Where did the gun regulations sticky go?

[Ray Odle]

Rover post a true account in Britain that is called a "rant"?

[C. Perkins]

You know that story in Britain that Rover posted rings a very loud bell here in the USA as of today.

Gerard;
A story is not a rant.

You know Gerard, when it comes to political views you are no better than Ruslan, but at least I understood where he was coming from.

Just saying...

Clarence

[Gerard]

You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this very same thing, over here, if he can get it done
The UN Small Arms Treaty that Hilary is negotiating would take away our 2nd Amendment rights.

And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that will go right along with him.

So in choosing to name the current president (for whom Rover has made clear many times in these forums he has no respect) as being a threat to your Constitutional rights, then tying to "stupid people in congress and on the street" thereby calling Obama and Clinton "stupid people" who want to take away your rights, Rover has not ranted? My apologies, seems I have been operating under a fundamental misapprehension of the definition of 'rant.'

Making political hay out of these recurring gun-related tragedies is exactly the kind of thing Rover and many others here are complaining about... See the irony?

[BenEnglishTX]

I'd like to see it again.

Me, too, but I need the request from a moderator: pilkguns, Richard H, David Levene, or Spencer.

The recreated text will be what the young folks call a "wall-o-text", the sort of thing most people will never read because it's too dense. If one of the moderators says to put up what I can recreate, I'll do it. If not, I have to figure that they don't want giant difficult-to-read blocks of text cluttering the site. It's their call.

[caveman]

Ironic or Hippocratic whichever one you want to be.

[Pat McCoy]

Gerard wrote:

would be to distribute free firearms and ammunition to those on welfare and those living on the street, correct?

Only in socialist welfare states where everyone believes the government owes them everything.

In a free society, one has rights that are balanced with responsibilities. The right to protect yourself, including with tools, carries the responsibility to learn how to do so, as well as to earn the money to purchase the tools.

[FredB]

But with poverty numbers as they are, and with violent crimes harming the poorest at the highest rates, the obvious first step (after changing government's mindset that is) would be to distribute free firearms and ammunition to those on welfare and those living on the street, correct?

That's a good point. (And yes, Gerald, I did recognize your sarcasm, but the point is valid in spite of it.) Clearly it is the poorest urban dwellers who are disproportionally at risk for violence and have the most need for self defense. Unfortunately the current gun regulations have the effect of restricting poor people's access to firearms more than rich people's. Laws directed at "Saturday night specials" (which are racist in origin), as well as gun and ammunition taxes have the effect of making self defense unaffordable for the poor. And then the authorities who issue concealed carry permits limit them, in many states, to wealthy big-wigs. These laws and policies come from the people who would prefer to ban guns and often claim to be taking the side of the poor. That's the real irony.

FredB

[Ray Odle]

You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this very same thing, over here, if he can get it done
The UN Small Arms Treaty that Hilary is negotiating would take away our 2nd Amendment rights.

And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that will go right along with him.

So in choosing to name the current president (for whom Rover has made clear many times in these forums he has no respect) as being a threat to your Constitutional rights, then tying to "stupid people in congress and on the street" thereby calling Obama and Clinton "stupid people" who want to take away your rights, Rover has not ranted? My apologies, seems I have been operating under a fundamental misapprehension of the definition of 'rant.'

Perhaps it take a "ranter" to know a "ranter". :)

[JamesH]

The avaliability of guns does not induce crime. These assault rifles are widespread in Switzerland and they are not generally used in crimes.
This basically show that guns do not equal crime.
This can also be food for thought to the US politicians and society. Are the presence of guns the reason for the rise of crimes in the US (if there is one, I have not properly researched this)?
Or are there other reasons that must be first adressed?

So what is the problem?

Americans just can't own guns responsibly?

If thats the case, and it seems to be since many other countries seem able to handle high levels of gun ownership with low levels of gun crime, what is the solution?

[Rover]

"So in choosing to name the current president (for whom Rover has made clear many times in these forums he has no respect) as being a threat to your Constitutional rights."

Jeez Gerard, I thought you were never going to "get it."

[pilkguns]

Sooooooooooooo after all this disucssion about so called "assualt rifles" here we find that there was no AR-15 involved at all. Just the two pistols.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/340113

[PaulB]

Every report that I saw after everything got sorted out after a couple of days said that he had the AR and two pistols inside the school and the shotgun was in the car. The AR was used to shoot the kids and adults and he then used one of the handguns to shoot himself in the head.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/16/at ... ut-school/

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/12/ ... index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook ... l_shooting

[Gerard]

Yeah, the AR as primary weapon and the two pistols unused seems to be the consensus. Not sure why this Ralph Lopez guy would be reporting as late as December 30th on video footage televised in mid-December during the chaotic mis-reporting phase of the whole disaster. Seems odd to be trolling at that date using out-of-date media, especially considering the coroner's report seemed to have put the bullets solidly as having come from the AR-15.

Not that it really matters which gun was used. I can't help but wonder why that's so relevant? It's not the 'scary black rifle' which should be under discussion here and everywhere, it's the semi-auto firing, perhaps (though arguably not) the magazine capacity), and most importantly the attitudes prevailing in the culture at large which not only allows but seems in some ways to promote this kind of emotionally-driven violent outburst. And since it seems a significant percentage of Americans are unwilling even to talk about shifting the culture away from violence, then an obvious avenue to pursue is gun control.

Reducing this issue to merely a 2nd amendment rights or a particular gun model debate is insufficient. It's obvious that the problem is much bigger, more entrenched in US culture. And I'm not saying it's an exclusively US-based issue; plainly there are a lot of other dangerous places where guns are used to slaughter innocents. But why not work on setting a shining example for all, being the solution which other countries would be inspired to emulate? This attitude that we should hunker down and fight bullets with bullets just doesn't seem remotely like the right path.

[pilkguns]

This attitude that we should hunker down and fight bullets with bullets just doesn't seem remotely like the right path.

Gerard, I can truly appreciate that you are a disciple of Noam Chomsky, as you seem to master the concept of leaving logical thought and knowledge of prior human existence and history outside your postulations. And politely ignoring those who do use logical thinking and have a knowledge of history.


What method do you propose to respond to someone who is shooting bullets at you? or an innocent child?
This a question YOU must answer Gerard, before anymore of your statements will be allowed on Target Talk. I am sick of your failure to engage with those whose powerful arguments you don't like.

Someone is shooting at you, or God forbid one your children, What would YOU do?

Will you do nothing? Or will you seek to grab whatever you can find as a weapon and try to stop that person? a 2x4? , baseball bat ? , a rock? Even your IZH46 with a well placed shot in the eye could disable the attacker. What will YOU do?
Scott

[Richard H]

The simple fact the rich and powerful run around with armed security details, if its good enough for them why not everyone else? Why doesn't Feinstein or Bloomberg rely on a cell phone and dialling 911?

[zuckerman]

Wasn't reagan surrounded by secret service, yet he still got shot....

Making up scenarios and proposing that this or that, will / will not happen, avoids actually defending an argument. It is a false flag in an argument. It reduces an extremely complex problem into an either / or question, and makes the assumption that there is a "wrong" choice. I believe that this is a discussion, and as such there will be, and are, differing opinions.

The discussion header was tragedy and has morphed into gun regulation. I believe Gerard is on track with both.

429 gunshot deaths since Sandy Hook.

[TraLfaz]

Wasn't reagan surrounded by secret service, yet he still got shot....

Making up scenarios and proposing that this or that, will / will not happen, avoids actually defending an argument. It is a false flag in an argument. It reduces an extremely complex problem into an either / or question, and makes the assumption that there is a "wrong" choice. I believe that this is a discussion, and as such there will be, and are, differing opinions.

The discussion header was tragedy and has morphed into gun regulation. I believe Gerard is on track with both.

429 gunshot deaths since Sandy Hook.

Nobody ever answered the questions that I asked earlier, how many of those 429 were killed with an "assault weapon"? How many were shot by a person who used more than ten rounds from a magazine? I read an article earlier that stated that there are more people killed every year with hammers than with assault weapons, can anybody tell me if this true or not.

[zuckerman]

1989 6% clubs/blunt instruments, 65% firearms.
http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/33 ... _used.html

no idea how to find assault weapons use.

429 people died due to gunshot, that is the point.

[TraLfaz]

So, what is your fix? I can tell you that I will give up my guns when EVERYBODY gives up their guns and I can expect for the gov to take care of me when I call asking for help (don't most of the US citizens want the gov to take care of them in today's society?). You can expect most gun owners to think the same way when you discuss this with them. I can tell you that a Captain in the local PD told me that you are insane if you expect for the PD to stop an intruder, they usually arrive to mop things up when everything is said and done. Come on Zuckerman, all statistics and bs aside, what is your fix?

[bpscCheney]

IMHO the vast majority of gun related violence is done with pistols yet they always want to ban the 'assault rifle'. To me this makes no sense even as a self proclaimed liberal I don't understand trying to stop gun violence by taking away the right to defend ones self. I'm just throwing this out there because not all liberals are anti gun, just like not all conservatives are 'hillbillies' or 'rednecks'.

That being said, again just my humble opinion, I believe that pistols are the problem. I'm NOT saying we should ban them but perhaps make it so that every 21 Y/O with a clean record can obtain one. Side note here in Wisconsin you need to be 21 to purchase a pistol. ;)