Gun Control

[Ron61]

Well said Buzz. As usual you made good and logical points. I see the woman had pledged allegiance it ISIS. Also the assault guns are not legal to buy or sell in California, but you can get them from any doper or black market group. I don't have a stash of guns but have had a CCP for many years and have always had at least a couple of guns. I have worked with various LEOs at times in the past and just wish that people from other countries would stop trying to decide what we should or should not be allowed to do and I also wish out crooked politicians would stay out of other countries business.

Ron

[Gun Doc]

Buzz said; "I can safely say I have to choose on the side of sensible restrictions." Just what are "sensible restrictions?" We have laws, plenty of them, but someone who is determined to get a gun and do harm with it will.

For example, in California to purchase a gun, the following laws apply:
First you must:

Pass a universal background check, no matter where you buy your gun. Wait at least 10 days to receive that gun (the idea here is to give law enforcement enough time to conduct the background check). Get your handgun microstamped, which means the make, model and serial number of the gun is transferred to each cartridge case every time the gun is fired (the idea is to allow police at a crime scene to trace a gun back to its owner). Take and pass a written safety test.

Things you can’t do:
Own most assault weapons or buy and sell large-capacity ammunition magazines or .50 caliber rifles. Buy your gun through a private sale, like online or via a friend, without first going through a licensed dealer (and thus getting a background check). Buy more than one handgun a month.

Of course the two AR15s used by this couple, although purchased legally, were NOT purchased by either of the shooters. So, were these not “sensible restrictions?” Some may say these are far too restrictive, others would settle for no less that a total ban on any firearm.

How does an act of terrorism turn into a debate on gun control? I wonder if the people of France had these same discussions after their recent attacks. How about India after 10 terrorists kill 166 in Mumbai during a 60 hour siege? Brussels, where a gunman, a French national with ties to ISIS murdered four people (with a gun) at the Jewish Museum? Pakistan where Taliban gunmen killed 148 (mostly school children) by shooting them in the head? Tunisia, where a lone gunman storms a beach resort and kills 37…

The horrific killings in San Bernardino had NOTHING to do with gun control, or gun laws. It has EVERYTHING to do with the war we are engaged in now. Unless and until we wake up and accept the fact that there are people out there who intend us harm and wish to destroy everything we stand for, I am certain there will be more attacks. Now, more than ever the second amendment is relevant to protect our “unalienable rights” of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Most importantly our right as free people to defend ourselves.

[Detroit Bill]

Gun control is like the war on drugs. The criminals are not going to cooperate. Do you think gun control would have stopped those two people? If so there is no use in arguing this.

If there were people there with a carry permit it may have ended very differently.

[Detroit Bill]

Originally Posted by Buzz

Even though this is a hot-button topic, civil and sensible discussion should still be able to occur without resorting to the ridiculous small-minded personal attacks and the "you versus us" stupidity when faced with a differing point of view. If you're offended by the discussion, just stay the hell out of it - free country, right?

Just for some background - I live in a country where it's quite difficult to to get a firearm license. Guns are not banned, but citizens need to demonstrate a need for protection over and above simply wanting one for self defence. Two types of permits are available: first is an estate license which allows land/estate owners and farmers, etc. to own non-concealable rifles and shotguns to be used on the property. The second is a concealed carry permit that allows mainly business owners, security workers and others who make a case for being at higher than average risk of robbery or attack to own and carry (always concealed) a handgun. Applications must be accompanied by medical (mainly eyesight and history of mental illness) certification, two character witnesses and two family endorsements. The police processes them for background checks and then you are interviewed before a final decision is made. Once you obtain approval, you must take and pass certification training and testing.

I am a strong believer in every person having the right and the ability to defend themselves, their families and their properties. I own guns, grew up with guns in the household and I was was taught to use them properly from an early age.
I do not believe that every person should be automatically entitled to own a gun, though, simply because not every person is automatically capable and inclined to use one responsibly and safely. The same applies to automobile licenses - get the necessary training and pass the test, and you're good to go.

To me, turning any old person loose with any number of firearms they want buy is like allowing anybody the right to jump into a car and hit the streets without testing and licensing; some people will manage ok, but others will cause unnecessary carnage. Freedom is one thing but as a society grows and changes it must have order and a set of laws based on evolving wisdom and logic.

I personally like guns (along with cars, boats, etc.), and I generally subscribe to and live by (non-denominational) christian-based western values, but I also believe in sensible laws and controls. I speak for myself and I'm totally open minded to other points of view, even to changing my position in the face of incontrovertible argument. I fail to see the real world sense in holding infallibly sacred and clinging to every letter and detail of a constitutional document that was written by men a long time ago based upon a very different set of influences, values and social realities. Keep the intent, philosophy and spirit - yes - but giving it and those who penned it some sort of holy, regardless untouchability and everlasting relevance for all eternity to me is difficult to comprehend.

Edit to add: I agree that laws are only followed by the law-abiding, and criminals will do what they want regardless, but there must be a sensible set of laws and appropriate penalties for breaking them. Saying there should be no gun control laws because criminals won't obey them anyway is like saying no point in having drunk driving laws because drunks will drive drunk anyway.

There are laws for crimes committed with guns. Your analogy can be interpreted that drinking should be outlawed because of people who drive drunk.

Criminals will get guns no matter what. There is no stopping that. You want to control guns for the rest of the population which is not going to change mass shootings, especially terrorist shootings.

Lets say there was gun control and the two terrorists applied and went through the process. Would the outcome have changed? A person intent on causing harm will. Would it have been better if they made a bomb or a chemical weapon? Those two were going to do something.

Do you recall Timothy James McVeigh. Not a shot was fired.

[Buzz]

Good points, guys. I didn't realise there were such extensive regulations in California. I suppose its a state by state thing. I have to agree re: the attacks in Paris, as I admit I was compelled to wonder how much easier it was for the cowards to plan and execute the murders knowing full well not one of the innocent victims they wanted to slaughter would be carrying a gun or weapon of any kind.

When I think about the ease of buying large amounts of advanced weapons and ammo, it's not so much about the connected terrorists or serious, hard-core criminals who have their own supply lines and know their way around the black market. I'm thinking more about the introverted high school kid and the mentally deranged person, or the lonely, angry loser who wants to go out in a blaze of glory taking revenge on all the normal folks they resent for being normal. Those types of mass shooters probably outnumber all others and are the ones who almost always use store-bought weapons.

Having said that though, I agree that radical islamic jihadism on home soil is a newer, growing threat that needs a whole new mindset and different set of tactics to combat effectively. Those measures go well beyond any gun laws or regulations but they may also challenge traditional constitutional values when it comes to rights and freedoms.

[fordracing65]

I just bought an M1 carbine, my dad just bought a Garand...

[Buzz]

Lucky you - I've always loved the M-1 carbine.

[bliss]

The interesting thing about gun control is to compare it to booze prohibition - that didn't work very well partially because booze can be made practically anywhere - well, so can guns - therefore, the mafia and others would simply get busy making guns and the bad guys would get busy buying those guns - with anyone else unarmed......

So, gun control is a really stupid idea.

[Paul F]

You can't legislate behavior. As said, prohibition, drug laws, and capital punishment do nothing to change behaviors. But there is one exception.

California enacted a three-strikes law. A third felony carries a mandatory 25-year-to-life sentence. Since that law was enacted, when felons have two strikes, their parole officer advises them of the law. 95% of them now get out of jail, get a good education, and become model citizens......... I crack myself up.

Culture, culture, culture. The zeitgeist of a country is what drives behavior. Not laws.

[Tenrocca]

Originally Posted by bliss

The interesting thing about gun control is to compare it to booze prohibition - that didn't work very well partially because booze can be made practically anywhere - well, so can guns - therefore, the mafia and others would simply get busy making guns and the bad guys would get busy buying those guns - with anyone else unarmed......

So, gun control is a really stupid idea.

Incredible logic right there folks. And while were at it lets legalise Meth because we really want everyone to access to that dont we - we really dont want to leave that to the bad guys.

Ill say a few more things on this issue before I sign out because it really is like banging your head against a wall.

I am not for gun prohibition, but surely, in America, a system where you can be on a no fly list but you can buy a gun is wrong. How can ANYONE think this system is OK. Even if you are "pro gun", you would have to be insane to think it is OK for potential terrorists to buy a gun.

Cars aren't designed to kill people, fast food isn't designed to kill people, so comparing guns (which are designed to kill people) to these things is really dumb IMO.

According to recent CBS news poll, 58% of Americans want to see change to the gun laws. Those folk telling me that Im not welcome to visit your fine country because disagree with you and agree with the majority of your countrymen - Im guessing you would like those 58% to leave then?

Separating terrorist attacks from gun control is not entirely valid. If you were to compare the most recent attack in San Barnardino to the 2 most recent in the UK and Australia. Both lone attackers, the UK guy using a knife in the subway injuring a few, the Australian using a single pistol killing one. The huge part of why these were so less damaging than the San Barnardino attack was because access to weapons in the UK and Oz is so much more difficult. It is very logical to conclude that if there are more weapons in circulation in the general public, then more weapons are able to end up in the hands of those we don't want to have then, such as terrorists.

This is not a quick fix. It is a little like the global warning debate (and Im not saying I support one side or another) but the sooner a change is made the sooner the problem starts to get better. Even if the sale of all guns was banned from now, it would still take decades for an impact to be felt, however, if something is not done, then in 50 years time you will still be seeing the same type of stats saying you are 20 times more likely to die in the US by being shot then any other first world country. Any of those bragging about your gun collections, that stat is nothing to be proud of. It is actually shameful.

Cheers

[DanEC]

One more time.

Originally Posted by Tenrocca

Incredible logic right there folks. And while were at it lets legalise Meth because we really want everyone to access to that dont we - we really dont want to leave that to the bad guys.

Drug criminalization is as good a comparison as any to what would happen if guns were somehow outlawed in the US and confiscated by some miracle - druggies will still have drugs and crooks will still have guns, either makeshift, bought from Mexico or hidden from confiscation. I might add that we currently have thousands of laws on the books that pertain to the use of guns in crime or to criminals and terrorists obtaining guns. Our politicians are very good at passing laws which are unenforceable or largely forgotten about or conveniently ignored.

Ill say a few more things on this issue before I sign out because it really is like banging your head against a wall.

I am not for gun prohibition, but surely, in America, a system where you can be on a no fly list but you can buy a gun is wrong. How can ANYONE think this system is OK. Even if you are "pro gun", you would have to be insane to think it is OK for potential terrorists to buy a gun.

Where do you get that it's OK for a terrorist to buy a gun? First you have to identify who is a terrorist. Neither of the California Islamic terrorists were on a no fly list, on a watch list, had any record, or were under any surveillance. As far as who is a "potential" terrorist - that's actually 100% of the population - anyone could fill that bill. Potential is just that - potential. When you start taking freedoms away from people on the basis of "potential" then basically you are living in a police state. Again we already have laws on the books that address criminal use of guns but they are largely ignored by our leaders.

Cars aren't designed to kill people, fast food isn't designed to kill people, so comparing guns (which are designed to kill people) to these things is really dumb IMO.

I can just as easily argue that guns were designed for hunting to put food on the table and were adapted to war. I can also argue that I own many, many guns and have fired thousands and thousands of rounds and never shot at or hit anyone. I can also argue that I can pick up about anything in my tool shed or get in my car and drive downtown and turn it into a weapon of human destruction. Tell the families of the 3 dead people in Oklahoma or the Israeli soldiers run down by Palestinians that cars aren't intended to be used to kill people. I'm sure that will be of great comfort.

According to recent CBS news poll, 58% of Americans want to see change to the gun laws. Those folk telling me that Im not welcome to visit your fine country because disagree with you and agree with the majority of your countrymen - Im guessing you would like those 58% to leave then?

A change in guns laws maybe, but if you change the question to "should guns be confiscated" as in Australia, that figure drops way down into the mid to low 30s. I would never tell you that you're not a welcome visitor to our country over a disagreement in principal. My wife has relatives in Australia and we have had this conversation several times. If you are ever in Arkansas I'll buy you a beer - we'll talk Cobras instead of guns.

Separating terrorist attacks from gun control is not entirely valid. If you were to compare the most recent attack in San Barnardino to the 2 most recent in the UK and Australia. Both lone attackers, the UK guy using a knife in the subway injuring a few, the Australian using a single pistol killing one. The huge part of why these were so less damaging than the San Barnardino attack was because access to weapons in the UK and Oz is so much more difficult. It is very logical to conclude that if there are more weapons in circulation in the general public, then more weapons are able to end up in the hands of those we don't want to have then, such as terrorists.

Maybe we should talk about France - despite draconian gun restrictions there it didn't seem to be a problem to bring in the guns they used. Most of our murder capitals are big cities with restrictive gun laws. We don't live in a vacuum or on an island and guns in the hands of our population can not and will not be subject to confiscation - because for the most part there is no record or registration that has ever existed. I have guns over 100 years old that are just as serviceable as when they were produced. I agree that with more weapons in our country - we will have a higher incidence of violence than a country without. That is a price of our countries liberties and freedom. It is also a price paid from a 50-year social experiment that has produced a huge population of miscreants with no skills, no sense of self-worth, no employable skills, no moral values, and a high incidence of mental illness, and prone to criminality - that no one seems to want to deal with. That is our major problem.

This is not a quick fix. It is a little like the global warning debate (and Im not saying I support one side or another) but the sooner a change is made the sooner the problem starts to get better. Even if the sale of all guns was banned from now, it would still take decades for an impact to be felt, however, if something is not done, then in 50 years time you will still be seeing the same type of stats saying you are 20 times more likely to die in the US by being shot then any other first world country. Any of those bragging about your gun collections, that stat is nothing to be proud of. It is actually shameful.

I'm far, far more likely to die from a car accident, a accidental fall, cancer or many other things before I die from being shot. I will say that if the sale of guns were banned now - it would not be decades before they would disappear - but centuries. I think you underestimate how many guns are legally owned currently and how long they last with good care. Even bullets have a remarkable longevity and many of us handload anyway. To think that guns will ever disappear from the US is not a rational belief. I do own a sizeable number of guns and used to enjoy hunting and still enjoy target shooting. Some of my most prize guns including a Colt 45, and M1 Carbine and an 30:06 Enfield that were handed down to me from my Grandfather and I'm very proud of them and in fact treasure them. Enjoy your life.

Cheers

[olddog]

Originally Posted by Tenrocca

I am not for gun prohibition, but surely, in America, a system where you can be on a no fly list but you can buy a gun is wrong. How can ANYONE think this system is OK. Even if you are "pro gun", you would have to be insane to think it is OK for potential terrorists to buy a gun.

First, if they are a terrorist, on a no fly list, they should not be in our country, and if caught here illegally, they should be executed (but the whiny left will not allow that). Second, any purchase new or used from a FFL dealer has a back ground check, so it is not legal for them to purchase a gun. Private party sales is the only way and us law abiding citizens are not the ones selling them. It is the gangs, cartels, and the government (fast and furious ring a bell) that sell them illegally.

Originally Posted by Tenrocca

Cars aren't designed to kill people, fast food isn't designed to kill people, so comparing guns (which are designed to kill people) to these things is really dumb IMO.

Guns are a tool, nothing more, nothing less. They are designed to accurately propel a projectile at high velocities. What it is used for is the choice of the user. They are no more designed to kill people than ball bats, knives, and hammers, yet all are quite capable.

Originally Posted by Tenrocca

According to recent CBS news poll, 58% of Americans want to see change to the gun laws. Those folk telling me that Im not welcome to visit your fine country because disagree with you and agree with the majority of your countrymen - Im guessing you would like those 58% to leave then?

Yes. Yes I would. Our crime rate would be cut by 80% the day they left and it would not take long for us to eliminate the majority of what is left. No more rap sheets as long as your arm and still on the street. No more gangs and cartels operating in our country. Oh Buy The Way - I want those people to go to your country. It shouldn't be a problem for you since you already removed the guns.

Buy the way, do a google search for knife massacres. You will find that in countries with near zero access to guns, crazy people still kill dozens of children in schools, with knifes. Japan, China, Russia, Etc. Happens at about the same frequency as the US and is just as deadly, only it does not get reported the same (a side note on the back page rather than talking about it for 2 weeks), because it does not fit the anti-gun agenda.

Also after the Great Australian Gun Confiscation program, your government changed how it reported crimes, to cover up the true increase in crime caused by the criminals knowing no one could defend themselves.

[Armrer]

Tenrocca opens this thread with an insulting comment on USA society, and NO sympathy or condolences to the families of the victims. Speaks volumes of his character right there. Moral superiority above all else.

He spouts statistics like they actually mean something. Mark Twain had it right : "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics". Every survey, etc he quotes were created by an agency with an agenda, that matches his own, so he likes it.

He claims to speak for the rest of the world, but in reality just speaks for himself and his very small pocket of like-minded progs.

Progs blame the world's evil on inanimate objects, but have actually created the evil through moral/cultural decay, and pressure on the justice system to release criminals at the drop of the hat.

He admits to just turning in a weapon that could be used for defense of himself and his family. He's not a man. Just a loud mouthed subject, a sheep.

But hey, he knows better than all of us, right?

Done with this twit.

[Armrer]

Dupe, sorry.

[fordracing65]

Australians cant even put in an engine of their choice, it has to be government approved, might as well have them spoon feed you , no thanks, ill keep our guns and big blocks...

[Armrer]

Exactly, Great space program they have too. Oh, wait..

[fordracing65]

Originally Posted by Armrer

Exactly, Great space program they have too. Oh, wait..

And Fosters beer, that crap tastes worst than Pabts blue ribbon...

[Tim7139]

Originally Posted by Tenrocca

Incredible logic right there folks. And while were at it lets legalise Meth because we really want everyone to access to that dont we - we really dont want to leave that to the bad guys.

Ill say a few more things on this issue before I sign out because it really is like banging your head against a wall.

I am not for gun prohibition, but surely, in America, a system where you can be on a no fly list but you can buy a gun is wrong. How can ANYONE think this system is OK. Even if you are "pro gun", you would have to be insane to think it is OK for potential terrorists to buy a gun.

Cars aren't designed to kill people, fast food isn't designed to kill people, so comparing guns (which are designed to kill people) to these things is really dumb IMO.

According to recent CBS news poll, 58% of Americans want to see change to the gun laws. Those folk telling me that Im not welcome to visit your fine country because disagree with you and agree with the majority of your countrymen - Im guessing you would like those 58% to leave then?

Separating terrorist attacks from gun control is not entirely valid. If you were to compare the most recent attack in San Barnardino to the 2 most recent in the UK and Australia. Both lone attackers, the UK guy using a knife in the subway injuring a few, the Australian using a single pistol killing one. The huge part of why these were so less damaging than the San Barnardino attack was because access to weapons in the UK and Oz is so much more difficult. It is very logical to conclude that if there are more weapons in circulation in the general public, then more weapons are able to end up in the hands of those we don't want to have then, such as terrorists.

This is not a quick fix. It is a little like the global warning debate (and Im not saying I support one side or another) but the sooner a change is made the sooner the problem starts to get better. Even if the sale of all guns was banned from now, it would still take decades for an impact to be felt, however, if something is not done, then in 50 years time you will still be seeing the same type of stats saying you are 20 times more likely to die in the US by being shot then any other first world country. Any of those bragging about your gun collections, that stat is nothing to be proud of. It is actually shameful.

Cheers

Get yourself a nice lawyer buddy and have him explain some basic principles to you.
This has got little to do with common sense anything, nor did it fact have anything to do with anything that could have been prevented by non- gun no fly co- lists. The other type of incidents happened with legal guns that proposed regulations by our progressive friends would have zero influence upon.
If you follow Mrs. Clinton, for instance, and take a hard look at Mike Bloomberg and his funding, you should take him at his word, because he has stated it rather publicly more than a few times.
His approach, in fact the major moneyed anti gun liberal approach has long stated that this is a battle that will require many victories. The long term objective is elimination of handguns, restrictive ownership, ideally zero ownership.
It must start with strong legal precedent. It must start with restrictive laws that rational people can call " common sense" and then be constantly expand upon until the ultimate long term objectives are realized.
This is why it is " exactly" spelled out as a constitutional right and not an earned privilege.
One should think more about that given the most restricted areas of this entire nation are murder capitols as long as laws on the books don't get enforced.
Given the last few of these events, when's the last time anybody heard a damn thing about common sense mental health care laws other than the post shooting" he was always volatile" ", he was never right" ", I was always scared of him, " he alway said he'd hurt somebody".

A final point. All this relation to the no fly list is spurious at best. While I understand the list itself is a cause for closer scrutiny. Unfortunately we still have something here called "due process". Is it going to lead us down a rabbit hole when rights get suspended, not reviewed but suspended, not because you were convicted, charged, or even suspected of something, but made a list that nobody really knows much about?

[fordracing65]

Originally Posted by Buzz

Lucky you - I've always loved the M-1 carbine.

They are great, only thing bad is magazines are a bit pricey...The gun is fun and so small at 16 inch barrel its like a bb gun size..

[Tenrocca]

Originally Posted by fordracing65

And Fosters beer, that crap tastes worst than Pabts blue ribbon...

No one, absolutely NO ONE in Australia drinks Fosters. I dont think you can even buy it at bottle-o's anymore. We used to ship all that $hit to countries that didn't know any better and laugh whenever it was mentioned at being Australian.

Anyway, its going to be interesting when Hillary gets in.