Author Guns  (Read 100138 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #60 on: December 29, 2012, 04:04:07 AM »
Oh, did I lose you in the Dixie Chicks thing and reminding you of what you said about your past president? Or was it the asking how you expected teachers to fit in the same intense weapons training necessary for CQB? Perhaps it was reminding you of the non deterrance of haviing guards, and asking for your evidence to suggest otherwise?

Maybe you don't know...but if you want to go back to your pet bone 'liberals' and it's many facets and how it fits into the current budget deficit in the USA; is it worth reminding you that the global recession happened in the tenure of Dubya? What is this crap about loathing people in  the military? In a perfect world we wouldn't have a miilitary; but sadly it isn't a perfect world, and absoolute power corrupts, disputes and tensions break out, and have done throughout history..can you cite an example where any government not on the receiving end of a coup d'état loathes it's military? In several cases it's the military that keeps the government in power; I would strongly suggest that isn't and hasn't ever been the case in the USA (Unless you're including the civil war!).

Here's a link that if what you say is true, would be embracing Obama's 'liberal' and 'socialist' policies...

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/09/obam-s07.html

Pssst...he doesn't.

Interesting you mention Reagan..He was more liberal than Obama; he even tried to persuade our Prime Minister in 82 not to try and retake the Falkland Islands. Instead wanting her to broker a compromise...She asked him what he'd do if Alaska was invaded...Can you imagine ANY US president these days not supporting the defence of a western protectorate by it's NATO ally? In the event, Reagan was persuaded by his defence chiefs that the UK had a cast iron case and to their credit ensured the UK was afforded all assistance, including using Ascension Island as a stop off point for our aircaraft and shipping. I recommend reading '607 Squadron'..A tale of military discipline, inginuity and guile overcoming the odds. The UK were even assisted indirectly by the then Soviet submarine service. Strange but true.






Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #61 on: December 29, 2012, 04:38:38 AM »
Oh, did I lose you in the Dixie Chicks thing and reminding you of what you said about your past president? Or was it the asking how you expected teachers to fit in the same intense weapons training necessary for CQB? Perhaps it was reminding you of the non deterrance of haviing guards, and asking for your evidence to suggest otherwise?

Maybe you don't know...but if you want to go back to your pet bone 'liberals' and it's many facets and how it fits into the current budget deficit in the USA; is it worth reminding you that the global recession happened in the tenure of Dubya? What is this crap about loathing people in  the military? In a perfect world we wouldn't have a miilitary; but sadly it isn't a perfect world, and absoolute power corrupts, disputes and tensions break out, and have done throughout history..can you cite an example where any government not on the receiving end of a coup d'état loathes it's military? In several cases it's the military that keeps the government in power; I would strongly suggest that isn't and hasn't ever been the case in the USA (Unless you're including the civil war!).

Here's a link that if what you say is true, would be embracing Obama's 'liberal' and 'socialist' policies...

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/09/obam-s07.html

Pssst...he doesn't.

Interesting you mention Reagan..He was more liberal than Obama; he even tried to persuade our Prime Minister in 82 not to try and retake the Falkland Islands. Instead wanting her to broker a compromise...She asked him what he'd do if Alaska was invaded...Can you imagine ANY US president these days not supporting the defence of a western protectorate by it's NATO ally? In the event, Reagan was persuaded by his defence chiefs that the UK had a cast iron case and to their credit ensured the UK was afforded all assistance, including using Ascension Island as a stop off point for our aircaraft and shipping. I recommend reading '607 Squadron'..A tale of military discipline, inginuity and guile overcoming the odds. The UK were even assisted indirectly by the then Soviet submarine service. Strange but true.

 
I already told you I don't care about the Dixie Chicks either way.  They got to say what they wanted and others got to respond.  I will say we Americans used to have an understanding that partisan politics should stop at the nations edge, I guess we're long past that now.  And given that the DCs country music fan base was also a large part of George W Bushes political base, it might have been a mistake for them to talk about being embarrassed by him in England.  That'a all I really have to say about it, I was just responding to another poster that people were also free to criticize them for what they said.
 
How often do people with guns practice?  The people I know do it fairly frequently, it's a hobby for them.  They are pretty good shots, have respect for potential danger of the weapon, and are extremely careful.
 
Referencing the World Socialist web site, the International Committee of the Fourth International to convince me Obama is 'Right-wing?  That's hilarious.  Now I at least know where you are coming from.  Let me just say that the hard Left thinks Obama is not destroying the country fast enough and articles like this are meant to pressure him to move faster.  Doesn't mean he isn't one of them, it's just that even a President has limits to what he can do in a given time frame. 
 
Given this article was printed in Sept and is criticizing his campaign for "banality, hollowness, self-glorification and unadulterated lying", I would cynically say that most candidates paint themselves in the best light, attack their opposition, and say as little as possible about thier own positions - the more details they give during the campaign, the more reason various people will have to vote against them.  So campaigns are mostly run on platitudes.  Nothing new there.  I think spending a little time here instead of getting mostly filtered news would give you a broader perspective on US politics.  It's that way for anyone viewing events from afar.
 
Reagan. What was wrong with asking Thatcher if those mostly empty far away islands were worth going to war for, and if she'd stay the course?  He got his answer and backed her up even at the expense of alienating all of our Latin American allies.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #62 on: December 29, 2012, 05:08:52 AM »

 How often do people with guns practice?  The people I know do it fairly frequently, it's a hobby for them.  They are pretty good shots, have respect for potential danger of the weapon, and are extremely careful.

Practicing on a closed range wearing ear defenders at a target is one thing; and entirely different to being in the middle of teaching double English literature, looking up and seeing a figure in the doorway with a rifle pointing at your head...I asked specifically when and where these teachers were expected to practice CQB in a real world scenario. NOT target practice.

Quote

Referencing the World Socialist web site, the International Committee of the Fourth International to convince me Obama is 'Right-wing?  That's hilarious.  Now I at least know where you are coming from.  Let me just say that the hard Left thinks Obama is not destroying the country fast enough and articles like this are meant to pressure him to move faster.  Doesn't mean he isn't one of them, it's just that even a President has limits to what he can do in a given time frame. 

But you're convinced he'll eventually fullfil the wishes of the WSW?
 
Quote
Given this article was printed in Sept and is criticizing his campaign for "banality, hollowness, self-glorification and unadulterated lying", I would cynically say that most candidates paint themselves in the best light, attack their opposition, and say as little as possible about thier own positions - the more details they give during the campaign, the more reason various people will have to vote against them.  So campaigns are mostly run on platitudes.  Nothing new there.  I think spending a little time here instead of getting mostly filtered news would give you a broader perspective on US politics.  It's that way for anyone viewing events from afar.
Oh I don't know, you filter quite well all by yourself...
Quote

Reagan. What was wrong with asking Thatcher if those mostly empty far away islands were worth going to war for, and if she'd stay the course?  He got his answer and backed her up even at the expense of alienating all of our Latin American allies.

Mostly empty islands not worth protecting? Is that how you view Guam, Howland and Jarvis islands? Alienating your Latin allies? You do know who was in control of Argentina at the time don't you? Are you seriously suggesting you'd want to be associated with that filth and call them allies? Oh hang on, I see where you're coming from now, the military dictatorship at the time was right wig, so must have been the good guys I guess.


Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #63 on: December 29, 2012, 05:34:52 AM »
... But you're convinced he'll eventually fullfil the wishes of the WSW?...

 
I'm sure he'll do his best.  We do haves separation of powers, and he can only do so much using exec orders, exec privilege, recess appointments, using the 'bully pulpit' to get his bills passed, and by having the bureaucracies write new regs.  On the other hand, Boehner and the Establishment R's in the House are in the process of caving, so who knows how much wreckage can be accomplished
 

 
... Mostly empty islands not worth protecting? Is that how you view Guam, Howland and Jarvis islands? Alienating your Latin allies? You do know who was in control of Argentina at the time don't you? Are you seriously suggesting you'd want to be associated with that filth and call them allies? Oh hang on, I see where you're coming from now, the military dictatorship at the time was right wig, so must have been the good guys I guess.

 

I just said it was prudent to ask before jumping in.  And yes, the OAS - Organization of American States, which includes every nation in our hemisphere - as an organization was against the UK on this one.  We are an OAS member and friends and allies with nearly all these countries.  They are our neighbors, and they have a thing about colonialists.

 
It doesn't matter what the government of Argentina was at the time in regards to who owns the islands - regimes come and go, the issue was permanent ownership.  Possession of faraway lands are mainly due to accidents of history, ownership issues aren't always so easy to resolve.  Argentina has a strong claim to the Falklands too.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #64 on: December 29, 2012, 09:14:30 AM »
I think the people most qualified to own a gun are the people that hate them the most. They are the least likely to use them except in extraordinary circumstances.

You have two people equally qualified for a position/job/role/whatever with a great and dangerous responsibility. The biggest impression you get is that one guy is relishing the chance to wield this responsibility and the other guy's mind is weighed heavily by the dangers of the responsibility but obviously he is up to the task because he came forward for the position. Who do you want?

The cop who has a giant ego and wants to be a hero, the soldier that rushes headlong without thinking things through, etc. These guys are more dangerous to themselves, their peers, and ultimately the ones they are trying to protect. You never hear of a hero who wasn't a reluctant hero.


So in a sense, the people that are pro gun are more dangerous in my eyes than the people that are against guns.


Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #65 on: December 29, 2012, 03:21:28 PM »
Practicing on a closed range wearing ear defenders at a target is one thing; and entirely different to being in the middle of teaching double English literature, looking up and seeing a figure in the doorway with a rifle pointing at your head...I asked specifically when and where these teachers were expected to practice CQB in a real world scenario. NOT target practice...

In that situation, or similar, I'd rather a person comfortable using a gun had one than not.  And so would they.  And they have a right to it - regardless of what current unconstitutional laws say.  No, they don't need continual SWAT training, just a 'good guy' having a gun is usually enough for the intruder to retreat rather than take the chance of being shot.
 
Notice no one ever goes into inner city schools where kids are known to be packing to try to shoot up the place.
 
You don't get it and Piers doesn't get it, so I'm going to give up now.


Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #67 on: December 31, 2012, 03:22:25 AM »
In regard to the fantasy of "minimum-wage Rambo" school teachers,

(1) ...No, they don't need continual SWAT training, just a 'good guy' having a gun is usually enough for the intruder to retreat rather than take the chance of being shot.
(2)  Notice no one ever goes into inner city schools where kids are known to be packing to try to shoot up the place.
(1) Okay, P*B-- where has that happened?   Where has a school shooter retreated at the presence of anyone with guns?   On the contrary, I don't think any of the "big ones" have shown any particular fear of death -- you know: what with killing themselves and all.
(2) That assertion is bizarre and tangential almost to the point of not being worth addressing.   Your assertion implicitly assumes that shooters choose schools on an initially totally random basis-- that, for example, they would go into a school they had never seen before-- YET, they know where there are guns and aren't guns and that they choose gun-less schools.
Let's go deeper.
You almost accidentally acknowledge that it's mostly White-ish, suburban-ish schools that get shot up.   You suggest that this is only because the shooters know that the Black kids (and I feel confident in assuming that that's what you mean by "inner city") would shoot back-- because, hey, they're all strapped by age 7, right?

I'm sure that you, P*B, have never heard of the social-psychological concept of propinquity.   People who are going to do something will do it with what's near and available.    The majority of serial killers and mass murderers are White males.   If they're going to do that, they'll do it somewhere that they're familiar with.   These mass-killing White males quite likely aren't familiar with "inner city" (Black) schools any more than you are, and it is social distance that keeps them from shooting up those places -- not the fear of the savage Black kids shooting back.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #68 on: December 31, 2012, 04:10:51 AM »
 
You don't get it and Piers doesn't get it, so I'm going to give up now.

Ben; as soon as he ended his last post with the above it was obvious common sense, evidence and facts were not common bed fellows to P*B's reasoning. So there seemed little point in flogging a dead horse; but hats off to you for giving him something to chew on, but will inevitably not answer directly or ignore and answer a question that hasn't been asked. 

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #69 on: December 31, 2012, 04:27:39 AM »
In regard to the fantasy of "minimum-wage Rambo" school teachers,
(1) Okay, P*B-- where has that happened?   Where has a school shooter retreated at the presence of anyone with guns?   On the contrary, I don't think any of the "big ones" have shown any particular fear of death -- you know: what with killing themselves and all.
(2) That assertion is bizarre and tangential almost to the point of not being worth addressing.   Your assertion implicitly assumes that shooters choose schools on an initially totally random basis-- that, for example, they would go into a school they had never seen before-- YET, they know where there are guns and aren't guns and that they choose gun-less schools.
Let's go deeper.
You almost accidentally acknowledge that it's mostly White-ish, suburban-ish schools that get shot up.   You suggest that this is only because the shooters know that the Black kids (and I feel confident in assuming that that's what you mean by "inner city") would shoot back-- because, hey, they're all strapped by age 7, right?

I'm sure that you, P*B, have never heard of the social-psychological concept of propinquity.   People who are going to do something will do it with what's near and available.    The majority of serial killers and mass murderers are White males.   If they're going to do that, they'll do it somewhere that they're familiar with.   These mass-killing White males quite likely aren't familiar with "inner city" (Black) schools any more than you are, and it is social distance that keeps them from shooting up those places -- not the fear of the savage Black kids shooting back.

1 - Where has it happened?  Umm, nowhere, since, you know, these killers don't choose schools where there are armed guards or where some kids are known to be carrying.  Since guns aren't allowed at nearly all schools, and shooters don't attack the ones where they are, it's pretty hard to find examples of where they've retreated when one gets pulled out by a law abiding citizen.  Is this really something you had to ask someone?
 
1a - The profile of these people is they don't want someone else to shoot them, unless it is specifically their intent to committ suicide (aka 'death by cop').  That's why they do it themselves when the cops finally show up.
 
2.  Not worth adressing.  You might be on to something there:
 
You guys are the ones claiming taking guns away from honest citizens will stop gun crime.  I point out that people carrying out these massacres manage to choose places where guns are already prohibited.  I give examples of schools with armed guards or where some kids are known to carry, and that those schools are never the target.  And you think that somehow proves... something or other about why we need more gun restrictions?

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #70 on: December 31, 2012, 04:38:57 AM »
Yes, and Yp, as I alluded to a few posts back: P*B has clearly stated specifically to our pals Daddio and onan, that he (P*B) is not here to convince those guys (factual posters), and by extention, he apparently is here only to 1) keep the right-wing base simmering, and/or 2) sway some people without easy access to truth; that might have been his --oh, let's say-- "mission" back prior to the election.
P*B is like an online lighthouse: up here to weather all storms of truth and bravely keep the light of right-wing fantasy shining to guide any foundering hopefuls out there, so that they can see the steady light of fantasy and hearken to it and take solace from it's never-wavering standard, which never bends to all the worldly forces that otherwise make those foundering souls feel less than superior and assured.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #71 on: December 31, 2012, 04:44:25 AM »

1 - Where has it happened?  Umm, nowhere, since, you know, these killers don't choose schools where there are armed guards
As long as you ignore VA tech, which has it's own armed police force! Or Columbine. Fort Hood is a military base...Yeah, we'll ignore those...makes the figures add up then.

Quote
or where some kids are known to be carrying.  Since guns aren't allowed at nearly all schools, and shooters don't attack the ones where they are, it's pretty hard to find examples of where they've retreated when one gets pulled out by a law abiding citizen.  Is this really something you had to ask someone?
What does a law abiding citizen look like? One with a gun, or one with a gun?

 
Quote
1a - The profile of these people is they don't want someone else to shoot them, unless it is specifically their intent to committ suicide (aka 'death by cop').  That's why they do it themselves when the cops finally show up.
 
2.  Not worth adressing.  You might be on to something there:
 
You guys are the ones claiming taking guns away from honest citizens will stop gun crime.  I point out that people carrying out these massacres manage to choose places where guns are already prohibited.

No..they choose schools that they're familiar with, or cinemas. They use that knowledge as any predator does-to their advantage. It's why police forces have blueprints of all major buildings; just in case that day comes when they need rapid intelligence of the environment in which they're going to work in.

Quote
I give examples of schools with armed guards or where some kids are known to carry, and that those schools are never the target.  And you think that somehow proves... something or other about why we need more gun restrictions?

So your solution would therefore be to make carrying arms a requisite for all? What do you mean 'more restriction'? The recent massacre was carried out by someone whose mother legally carried weapons, seems she wasn't that restricted, does it?

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #72 on: December 31, 2012, 04:51:52 AM »
1 - Where has it happened?  Umm, nowhere, since, you know, these killers don't choose schools where there are armed guards or where some kids are known to be carrying.  Since guns aren't allowed at nearly all schools, and shooters don't attack the ones where they are, it's pretty hard to find examples of where they've retreated when one gets pulled out by a law abiding citizen.  Is this really something you had to ask someone?
 
You guys are the ones claiming taking guns away from honest citizens will stop gun crime.  I point out that people carrying out these massacres manage to choose places where guns are already prohibited.  I give examples of schools with armed guards or where some kids are known to carry, and that those schools are never the target.  And you think that somehow proves... something or other about why we need more gun restrictions?
Non-falsifiability, which is something that I and others always fault Noory for, for violating the scientific model.   You tout the fact that something hasn't happened, as absolute proof that it's true.   Sorry; that isn't how either science, logic, or rhetoric works.
You keep ignoring the VA Tech and Columbine examples that I know of, where there were armed guards.   But like I said: you are one right-wing Terminator  "he  will - not -  stop!"

But aside from that: who's this "you guys?"  I am not advocating taking anything away from anyone.   I just advocate for some serious restrictions from here on out.   You can keep your Mini-14 that you think will stop that unspecified UN tank (from the nation of "UN").   After all, right-wing males are so well-known as being unlikely to do anything bad on a mass scale.    Let's just get a little more stringent from here on out.
Why would you argue with that?

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #73 on: December 31, 2012, 06:20:15 AM »
...  P*B is like an online lighthouse: up here to weather all storms of truth and bravely keep the light of right-wing fantasy shining to guide any foundering hopefuls out there, so that they can see the steady light of fantasy and hearken to it and take solace from it's never-wavering standard, which never bends to all the worldly forces that otherwise make those foundering souls feel less than superior and assured.

You might be doing a bit of projecting with this. 
 
 
... But aside from that: who's this "you guys?"  I am not advocating taking anything away from anyone.   I just advocate for some serious restrictions from here on out.   You can keep your Mini-14 that you think will stop that unspecified UN tank (from the nation of "UN").   After all, right-wing males are so well-known as being unlikely to do anything bad on a mass scale.    Let's just get a little more stringent from here on out.
Why would you argue with that?

'Not advocating taking anything away... just advocate for some serious restrictions from here on out....'
 
Oh, ok.  How did I miss that.
 
Hey, I'd like to get the guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them too, while leaving people alone that pose no threat to anyone - do you have any recomendations for how to do that?
 
... Why would you argue with that?

I would argue with it because it doesn't work.  As far as the new restrictions on 'assault weapons', that law was passed at one point and expired a number of years later.  It didn't accomplish anything when it passed and nothing different happened after it expired.  It's just Congress trying to look like they are 'doing something'. 
 
I would argue with it because instead of passing more new laws restricting the non-criminal, we need to repeal laws that set up 'gun free' neighborhoods and cities.  We need to allow anyone that can pass a background check to be able to get a concealed weapon permit if they want one. 
 
Ever notice that the people that want us to put up signs stating certian areas are 'gun-free' zones don't have these same signs in front of their homes?  Why not, if that makes everyone safer, just likeYorkshire Pud thinks people knowing cops don't have guns makes the cops safer? 
 
Maybe the anti-gun folks shoud lead be example and put these signs up in front of their homes (note, please do not actually do this, it's a really bad idea)

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #74 on: December 31, 2012, 07:42:01 AM »
Still not acknowleding Columbine or VA tech with their 'deterent'? No matter, I never thought you would...because to do so would negate your argument...


 
Hey, I'd like to get the guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them too, while leaving people alone that pose no threat to anyone - do you have any recomendations for how to do that?

Who isn't a threat to anyone? If you can show at least a 75% certainty model that can identify risk/non risk weapon owners/users then you can go to the next stage and remove weapons from the remaining 25%...The analogy can be aligned with high security psychiatric hospitals, where it is said 50% of patients could be released into the public with no danger at all...the problem? Identitfying with 100% certainty the 50% released is the right 50%. Answer? All 100% stay in high security...I'm sure even you can work out that analogy.

 
Quote
I would argue with it because it doesn't work.  As far as the new restrictions on 'assault weapons', that law was passed at one point and expired a number of years later.  It didn't accomplish anything when it passed and nothing different happened after it expired.  It's just Congress trying to look like they are 'doing something'. 


Nothing happened? No-one was murdered with one? Not one person? I wonder how 9000+ people were unlawfully killed in 2010 (more in 2011) with guns? Try telling the family of a murder victim 'nothing happened'.

Quote

I would argue with it because instead of passing more new laws restricting the non-criminal, we need to repeal laws that set up 'gun free' neighborhoods and cities.  We need to allow anyone that can pass a background check to be able to get a concealed weapon permit if they want one. 

Unfortunately background checks are of the moment...Anyone can be a 'good person' and go out and get a gun, and the next day be a 'bad person'. Come to the UK, or Germany, or France, or Spain, or Australia, or Belguim, or many other 'gun free neighbourhoods'...No need to repeal them, it's in the legislature.

 
Quote
Ever notice that the people that want us to put up signs stating certian areas are 'gun-free' zones don't have these same signs in front of their homes?  Why not, if that makes everyone safer, just likeYorkshire Pud thinks people knowing cops don't have guns makes the cops safer? 
Which bit of 'Our police have repeatedly voted against being routiely armed' didn't you understand? It isn't what I think, it's what the police know..They know that if they go to an incident any use of firearms will only escalate the situation. But don't take my word for it.. It's from 2006, but still a common sentiment; and since 2006, gun deaths are massively reduced in the UK..there were 51 last year, down on the previous year..

http://www.polfed.org/federationpolicy/firearms.asp


Quote

Maybe the anti-gun folks shoud lead be example and put these signs up in front of their homes (note, please do not actually do this, it's a really bad idea)

No need to..as I don't live on a farm, am not a police protection officer, or have any need to own/use a gun..

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #75 on: December 31, 2012, 07:43:47 AM »
As usual from the terrified types:  because any one piece of legislation cannot solve everything, don't do anything.

Why is it, P*B, because you claim to have traveled so much and I'm sure you can tell us every country in which you can't get a decent hamburger:
why does no other Western circum-democracy have the murder rate that the U.S. does?
Look-- sure-- it isn't just guns.... it's things like the core of racism and every other type of -ism and -phobia that are rampant in this country.   All those come to a head of murder; everyone killing everybody they don't like.   In another country, it would be called "low grade genocide."  Here, in this enlightened wonderful democracy where nothing systemically bad can ever happen because there is no "system," it's all on YOU, you wonderful INDIVIDUAL -- it's just called random crime.

Right?



Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #76 on: December 31, 2012, 07:56:25 AM »
Yp, you did well before to just stop trying.   Still, jousting with P*B may serve as valuable drill once and if the rest of the right-wing horde come back in here, as I suspect that some may have been away doing rituals.
I'm guessing that you, Yp, haven't seen the whole Rightie crew around here in action... Forum founder Em Vee, The General, stevesh, Sardondi- although he's been around lately... ye shall know them by their bullshit as it cometh.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #77 on: December 31, 2012, 08:03:38 AM »
I have kind of stayed out of this fight. Mostly because I see compelling arguments on both sides of the fence.

two things however... people wanting more restrictions on ownership are not necessarily anti-gun... me for example. There is a big difference in owning a gun for hunting and/or home protection and conceal carry. And to make it perfectly clear most people with conceal carry permits shouldn't have them. The amount of training needed to use a firearm effectively and properly in a situation requiring a concealed carry is severely lacking. That being said people do have the right and taking that right away is an issue I want no part of.

In a nut shell if gun owners are not concerned about the 8000 to 20+ thousand (take your pick) people killed by guns every year... well it speaks for itself.

No one has made the point that changing gun laws would be easy or not a sacrifice. But if one doesn't scratch their head and say wtf, then perhaps they are oblivious.

Having said all that, I have had guns for 50 years. I have never broken a law regarding my firearms. I have never threatened another with a firearm and most owners can make the same claim. At some point personal responsibility has to be the measure used. We do live in a country where guns are by and large legal for most citizens. It has been that way since we were pre-country.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #78 on: December 31, 2012, 08:05:10 AM »
Yp, you did well before to just stop trying.   Still, jousting with P*B may serve as valuable drill once and if the rest of the right-wing horde come back in here, as I suspect that some may have been away doing rituals.
I'm guessing that you, Yp, haven't seen the whole Rightie crew around here in action... Forum founder Em Vee, The General, stevesh, Sardondi- although he's been around lately... ye shall know them by their bullshit as it cometh.

Well Ben, here's what I'm gonna do.....

If they disagree with me, I'll get tooled up with various assets and declare I'm protecting my freedom, my history (My fathers side of the family has Viking blood somewhere in the distant past), and I'll renounce my athiesm to have god bless whatever....
I'll then simply use the device of obfuscation, vagueries and non fact to establish my credentials. Mix in a bit of veiled rascism, fueled with more Y chromosomes (one is soooo last year and not nearly masculine enough), and label myself a 'good guy..

First rules of battle, know your enemy, think like him, anticipate his actions, and have contingency plans...  ;D

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #79 on: December 31, 2012, 08:36:40 AM »
Yp -- Orde Wingate would have been proud of you  ::)

Onan -- I am like you, a long-time gun-owner and non-criminal.  (Wow -- didn't see that coming, did ya, Righties?   I've got better weapons than most of you will ever have).
See, that's another thing-- a lot of these guys are frustrated punks who probably wanted to be in the Army or Marines but for whatever physical or psychological reason couldn't be.   So now they want to own guns like they think they could have, "if only" -- and that's why they want all the high-tech stuff: to substitute for what they never got to touch in the military.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #80 on: December 31, 2012, 09:08:53 AM »
"if only" -- and that's why they want all the high-tech stuff: to substitute for what they never got to touch in the military.

Isn't that the truth? I've alluded to it in my posts, (no need to go into detail-it's irrelevant) but I've been around weapons and known those (and still do) around weapons. The common thread with them all is their compassion, and stance of anti violence. The army, royal marines, air force, navy and police reject recruits after weeks of basic training if something flags up in the instructors mind that the recruit hasn't what they're looking for. He/she is asking "Can I see myself working alongside this recruit after they've qualified, if they qualify?" I read an account of a former SAS soldier who described his selection for the SAS (They apply for selection whilst still in their original army regiment). He said that the candidates were in a classroom and were being given a run down of what the rest of selection process might involve (This was after several weeks of outdoor runs of 30 plus miles fully kitted, up and down the Brecon Beacons in Wales, in filthy weather, occasionally out for days with minimal/no rations and shelter); one candidate stuck his hand up and asked when they were going 'to get the black gear as he was sick of the bullshit'...The instructors laughed along with the remark...the candidate wasn't there two days later.

Rough estimates are there are between 200--400 SAS and SBS soldiers in the British military. They're the guys who get called out for seiges and hostage situations. They train every day if they're not on operations..The initial recruitement figure is in the thousends, the failure rate to get to being selected is more than 98%.

If they demand (and I expect the same is with the US Seals, Delta force and Rangers) such critical standards, how on earth is a school teacher expected to deal with such situations? I'm sure P*B will come up with an answer.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #81 on: December 31, 2012, 09:57:14 AM »
I have been reading this thread with great interest, and some good points have been made. 

First, guns don't fire themselves, people do.  Responsiblility to carry or use any weapon is paramount.  I support the right to carry, although I personally do not own or possess guns, but if someone chooses they have that right.  Guns for self-defense, hunting, collecting or sport are fine, but they must be regulated.  What stirs me is that in a blitz like this to address the situation society does not look at it completelly objectively but swings to the opposite extreme. 

The school shooting was tragic and I do not feel like teachers should carry.  However, security guards are in some schools now, and I do not see an issue with that if the school system chooses that.  Also, a safety plan acknowledging this as a threat that has happened should be considered.  It has happened.  The teachers and administration should have a well-thought plan as to address this threat should be made a part of teacher training.   How should they react?  What should be done?  It may need to be discussed in the classroom, grade appropriate.  This is not to encourage this, but to teach gun responsibilty and respect for their use.   Select administation may need to have guns in a safe and be trained with the hours needed to use the gun.  I condone teacher carrying any guns on themselves and that is a tactic that should not be considered.

The point is that our country was founded on a heritage of gun usage. Tighter regulation as to who owns and carries is the answer, along with proper training and permitting is the answer not confiscation.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #82 on: December 31, 2012, 01:11:16 PM »
... I would argue with it because it doesn't work.  As far as the new restrictions on 'assault weapons', that law was passed at one point and expired a number of years later.  It didn't accomplish anything when it passed and nothing different happened after it expired.  It's just Congress trying to look like they are 'doing something'...

... Nothing happened? No-one was murdered with one? Not one person? I wonder how 9000+ people were unlawfully killed in 2010 (more in 2011) with guns? Try telling the family of a murder victim 'nothing happened'....

I may not have communicated that clearly, although you left a word out of what I said  - I wrote nothing different happened.  Sort of a difference. 
 
When the US govt banned assault weapons, there was no change in gun violence attributable to the ban.  When the ban expired years later, gun violence did not increase due to the availability of the weapons.  I will say that if automatic weapons were to be allowed, that would increase violence.  We don't need those to be readily available.  But the so-called 'assault weapons' are really just regular semi-automatic weapons made to look scary - they aren't more dangerous than regular semi-autos'.
 
 
 
 
... Which bit of 'Our police have repeatedly voted against being routiely armed' didn't you understand? It isn't what I think, it's what the police know..They know that if they go to an incident any use of firearms will only escalate the situation. But don't take my word for it.. It's from 2006, but still a common sentiment; and since 2006, gun deaths are massively reduced in the UK..there were 51 last year, down on the previous year...

http://www.polfed.org/federationpolicy/firearms.asp


 
I really can't speak to what your police want or don't want, or why they hold certain opinions or ideas, or the environment they are operating in, never having been to the UK and all.  Reading that article, they do seem to be concerned about lack of training, lack of reliable equipment, possible lack of backup.  Maybe they don't feel comfortable with the idea of being issued and carrying weapons after never having done so before.  Maybe PC-ness has been drilled into their heads.  Heck, maybe they really are safer not carrying, although half said they felt their lives had been in jeopardy since the previous survey.
 
Here's what goes on in the US though.  The police chiefs and upper officers in the larger cities, are more politician than policeman - political hires and appointees from within the ranks made by the (usually liberal) mayors.  They typically don't rise through the ranks starting out as street cops - they come from 'records', or HR, or dispatch, or recruitment, or training, or 'community liasons', and climb the career ladder like the best of the corporate slugs.  Here, when they say 'police want' this or support that, it's really what the chiefs and senior officers want or support, not what beat cops out actually dealing with criminals want. 
 
So although in this linked article they say this is a survey, consider how many of the respondents are what we would think of as actual police, and not just pencil pushers working inside the station.   And note the rest of them DO want to carry a gun.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #83 on: December 31, 2012, 01:49:51 PM »
 
I really can't speak to what your police want or don't want, or why they hold certain opinions or ideas, or the environment they are operating in, never having been to the UK and all.  Reading that article, they do seem to be concerned about lack of training, lack of reliable equipment, possible lack of backup.  Maybe they don't feel comfortable with the idea of being issued and carrying weapons after never having done so before.  Maybe PC-ness has been drilled into their heads.  Heck, maybe they really are safer not carrying, although half said they felt their lives had been in jeopardy since the previous survey.
 
Here's what goes on in the US though.  The police chiefs and upper officers in the larger cities, are more politician than policeman - political hires and appointees from within the ranks made by the (usually liberal) mayors.  They typically don't rise through the ranks starting out as street cops - they come from 'records', or HR, or dispatch, or recruitment, or training, or 'community liasons', and climb the career ladder like the best of the corporate slugs.  Here, when they say 'police want' this or support that, it's really what the chiefs and senior officers want or support, not what beat cops out actually dealing with criminals want. 
 
So although in this linked article they say this is a survey, consider how many of the respondents are what we would think of as actual police, and not just pencil pushers working inside the station.   And note the rest of them DO want to carry a gun.

Okay as you're not aware of the UK police set up I'll give a very brief outline to what it was and what it turned into a very short time ago (month or so).

I think I'm correct in saying that the UK and US police promotion of officers all starts at the bottom? It certainly is the case here; the caveat being that the police went through a period (because of the very low pay at the time) of a lot of not altogether bright people applying and actually being recruited-they basically had to work with what they had! It became something of a standing joke that the average police officer had below average intelligence.

Various governments came and went and the police (who cannot strike-it's illegal) having a powerful 'union' (Police federation-link in previous post) managed to get their salary and conditions inproved-they also have very good pension provision.....

Anyway; the attractiveness didn't go un-noticed and more and more university graduates applied (mid-late 80's) and of course as the top tanked oofficers recognised they needed intelligence and ambition to be section commanders 'fast tracked' these new recruits...they all have to begin as constables, but the high flyers apply for officer exams and if they pass they become inspectors (US equivalent is I think a Lieutenant), after that, superintendants, chief superindendants, and on up to Chief Constable..  It should be mentioned though that rank frequently is outranked by experience and skills..E.G. a traffic (car pursuit) constable can and does 'command' a situation as it unfolds and can and will direct other assets and make the call. He'll have his/her boss back at base on comms who can of course make the final decisions, but the officers are trained to such a degree their judgement is trusted.

The overall (until recently) control of the district's police force was held by the local police authority; a committee made up of local politicians, lay people, and the chief constable.

The police is apolitical; and although you'll find like in any society, claims that suggest it isn't the case, by and large it remains so. Politicians of all political hues have been arrested and charged with various offences over the years.

Just over a month ago, because of a non sensical (in my opinion) drive by our government, each city and town was asked to vote for a 'Police Commisionar'' It did what everyone warned it would do, and several former politicians stood as a candidate on, in many cases a political ticket! 

This then is where the buck stops. Anything we the people are not happy about concerning our police, we go to the commisionar..in theory! Time will tell if it works or it's just another level of beauracracy. I'm not convinced and will remain a sceptic until proven otherwise.

Guns
« Reply #84 on: January 13, 2013, 09:57:24 AM »
I'll start this out by saying I don't own a gun and I don't intend to own a gun.  That doesn't mean I don't think anyone should own a gun.  But I do not understand - and I would like to understand - why people feel the need to be able to have all types of guns with no constraints.


Let's put the second amendment and its various interpretations aside.  Let's also try to put aside the conspiracies that always come up on C2C about "thurrr gonna take rrr gunzzzz 'cuzz [insert conspiracy of choice, at least 50% courtesy of Alex Jones]!"


The housemate of one of my best friends owns several guns and gets into some of the conspiracy stuff.  I asked him once why he feels the need to have an assault rifle.  He got incredibly defensive and said to the effect that he didn't need to explain himself to me.  I told him no, he didn't, I just didn't understand the need or desire and wanted to learn.  He softened up a bit and just said that it was fun to be able to fell a tree at 100 yards with a gun.  I spent NYE with them and he started saying that the only reason "they" want to take "our" guns away is because we'd all go right up to the capital and kill congress or something to that effect.  I bit my tongue.


What are the reasons other than the conspiracy stuff?  Are there any?  Or is it all driven by the fear that the government is going to enslave them?


(Yes, this is a serious post ...)

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #85 on: January 13, 2013, 10:11:38 AM »
You refer to assault weapons.  There is no definition of such a thing other than in the 1990s assault weapons ban, and the legislators simply picket out weapons they thought looked scary to meet the definition section of that act. 

Some people, and I don't know if this applies to you, don't understand that fully automatic weapons (machine guns) are outlawed by the 1934 and 1968 federal firearms laws. Everything else fires one round with one pull of the trigger.  I hear many news people refer to "automatic" weapons when the crooks have used no such thing.

Unfortunately, its a highly emotional issue, and I've seen little clear thinking on any side.

Maybe if all weapons were more friendly looking, such as my avatar's Hello Kitty AK, we could all get along.

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #86 on: January 13, 2013, 10:33:54 AM »
Maybe if all weapons were more friendly looking, such as my avatar's Hello Kitty AK, we could all get along.
*like*


I guess I'm referring to most "large" weapons, large clips, etc.  And any mandatory training/registration?  An analogy I heard once is people say "guns don't kill people, people kill people."  The analogy is the same goes for cars -- cars don't kill people, people using cars do.  But we still require that cars be licensed, registered, people have insurance, etc. for cars.


As I said, I really don't completely (nor even >50%) understand this issue, but my knee-jerk reaction based on my own politics is that regulations and limitations make sense to me.  And then I hear (well, refuse to listen to but read about) the rants this past week on C2C by people who think being able to own and use a gun should be as free of everything as being able to breathe air, and I'm trying to understand that position.

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #87 on: January 13, 2013, 11:22:55 AM »
Here's an example - it happened in the last week or so in one of the bedroom communities of Atlanta.  A woman was at home with her twins (about 9 or so).  She saw a strange man approaching her door.  He began banging the door and making a lot of noise.  The woman said she was not expecting anyone, so she called her husband, who was also not expecting anyone.  The husband told the woman to get the children and flee to an attic crawl space.  He told the woman to "remember what I taught you."

Only the week before, the husband had taken the woman to the range and taught her how to fire a pistol.  The woman and children fled, hid in the crawl space, and kept the husband on the line while they heard the stranger break into the house and begin rummaging through the house.  The husband kept her on one line and 3-way called in to the local police.  The now burglar climbed the stairs, entered the master bedroom and spotted the door to the crawl space. 

When the burglar opened the crawl space door, he was facing the .38.  The woman fired all six rounds and hit the burglar with five of them.  He lived.  The police finally arrived another 10 or so minutes later.

What if there had been more crooks?  The woman fired all of her rounds, so there would have been no more to use on a second attacker.

That's why some people think they need higher capacity magazines or heavier duty weapons.  I don't think, for instance, that the woman would have needed to fire so many rounds from a .44 or .45 - but then, she may not have been able to handle the recoil from such a weapon.

Anyway, a long story to say that some folks think they have a need for more firepower. And it doesn't involve any conspiracy.

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #88 on: January 13, 2013, 12:22:03 PM »
We're hearing a lot of people ask 'why does anyone need an assault weapon?' these days. The only rational answer is that no civilian 'needs' a military-style rifle. Indeed, no one 'needs' any sort of rifle at all.
 
My question to you would be: Is it your vision of America that it be a country where the government only permits the citizens to possess those things that they 'need'? A thin gruel of a life, I'm thinking.
 
One doesn't need to be a full-blown conspiracy theorist to be wary of an increasingly-powerful central government. The constant snotty snark from the Left aside, if you have an effective way that we could defend ourselves against such a monster other than an armed citizenry, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
 
As for our resistance to registration, think of it as the same as the efforts of abortion rights advocates to resist any sort of regulation of abortion, including the willingness of otherwise decent people to defend infanticide in the form of partial-birth abortion. They know, as do we, that any attempt to regulate those rights we consider important (see the actions of the Michigan Legislature a few weeks ago) can, and usually is, a step onto the slippery slope of an outright ban.
 
Also, you can't separate the gun-control debate from the Second Amendment any more than you could separate the issue of a state teaching creationism as science in their schools from the First. 

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #89 on: January 13, 2013, 04:48:44 PM »
Of course the government should not limit things to only those you need.  That said, already the gov does not allow you to have a tank, or a rocket launcher.  The question here is simply - is the current line in the right place?  Why would it hurt a regular gun owner or hunter to limit magazine size?  Why shouldnt that fall over the excluded line?