Mock

(01-25-2013, 04:29 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]MS, I for one am glad you are part of this thread. I enjoy looking at things through a different set of eyes. I wish there were more conversations like we are having in this thread. Maybe everyone would understand where the other, for a lack of a better word, side is coming from. Instead we have all the bitch fests and name calling that we see every day.

The feeling is mutual, F.U.

You always provide well thought out posts stating your position eloquently.

It's such a divisive issue with passionate people on both sides.

(01-25-2013, 04:02 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-25-2013, 03:53 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]Its the same as a person asking what religion you are or what political party you are or if you have a porn stash.

The problem is, your/my porn stash won't arbitrarily slaughter a group of people...

That's why you don't have to pass a background check to buy your porn and then register it.

I just don't think, MS, that it's any more accurate to generalize "all gun owners" as having sneaky or hidden agendas than it is to generalize "all non-gun owners" as being in favor of regulation and bureaucracy that serves no good purpose other than to infringe upon or vilify those who choose to bear arms. Many people in this thread have both agreed and disagreed with the same poster on different aspects of the gun control debate; depends on the point being addressed. I have however seen some of the extremists that you allude to (from both sides of the debate) in the media and elsewhere and agree with you that they are often irrational and counter-productive.

I too support stronger enforcement of laws against straw purchasers and respect gun dealers who refuse to sell to those whom they suspect of making a purchase for someone else. Also, no objection to requiring those who knowingly have a firearm stolen to report it right away.

Where I think that all gun owners and non gun-owners are justified in strongly objecting is when you have people like Chappelle-Nadol coming along and proposing to pass separate legislation, on top of the existing and future registration laws, requiring that the cross-section of gun owners with school aged children also provide the school district with that information. It's not about trying to hide anything. It's clearly a redundant exercise designed to put information in the hands of those who have no business or right to know, imo. Her contention that the school districts' lists would somehow "assist police in solving crimes" appears politically transparent and ignorant. Police already have access to gun registrations.

The school districts should be left to focus on activities that promote educating students and keeping the campus as safe as possible. If the senator instead wanted to head up a state-wide education and violence prevention/awareness campaign, I think that would be a worthwhile effort.

HotD, I agree with you in regards to the Missouri schools and what they'd like to do. But I honestly don't consider it to be the worst suggestion of all time.

As someone who tries to understand both sides of this issue, I get annoyed that when ANY mere suggestion is put forth regarding 'gun-control' it's instantly met with disgust, disdain, and the usual, 'It's my Constitutional right... fuck off.' (Not F.U. mind you, but true gun-nuts).

There's zero dialogue from the far right. They think the left just wants to take their firearms, while the left simply sees zealots who don't give a shit about anybody but themselves.

"President Obama has called for stricter federal gun laws to combat recent shooting rampages, but a review of recent state laws by The Washington Times shows no discernible correlation between stricter rules and lower gun-crime rates in the states".

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013...-gun-laws/

As I recall, the last AR ban was not extended past the 10 year sunset because statistics showed little if any impact on gun crime.

Of course, "statistics" are available for any point of view I suppose.

I wouldn't expect gun laws from state to state to be terribly effective because it would be so easy to transport guns across state lines.

As far as the last AR ban, I wonder if there was a drop in AR involved violence? I wouldn't expect a drop in overall gun deaths under the provisions of that ban.

Look at the Swiss, they are required to serve 2 years in the military and take marksmen courses. Each family is required to have a gun in their house. When was the last time you heard of a Swiss gang or a Swiss mass murder? How come Germany never invaded them?

(01-25-2013, 10:14 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]Look at the Swiss, they are required to serve 2 years in the military and take marksmen courses. Each family is required to have a gun in their house. When was the last time you heard of a Swiss gang or a Swiss mass murder? How come Germany never invaded them?

*shrugs* Maybe that's one answer. I doubt the ACLU will go for it but maybe better training/mandatory military service would make us a more peaceful nation?? I dunno.

Go-go ROTC!

From Wiki, FWIW:

Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices."[7]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence," noting "that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness."[8] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[9]

In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[10] That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.[11]

Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans.[12] The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.[13] Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[14] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime."[15] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of the report.[16]

It's been posted in threads here that when seconds count, the police are often minutes away (or something to that effect). Apparently, this Wisconsin sheriff agrees. He's taking a helluva a lot of grief for imploring the public to prepare to defend itself in such situations.

A sheriff who released a radio ad urging Milwaukee-area residents to learn to handle firearms so they can defend themselves while waiting for police said Friday that law enforcement cutbacks have changed the way police can respond to crime.

In the 30-second commercial, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. says personal safety is no longer a spectator sport.

"I need you in the game," he says.

"With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option," he adds. "You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. ... Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there."

The ad has generated sharp criticism from other area officials and anti-violence advocates. The president of the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs' Association, Roy Felber, said it sounds like a call to vigilantism.

"That doesn't sound too smart," Felber said. "People have the right to defend themselves, but they don't have the right to take the law into their own hands."

Under Wisconsin's "castle doctrine," someone who uses deadly force against an unlawful intruder to their home, business or vehicle is presumed to have acted reasonably. A spokeswoman for the state Department of Justice said that as of this week, there are about 155,000 concealed carry permits in Wisconsin.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Clarke said he just wants people to know what their options are. While self-defense isn't for everyone, some people see personal safety as their own responsibility, he said, and they should be trained properly.

"I'm not telling you to `Hey, pick up a gun and blast away.' ... People need to know what they are doing if they chose that method — to defend themselves," he said.

But he also said he wanted to call on residents to be law enforcement "partners." He said he could either whine about budget cuts that forced him to lay off 48 deputies last year or he could get creative.

"People are responsible to play a role in their own safety, with the help of law enforcement," Clarke said. "I'm here to do my part, but we have fewer and fewer resources. We're not omnipresent, and we have to stop giving people that impression."

"After sitting down and thinking about this, I'm thinking `Hey, I've got an untapped reserve over here, and it's the public,'" Clarke said.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett's office released a statement criticizing the ad: "Apparently Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie."

Full story here:
http://start.new.toshiba.com/news/read.p...3E&ps=1011


Personally, I don't see how being prepared to responsibly defend oneself against a home invasion can be equated to vigilantism.

Gun violence is far and away due to handguns. AR's barely make a blip statistically.

But they are scarier looking and easier to attack... and politicos think they can 'creep' towards handguns after they ban AR's. But there is no popular support to ban guns, so it's a futile effort.

They should spend their time focusing on the real problem of mental illness and actually solve a problem for once.

I agree although I have mixed feelings about LE who encourage people to go buy a gun. It smacks of propagating fear. I imagine statistically you have a better chance of a gun accident vs having your home invaded by people intent to do physical harm (so no one at home robberies aside).

But I don't have any problem with a responsible person owning a gun to defend their home/family.

You know, I've not heard an argument that persuades me that background checks should not be done for ALL transactions. Seems pretty reasonable to me, and I can't imagine any responsible gun owner really objecting to it.

In fact, I think even a father passing a firearm down to a child should be screened, because in some instances perhaps the father doesn't know their kid is a dirtbag. Require all private sales or ownership transfers to go through an FFL dealer and background check. It helps the FFL earn a little more money, and gets all legal firearm owners screened appropriately. There is no one who can seriously argue about that somehow being an onerous requirement to be a responsible gun owner.

(01-26-2013, 03:45 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-26-2013, 02:32 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]some people see personal safety as their own responsibility

This isn't directed at you, Hot D even though I'm quoting you...

Everyone should view their personal safety as their own responsibility. I have a lot more to say about that but it will just sound like one more rant regarding people & personal responsibility.

I don't like to see bad things happen to people but when you have the attitude that someone else is responsible for you then you pretty much deserve what you get. Jesus.

I agreed with the sheriffs statement about personal responsibility too.

I didn't agree with the mayor's characterization of the sheriff's actions as promoting vigilantism. The sheriff isn't saying go out and hunt down criminals or execute them if you've already disarmed and incapacitated them (like the man in Minnesota did to the two teen invaders). The sheriff was only talking about defense.

I don't know the sheriff's political motivations, if any, but based on the ad itself, he's trying to bust the myth that the police have the ability and resources to be everywhere at anytime that anyone might need them. That's just not true and it's dangerous for people not to consider their safety their own responsibility.

I still wouldn't choose to carry a gun and instead use safety precautions to help prevent myself from becoming a victim of crime (and admittedly might regret not owning a gun if those failed and I was attacked). But, I don't think there's anything wrong with the sheriff encouraging those who have a gun and a concealed carry permit, or would like to have them, to be aware and prepared to defend themselves as police resources are cut (and criminals look more towards private residences as businesses install increasingly advanced security measures).

When the topic of arming teachers has came up in the past, one question that keeps getting asked is where does the teacher keep the gun? Most feel its not safe in the desk, under the desk, In her purse, even on their side. Well I just ran across this pic and said, why didn't I think of that? It looks like a real good option for a female teacher IMO.

I don't like the idea of teachers carrying guns. One spitwad too many and BOOM! I wouldn't trust myself with a loaded weapon in a room full of 8 year old brats.