Gun/antigun thread

GollyMrScience · Post by **GollyMrScience** » Wed May 09, 2007 5:33 pm

50 some people in a night club with 5 bucks worth of gasoline.

Leisureguy · Post by **Leisureguy** » Wed May 09, 2007 6:14 pm

Stan: Interesting story. The first statement of the news release, " Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce gun violence in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain." is contradicted by the official study in Australia and indeed by other reports: gun violence was on the decline before Australia did the buy-back, and it dropped noticeably at that point and continued to decline. So how he can say that the legislation failed to reduce gun violence is beyond me. I have to say it makes me suspicious of his entire study.

sysiphus · Post by **sysiphus** » Wed May 09, 2007 9:59 pm

Michael,
You continually refer to the "official" study, but I personally am suspicious of ANY study when it comes to topics such as this. Most studies today, IMHO, are tailored to meet the goals of either the investigators or the entity that commissioned the study in the first place. Compare the "facts" presented on either side of the gun debate. The statistics are the same, but different conclusions are reached. The conclusion one reaches is derived from their interpretation (in the US) of the 2nd Amendment. Mitigating factors are included or excluded to support their side of the debate.

my $.02

rls50 · Post by **rls50** » Fri May 11, 2007 10:30 am

Rob_TN wrote:[I read the entirety of your article. I even found the original at the National Post : click here. However, I can't find anything corroborating the raid on Mr. Rew's home. I have searched every search engine I know of, even blog search engines, and I went to the NRA's site and another few gun rights sites. I could find nothing. I know the NRA would be all over this if they heard about it. So it leads me to believe it may not be true. However, there absolutely is a John Rew of Alberta. But the only listing I found was in the Canadian Civil Aircraft Register database: here. I'm just wondering if this story is made up as some sort of extreme scare-tactic?

I live in the area and the story is true. Mr. Rew appears in court in Drumheller, Alberta on May 25th.

GollyMrScience · Post by **GollyMrScience** » Fri May 11, 2007 10:44 am

I think it would make a great reality TV series:
"When Laws Go Bad".
Illustrations of laws on the books that lead to the type of grief Mr. Rew went through.
Not just the law itself but the way it can lead to abuse by Government and enforcement. Would give the rest of us in society a heads up on why legislation must be considered not just for its impact if used well but also what it could lead to if misused.

JohnP · Post by **JohnP** » Fri May 11, 2007 8:26 pm

Wow thats depressing. No surprise it passed under the radar at NRA as they have their hands full stopping unnecessary legislation here in the U.S....
Perhaps a Canadian version of the NRA would have been helpful, but seems it may be too late?

John P

MOSES · Post by **MOSES** » Fri May 11, 2007 9:38 pm

Honestly, anyone who's followed my comments here knows I favor a pretty strong interpretation of the Second Amendment, and generally support the right to own guns. But frankly, I despise the NRA with a mild passion.

-Mo

JohnP · Post by **JohnP** » Fri May 11, 2007 10:46 pm

Mo,
That's interesting. I must admit I've not been keeping up with what exactly the NRA is doing currently, I was a member a few years ago however. Just curious, what sets you against them? I'm very pro-private gun ownership, but refuse to toe any party line....and haven't quite kept up with them. Are they not doing what they advertise? something else? just curious.
John P.

MOSES · Post by **MOSES** » Sat May 12, 2007 8:29 am

JohnP wrote:Mo,
That's interesting. I must admit I've not been keeping up with what exactly the NRA is doing currently, I was a member a few years ago however. Just curious, what sets you against them? I'm very pro-private gun ownership, but refuse to toe any party line....and haven't quite kept up with them. Are they not doing what they advertise? something else? just curious.
John P.

Well, it's partly an inherited distaste. My father was a card carrying member much of his adult life, but switched over to the Sierra Club in the 70s, when the NRA strongly, even vehemently opposed the Alaska Lands Act. Carter and Udall prevailed, so I guess that is water under the bridge, to some extent, but that type of position from an organization that, if involved at all, I would expect to support conservation really rubs me the wrong way.

I guess is that. I feel instead of supporting gun safety, responsible gun ownership, and if necessary gun rights, I feel they are deeply tied in the the Republican Conservative position. For example, positions like the above I think are tied to strengthing connections with the conservative powers, at the expense of something of value to sportsmen, who should be a significant part of their constituency. I am a moderate liberal, and I simply don't like their involvement beyond the simple issues of gun rights.

I also feel the organization is extremely reactionary, and carries its position rather too far, beyond protecting the right to own guns, to maniacally opposing any measures related to guns at all.

My understanding is that until the 70s, the NRA was a very different organization. Primarily devoted to gun education and safety, without any real political involvement. I think there is a need now for an organization like that, without the NRA's massive political involvement, and that if it existed, it would lend greater legitimacy to gun ownership for moderates who are riding the fence. But I guarantee that for the fast majority of moderates, who do not own guns, and even some who do, the NRA does nothing but cast gun ownership in a negative light.

-Mo

honkdonker · Post by **honkdonker** » Sat May 12, 2007 12:01 pm

Joe Lerch wrote:
honkdonker wrote:
Joe Lerch wrote: Your scenario is emotionally appealing, but very shortsighted. A more common scenario is where someone is shot (maybe in their own home) by someone they know well, or accidentally, or even by mishandling a gun, such as by a child.

A shotgun is pretty easy to use as a threat, but a more common scenario is the person who pulls a handgun on an armed burglar and stands there with his hand shaking, because he really has no training. Have you ever heard of buck fever? Talk to the millions of people, many well experienced, who shake like heck when they have a buck in the sights. All the training in the world doens't prevent shaking. Just ask the hunters of the cops who have had to pull guns and have shook.

He can be overpowered or even shot by a criminal with only a little experience. This scenario and all the accidental shootings demand that anyone who owns a gun and intends to use it should have some training. At least enough to have the confidence to hold and use the weapon properly.

Huh? Shortsighted? Please explain. What do you mean a more common scenario? I am relating a personal incident here. How you see that is short sighted is beyond me.

I don't disagree with the training scenario.

Joe, while your thoughts are laudable, re: psychological testing, don't you think it is just a wee bit simplistic to think that a form can identify the people you are trying to rule out. The human mind is a complex thing. To think a form, even if approved by the NRA! is going to prevent gun violence, is naive, in my view.

Sure, anyone can come up with a form designed by all of the best experts, but to think it is going to do what you propose it will is just, well, silly.

It isn't Joe Gunowner who is the problem. It is Joe Criminal.
FIrst, I wasn't talking about buck fever. I was talking about the inexperienced user standing there and not knowing what to do. Maybe he never even shot the gun. Your story is short sighted because of the implication. "Just keep a gun around and you'll br well protected." I suggest just the opposite. The more common scenario for an unskilled user is what happened to the 90 year old woman, whether it's criminal cops or just plain old criminals.

I never said we should have a form document for a psychological test. It wouldn't be of much value, because in time people would learn the answers and it would be useless. I'm talking about a standard test administered by a professional. Even a brief face-to-face interview with a trained person would eliminate many unstable people. How did you imagine that I would involve the NRA in something like that? I was referring to the weapon competency test. I would just want the NRA to endorse the licensing system.

That should be the first order of business. It would have avoided the VA Tech problem and a lor of others like it. And with reasonable enforcement you can get after the sellers who bend the rules and the manufacturers who aren't diligent about who they supply.

The real effect of the culture issue is debatable, but it would be something that would take a long time to change and would involve a lot of litigation. We need something more direct.

Few things can prevent the professional criminal from getting arms, but a licensing system can cut down on the mentally unstable, the under age, and the common thugs. As you seem to agree training in weapons handling and use can also make a big difference. I wouldn't want someone driving down my street who dodn't pass a driving test. Why would I want an untrained weapon carrier on my street or in my home?

And spare me the Joe criminal crap. Before the events the shooters at VA Tech, Colombine, and tha Amish schoolhousw were not criminals. The unstable gun owner who shoots a family member of frined is not a criminal (before the act). The child who plays with a loaded gun and kills a friend is not a criminal. Let's deal with the mentally unstable, the under age, and those who treat weapons irresponsibly, and then we can worry about the criminal. More focused law enforcement and a well trained public will help a lot.

Well Joe, it is laudable to want to screen out possible mentally unstable people from owning guns. However, the problem faced in America is not going to be prevented by more tests and beauracracy or psychologists. You think they can weed out bad apples just by meeting with them? My friend, that is naive at best, and at worst shows a shocking lack of understanding of how humans operate. Again, a one shot thing like what you propose is going to be meaningless. However, since it would be so unwieldy and costly, thankfully it will never see the light of day. Your sentiments are laudable, however.

No one seems to want to deal with the root problem here. With BILLIONS of guns readily available, I don't care how many tests/shrinks/do gooders there are to deal with the symptoms. The root cause is a gun free for all. With so many guns available, there are going to be murders/accidents/good people doing bad things/kids killing kids, etc.

Liberty has a cost. Americans want guns. They have guns. No one is going to change that fact. Therefore, people are going to be hurt and killed, accidentally and purposely.

Take a look at your culture. THAT is the problem, and it isn't going to be solved, or even dented, by any sort of means test. Glorify violence, and that is what you get. Remember, not everyone is as responsible as you are.

You want to stop gun killings? Get rid of the guns. Not willing or able to do that? Accept the killings and move on.

MOSES · Post by **MOSES** » Sat May 12, 2007 12:34 pm

honkdonker wrote:Not willing or able to do that? Accept the killings and move on.

That's about the most simplistic thing I've ever heard. It may be true that as long as there are guns, gun killings cannot be entirely prevented. I agree there. But to suggest it is all or nothing is either ridiculous, or a cheap rhetorical trick. Why does allowing ownership of guns mean we just have to accept killings, and move on, doing nothing about it. There may be flaws in Joe's plan, but that doesn't mean that some sort of measures will not help, and should not be taken, in a middle ground between no regulation or controls and no legal ownership.

-Mo

Dave_D · Post by **Dave_D** » Sat May 12, 2007 1:51 pm

honkdonker wrote: You want to stop gun killings? Get rid of the guns.

Ludicrous.

There are countless ways to perpetrate harm to others, trying to get rid of ONE of them would be a marginal effort at best. Guns (and myriad other armament) can be made easily enough in any half assed workshop. The problem isnt the implement, its the behaviour.

Try addressing the root cause, a veritable lack of personal responsibility and only minor consequences for that failure. A ruthless enforcement of existing laws for repeat violent offenders would be a great start.

Dave

Tye · Post by **Tye** » Sat May 12, 2007 2:19 pm

honkdonker wrote: You want to stop gun killings? Get rid of the guns.

That has to be the stupidest thing I've read today. Why stop there? If you want to stop drunk drivers, get rid of cars. If you want to eliminate child abuse, eliminate children. If you want to eliminate sports injuries, eliminate sports. If you want to eliminate motor vehicle v. pedestrian accidents, eliminate pedestrians. Get real. It's rarely a responsible gun owner who is committing a crime and I don't think I should have to give up my guns just so you can sleep better at night.

~Tye

honkdonker · Post by **honkdonker** » Sat May 12, 2007 2:36 pm

Well, I am glad that you last few are reading! Perhaps you need to read my previous comments to understand my point of view. Am I advocating getting rid of guns? Hardly. My point, and I meant to be blunt, is that if you have guns, people are going to get killed, like it or not! You cannot deny that. Sure you can try to implement various things to help out, but go back and read my comments about the US popular culture which glorifies violence. Does that not make sense?

You cannot have something without accepting all of its good and bad attributes. I own guns and always will.

Again, if you have BILLIONS of guns in a country, the fact is that people are going to be killed by them, on purpose, accidentally, by good people, by bad people, by kids, by whomever. It is a sad fact.

You can have all of the supposed safeguards you want, but you still are going to have people killed by guns. Get all emotional if you want, but it is a fact, a fact sadly that not enough people can accept.

Take the good with the bad. Sure try to fix it, but the fact remains.

MOSES · Post by **MOSES** » Sat May 12, 2007 2:50 pm

honkdonker wrote:You can have all of the supposed safeguards you want, but you still are going to have people killed by guns. Get all emotional if you want, but it is a fact, a fact sadly that not enough people can accept.

Fair enough. Perhaps I misunderstood. It is something that I think gun rights advocates are a little loathe to acknowledge, but it is true. Now, there is a lot more debate as to whether the overall amount of violence and violent crime is increased or decreased by the presence of legal guns. Different question.

But I read your earlier comment as suggesting that there was no point to any safeguards. Which I do not think makes any sense. Just because there are always going to be some people killed by guns as long as there are guns, it does not automatically follow that there should not be any safeguards, or that they cannot dramatically reduce the number. But maybe that is not what you were saying.

-Mo

honkdonker · Post by **honkdonker** » Sat May 12, 2007 2:54 pm

Moses, clearly SOMETHING is required to help out. But I submit it will be of little effect. The cat is out of the bag, and it is going to be IMPOSSIBLE to get it back in, short of a civil war. And that would be the result if the government radically tried to confiscate guns or whatever.

Moses, Canada is a great example of how having few guns has resulted in very few deaths by them. So is Britain. It is almost very very difficult to buy and own a handgun in these countries. As a result, there are far fewer deaths by firearm.

Tye · Post by **Tye** » Sat May 12, 2007 2:58 pm

honkdonker wrote:Moses, clearly SOMETHING is required to help out. But I submit it will be of little effect. The cat is out of the bag, and it is going to be IMPOSSIBLE to get it back in, short of a civil war. And that would be the result if the government radically tried to confiscate guns or whatever.

Moses, Canada is a great example of how having few guns has resulted in very few deaths by them. So is Britain. It is almost very very difficult to buy and own a handgun in these countries. As a result, there are far fewer deaths by firearm.

Where are you Fron Honkdonker? Also, I seriously doubt that there would be a 'civil war' if the government decided to take all the guns (except the bad guys of course). I can think of a lot more civil war provoking than that.

~Tye

honkdonker · Post by **honkdonker** » Sat May 12, 2007 3:03 pm

Tye, there absolutely would be armed insurrections if the govt tried to confiscate guns. A civil war does not mean the US Civil War of the 1860s. There is no doubt in my mind that people would take up arms to defend their constitutionally interpreted right to bear arms.

There are millions of people in the US who would see it as their patriotic duty to bear their arms to defend what they consider their civic duty to protect the constitution. Sorry if it is distasteful, but it is realistic.

Tye wrote:
honkdonker wrote:Moses, clearly SOMETHING is required to help out. But I submit it will be of little effect. The cat is out of the bag, and it is going to be IMPOSSIBLE to get it back in, short of a civil war. And that would be the result if the government radically tried to confiscate guns or whatever.

Moses, Canada is a great example of how having few guns has resulted in very few deaths by them. So is Britain. It is almost very very difficult to buy and own a handgun in these countries. As a result, there are far fewer deaths by firearm.
Where are you Fron Honkdonker? Also, I seriously doubt that there would be a 'civil war' if the government decided to take all the guns (except the bad guys of course). I can think of a lot more civil war provoking than that.

~Tye

Tye · Post by **Tye** » Sat May 12, 2007 3:09 pm

honkdonker wrote:Tye, there absolutely would be armed insurrections if the govt tried to confiscate guns. A civil war does not mean the US Civil War of the 1860s. There is no doubt in my mind that people would take up arms to defend their constitutionally interpreted right to bear arms.

There are millions of people in the US who would see it as their patriotic duty to bear their arms to defend what they consider their civic duty to protect the constitution. Sorry if it is distasteful, but it is realistic.

Tye wrote:
honkdonker wrote:Moses, clearly SOMETHING is required to help out. But I submit it will be of little effect. The cat is out of the bag, and it is going to be IMPOSSIBLE to get it back in, short of a civil war. And that would be the result if the government radically tried to confiscate guns or whatever.

Moses, Canada is a great example of how having few guns has resulted in very few deaths by them. So is Britain. It is almost very very difficult to buy and own a handgun in these countries. As a result, there are far fewer deaths by firearm.
Where are you From Honkdonker? Also, I seriously doubt that there would be a 'civil war' if the government decided to take all the guns (except the bad guys of course). I can think of a lot more civil war provoking than that.

~Tye

Neat dodge on the 'where are you from' question too. Also, if 'Cicil War' doesn't mean 'Civil War' then just what does it mean. As for armed insurrections, I bet there would be a few places where the Govt would have to mive in, but for the most part, people would just hide their guns. I know that's what I'd do.

~Tye

honkdonker · Post by **honkdonker** » Sat May 12, 2007 3:15 pm

Tye, I will try to be more clear for you. Some people can't see beyond a civil war being exactly like the THE US Civil War. That is what I am referring to. I am not trying to dodge anything, by the way. Please do try to be civil, would you?

Tye wrote:
honkdonker wrote:Tye, there absolutely would be armed insurrections if the govt tried to confiscate guns. A civil war does not mean the US Civil War of the 1860s. There is no doubt in my mind that people would take up arms to defend their constitutionally interpreted right to bear arms.

There are millions of people in the US who would see it as their patriotic duty to bear their arms to defend what they consider their civic duty to protect the constitution. Sorry if it is distasteful, but it is realistic.

Tye wrote: Where are you From Honkdonker? Also, I seriously doubt that there would be a 'civil war' if the government decided to take all the guns (except the bad guys of course). I can think of a lot more civil war provoking than that.

~Tye
Neat dodge on the 'where are you from' question too. Also, if 'Cicil War' doesn't mean 'Civil War' then just what does it mean. As for armed insurrections, I bet there would be a few places where the Govt would have to mive in, but for the most part, people would just hide their guns. I know that's what I'd do.

~Tye