Control Petition

Postby Scenario Thinker » Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:41 pm

Given that there are 315 million people in the US, and we are the largest in gun ownership, I'd say this kind of thing is bound to happen periodically. It's just going to have a high probability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ ... by_country
The question I have, since I've read that mass shootings didn't really start until the 1960's, is there something to that, or is it something else?
S.Thinker
....o
^/v
/>
User avatar
Scenario Thinker
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 7331
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:01 pm
Location: near Chicago

Re: Gun Control Petition

Postby Tituba » Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:31 am

Image
Tituba
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 9616
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:01 pm
Location: North Shore - Boston

Re: Gun Control Petition

Postby tui » Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:55 am

A petition might help.
Or not.
Visible guns every day are normal for you as a nation - just as they are in various other nations where there is social unease and significant groups that operate under different rules of compliance from the mainstream. Or where there are real and perceived threats and the 'group story' is 'the answer is a gun'.

The petition may start to change the group story - or not. The fears have become fact many times - from marauding wild creatures to marauding people. A kernel of truth - and places where various cultures collide (violent and less-violent, for example).

In the house where I live my flatmate belongs to a pistol club and a hunting club. He shoots competitively. There must be at least thirty guns here - and he loads his own ammunition. (Lots of thrifty shooters do, so ammunition bans may not work too well. And borders are very porous.)
And every year the police arms officer comes to inspect the gun safe and the armoury. And every two or three years others are asked if the holder is safe enough to continue as a shooter. Just like driver licensing. Because we remember Aramoana and Jan Mollenaar, and Scott Guy.

Guns are for farmers and conservation officers and those odd folk who like to head into the hills for the Roar, or the wetlands for game birds, or who aspire to shatter lots of clay targets and go to the Olympics. Not 'everyone'. Or 'many'. Because it's not part of our story of who and what we are as a nation.
So a petition may work.
Or not.
tui
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:01 pm
Location: North Island, NZ

Re: Gun Control Petition

Postby Scenario Thinker » Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:12 am

tui wrote:Visible guns every day are normal for you as a nation

I wouldn't say visible, except the police, and certainly not every day (unless you walk by the police station every day).

With almost 1 gun per person in the US, and maybe up to half the households owning at least one gun, I personally haven't ever known anyone who owns a gun, except some hunters I used to work with back in the day. It's not like we're all walking around totin' our holsters.

Again, it's all about averages. The nation with the most guns per person is going to have, on average, the most mass shootings.
S.Thinker
....o
^/v
/>
User avatar
Scenario Thinker
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 7331
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:01 pm
Location: near Chicago

Re: Gun Control Petition

Postby jcjm » Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:54 am

Its interesting that the governor of New York Andrew Cuomo said in his rally against gun violence that we don't want to take away your hunting guns, I'm a hunter.

Apparently he hasn't read the second amendment and doesn't realize it doesn't say the right to own guns for hunting, but the right to bear arms.

Seems like a diversion from the second amendment which wasn't put in for hunters but for protection from others.
jcjm
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 10:01 pm

Re: Gun Control Petition

Postby merk » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:46 am

jcjm wrote:Its interesting that the governor of New York Andrew Cuomo said in his rally against gun violence that we don't want to take away your hunting guns, I'm a hunter.

Apparently he hasn't read the second amendment and doesn't realize it doesn't say the right to own guns for hunting, but the right to bear arms.

Seems like a diversion from the second amendment which wasn't put in for hunters but for protection from others.

If you are going to quote the 2nd amendment, quote the whole thing:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I think it's pretty clear they intended this for us to defend ourselves against the govt, not each other. We were supposed to keep and bear arms so that we could have organized militia's in the event we needed to overthrow the govt.

To me it's pretty clear we've taken the 2nd amendment and twisted it a bit. It's not like we require people to join a militia as a condition on getting a gun.
My Blog http://blog.imerk.com
User avatar
merk
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 1999 10:01 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA

Re: Gun Control Petition

Postby jcjm » Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:53 pm

jcjm wrote:
Apparently he hasn't read the second amendment and doesn't realize it doesn't say the right to own guns for hunting, but the right to bear arms.

Seems like a diversion from the second amendment which wasn't put in for hunters but for protection from others.


merk wrote:
If you are going to quote the 2nd amendment, quote the whole thing
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


I don't see a big difference. If anything the whole quote presents a stronger case than I did by saying

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".


It also doesn't say anything about hunting. It says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". People are in militia groups, they also use guns to protect their homes in the abscense of police, or military which is the present day militia.


Using the spirit of the law, I don't see a conflict. People can have guns to protect themselves from whatever. Forign invaders such as the Russian's, Chinese, Iranian's or criminals like drug smugglers or human trafficers from south of the border, or bikers, bears, coyotes, whatever.

It doesn't really matter what, people have the right to keep and bear arms.

I would bet, if the people who wrote the constitution had an assault rifle, that is the exact type of weapon they would have been talking about.

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I would also bet that if you took a poll, the people who are for NATIONAL guns laws are:

White women between 30 and 65 who live in a large city who think you can legislate everything and that's the way to solve problems.

The same people who come up with Mother's against drunk driving, hate laws, and other duplicate laws which duplicate laws already in existance. They think a law will solve everything, but it doesn't. There are still drunk driver's, people who do things out of hate, etc. They are not any safer than under the old laws.
jcjm
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 10:01 pm

Re: Gun Control Petition

Postby merk » Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:20 pm

Well now you are picking and choosing which parts of the amendment to put emphasis on.

The amendment, to me, clearly indicates the right to bear arms is tied to having a regulated militia to protect yourself from a federal govt that might become too big/start infringing on your rights.

Most people who own guns are not part of any sort of militia, well regulated or otherwise.

While I'm not completely opposed to gun ownership, i also think people have basically been raping the 2nd amendment and taking it out context.

if we were truly going to follow the 2nd amendment, then anyone who owns a gun should belong to an organized militia. And that might actually solve some of these problems. Since if it really were a well regulated militia, I would assume they'd do some sort of background check on anyone joining. They might actually know the person joining or know their neighbors. They might know if the person is responsible/sane enough to own a gun.

People are in militia groups, they also use guns to protect their homes in the abscense of police, or military which is the present day militia.
But not everyone is in a militia - in fact i think very few people who own guns are in a well regulated militia.

Again, i'm not opposed to gun ownership. But let's be honest. Where the 2nd amendment is concerned, people have taken that and twisted it to justify people owning guns just for their own personal reasons with no regard at all to any sort of militia.
My Blog http://blog.imerk.com
User avatar
merk
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 1999 10:01 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA

Re: Gun Control Petition

Postby tui » Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:26 pm

@ScenarioThinker: does it depend which state you're in? I'd gained the impression that some states allowed people to publicly wear their armament/s in places other than firing ranges.

The point about having armed citizens to deal with oppressive governments - welcome to Syria. I guess the founding fathers didn't quite think through the probable consequences of replacing one bunch of mean tyrants with another bunch out of the same mould. Once the coup is done, then what? An amendment for modern times and vastly larger populations may be required...

I think I'd rather have a clear and definite way whereby fed-up populations can quickly remind their so-called representatives that they are there to serve not stifle, shaft, and subdue. A widely known process that leaves insurrection as the very last resort. Letters to the editor and to the representative can easily be ignored. Just the usual whingers showing the politics of envy without showing the valued gifts offered by regular lobbyists. A mechanism to 'rock the boat' and shudder the entrenched opinions is probably needed now more diversity among people is acknowledged. I know you have a recall system in states. Does it work at the national/federal level, too?

And there's something about perceived bullying: the current remedies are not quite delivering early relief to those who then finally react mercilessly to relieve pressure in homes, schools, or workplaces.

Make arms the very very last resort to remedy grievances. Slow to anger...
tui
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:01 pm
Location: North Island, NZ

Re: Gun Control Petition

Postby Scenario Thinker » Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:36 pm

tui wrote:@ScenarioThinker: does it depend which state you're in? I'd gained the impression that some states allowed people to publicly wear their armament/s in places other than firing ranges.

Here's a map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry ... ted_States

I'm just saying we're not all like the guy in the photo. :)
S.Thinker
....o
^/v
/>
User avatar
Scenario Thinker
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 7331
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:01 pm
Location: near Chicago

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron