Gun Control

[Bruzilla]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gun Control

Originally posted by itsbob
There's a difference between logistics for us to go to Europe, then Europe to come here!?? Can't see much difference between us invading in WWII and Russia invading here, or China coming here for that matter. The logistaicl problem comes into play not when you talk about defeating our Army of 400,00 but when you talk about how big an Army you need to defeat 250,000,000 possibly Armed Ctiziens

You're exactly right! There is no difference between the US invading and holding China or Russia and them invading and holding the US. That's why people with half a brain have known since 1945 that an invasion going either way was never going to happen. They could incinerate us with nukes, as we could do to them, but we could never dominate them.

 

[Bruzilla]

Gun registration is only helpful if the purchaser of the gun commits the crime, or knows who did commit the crime. Most guns that are used in stranger vs stranger crime are stolen and have travelled through several hands before arriving in the guilty party's hands.

There are other problems with registration as well. Guns can be broken down into pieces, and most major pieces have serial numbers. The NCIC system that the authorities use to track stolen weapons allows for the entry of only one serial number, usually that found on the largest part of the gun. Most surplus arms may have four or five different numbers, so it's very difficult to establish an ownership trail. If a gun owner or seller records a serial number off the barrel, but NCIC tracks off the receiver number, you end up with a stolen gun going untracked and the cops showing up at the wrong guy's house.

Ballistic fingerprinting is useless as one only needs to change out a barrel, firing pin, and ejector to defeat it. $50 in parts and five minutes of time is easier on a criminal than dropping a gun into the river.

 

[Tonio]

You have a point about registration, Bru. If the CDC is right that most gun deaths are caused by suicides, registration will do nothing to prevent those deaths.

 

[itsbob]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gun Control

Originally posted by Bruzilla
You're exactly right! There is no difference between the US invading and holding China or Russia and them invading and holding the US. That's why people with half a brain have known since 1945 that an invasion going either way was never going to happen. They could incinerate us with nukes, as we could do to them, but we could never dominate them.

Then I side with the half-brainers.. cause the thought process of full brainers has been proven wrong time and time again through-out histroy..

"that can NEVER happen"

"it will NEVER happen in our country"

"We are safe within our borders"

 

[Bruzilla]

Originally posted by Tonio
You have a point about registration, Bru. If the CDC is right that most gun deaths are caused by suicides, registration will do nothing to prevent those deaths.

If you look at the, you'll see that most gun laws are simply "feel good" legislation. They give the feeling that someone's doing something, but that's about it. Look at most of the biggies:

The Brady Bill - 99% of the "fellons" who have been caught by the Brady Bill were people who were caught for DUI/DWI, pleaded guilty and did their community service and paid their fines, yet didn't realize that their crime prohibited them from ever owning a handgun again. They weren't rapists, murderers, or thieves getting caught as they don't purchase their guns through legitimate sources.

NFA 1994 (Assault Weapons/Hi-Cap Magazine Ban) This law increased the number of assault weapons available, and resulted in the cost of these coming way down. The magazine ban resulted in quality gun makers making hi-power pocket pistols that are much more of a threat than the old crappy Saturday Night Specials they replaced.

Waiting Periods - These laws were put into place to prevent angry or depressed people from doing something they shouldn't. The fact that most angry or depressed people may have more than one gun; can use other weapons; or might be angry or depressed after seven days; doesn't seem to matter much.

Registration Schemes - Worthless

There's only one way to eliminate violent crime, and that's to eliminate repeat offenders. You either lock them up for life, or you kill them. In countries that rigorously enforce their death penalties, like Saudi Arabia and Singapore, there is no real crime to deal with. People who are willing to violate society's norms and commit crimes are killed. Period. Those people left behind are the law abiding ones, which is who you want to deal with.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
There's only one way to eliminate violent crime, and that's to eliminate repeat offenders. You either lock them up for life, or you kill them. In countries that rigorously enforce their death penalties, like Saudi Arabia and Singapore, there is no real crime to deal with. People who are willing to violate society's norms and commit crimes are killed. Period. Those people left behind are the law abiding ones, which is who you want to deal with.

You could be arguing for Project Exile, a Virginia program that may have some merit in Maryland.

My other question is about the gun deaths and injuries caused in fights between spouses or neighbors. Those people aren't necessarily "criminals," meaning that they don't use lawbreaking to support themselves. Certainly, an abusive spouse is a danger to society. But I don't know of any good way of preventing those types of shootings.

 

[Bruzilla]

People will always be people. How do you eliminate deaths from people driving too fast or not yielding the right of way? The answer is you can't... anymore than you can prevent neighbors or spouses from killing one another. If you can't prevent those deaths, you should focus on what deaths can be prevented. Eliminating, by that I mean killing, criminals would go a long ways torwards reducing the amount of crime-related deaths from all kinds of weapons.

I also think that there is a difference between someone who commits a crime like murder or assault in a fit of rage or emotion, and someone who does it for solely self-serving purposes such as a rapist, thief, burgler, assassin, etc.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
I also think that there is a difference between someone who commits a crime like murder or assault in a fit of rage or emotion, and someone who does it for solely self-serving purposes such as a rapist, thief, burgler, assassin, etc.

That's my point, too, and that's why I think gun control proponents are aiming at the wrong targets (bad metaphor intended).

 

[Warron]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
Eliminating, by that I mean killing, criminals would go a long ways torwards reducing the amount of crime-related deaths from all kinds of weapons.

My only real problem with this philosophy is the significant problem we have with telling who the criminal is. In places like Saudi Arabia, they don't care if 5 or 10 or 20% of those killed are innocent of the crime they were charged with. As basically a totalitarian society, the people exist to serve the society, and if that means dying to scare others away from crime, they are expected to take one for the gipper.

In a free society, killing an innocent person is murder, regardless of what laws allow it or how much effort is put into proof. And unfortunately, no trial process ever invented can tell with absolute certainty that someone is guilty. Even with the extremely high expense of the death penalty process and the extreme requirements for evidence, we still have people walking off death row every year.

Saudi Arabia and Singapore are hardly prime example of what I would like to see our society evolve into and hopefully not many others are pushing for it either.

 

[Bruzilla]

It's all a question of what you're willing to do. You have to remember that societies like Saudi Arabia and Singpore are far different from ours. I was at a mall in Singapore when a guy tried to rob an ederly gentleman after he had taken money from an ATM. The older man screamed, and about 20 shoppers, men and women, rushed to his aid and tackled the robber. There was no shade pulling, no turning away, just citizens looking out for one another. Since criminals don't get a chance to come back and intimidate witnesses, people have no fear of giving these dirtbags a bit of mob justice. When the guy goes to trial there are plenty of witnesses who can say "yeah, that's the robber we bet up on."

As for Saudi Arabia, I didn't see any of the forced confessions mentioned previously. There is so little crime there that the police can take their time and fully investigate when a crime is committed.

There is a way to make trials about 100% accurate, but it violates the 5th ammendment. Memory fingerprinting has yielded fantastic results even at this early stage. If the government were to invest in perfecting the technique you could eliminate all doubt of guilt or innocence. But, the guilty's subconcious would be testifying against his/her wishes and they would be incriminating themself.

Also, I've been wondering when all of the folks who are clamouring for DNA testing to free wrongfully-convicted people are going to start calling for DNA testing of people aquitted of crimes to see if they were actually guilty. If the DNA tests are accurate enough to release the guilty, shouldn't they be accurate enough to put aside double jeopardy since this new evidence would have surely convicted the guilty?

 

[Cletus_Vandam]

Gun Control, ha

Gun control in Maryland is being controlled by the goof-balls in Montomery and Baltimore Counties... Southern Maryland has always been in favor of protecting the right to keep and bear arms. This right should not be imbelished by restrictions on so-called assualt weapons. I can visit Wal-Mart and buy a shotgun which is just a deadly as any so-called assault weapon.

All the pople hwo talk about gun voilence seem to want to overlook the statistics of how many times a gun has been used to prevent a violent crime.

Maryland is currently a state which is for all intents and prupose impossible to get a conceled carry permit which allows one to carry a weapon legally; Yet Maryland is the second highest rated state for violent crimes (murder rape, etc.). FBI crime reports confirm this.

Several years ago Florida began allowing conceled carry and their violent crimes dropped the first year by 33%. That sounds to me like something good, but the "gun-grabbers" out there don't like to publish those kind of statistics...

Criminals are no different than animals in the wild. The lions and tigers don't seek out the strongest or the fastest to get a bite to eat; they go after the slow and weak. An unarmed "soon to be victim" is much easier prey than someone who can protect themselves.

It shouldn't be a mystery why Florida's crime rate dropped. If you were a criminal wouldn't think more about committing a crime if there were a chance of the victim protecting him or her self with a gun?

Gun control doesn't do anything except take guns away from the honest citizen who wants to protect themselves, their homes and their family! Criminals are going to get guns by whatever means thay have to.

 

[Filth08xXx]

Originally posted by rraley
Oh yeah I forgot to ask: Do the gun owners here believe that any sort of gun control measure like background checks before selling guns or the assault rifle ban will jeopardize their ownership of a shotgun or pistol?

Being the daughter of a gunsmith and a brother who is heavily into shooting (hunting!!! not a serial killer lol), Background checks will only jeapordize their ownership if they have stolen the gun or killed with the gun, or have been criminals/accused of felony. If you aren't any of the 3, there should be no problem. It's a pain in the arse (like waiting 7 days for clear to buy the darn gun) but all in all it's OK. REMEMBER: PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE, NOT GUNS. GUNS ARE USED TO KILL, BUT DO NOT GET UP BY THEMSELVES AND SHOOT PEOPLE. Man...we'd be in real bad shape if Gore had been in office...

 

[greeker375]

Ah, yes! New to this forum and happen to just fall into this conversation.

Let's all understand that regardless how much we espouse our position there will be folks that take the opposite point of view because they would rather not be responsible for their own defense.

Concealed carry in the 32 states of our union have not produced the wild gunfights in the streets that the anti-gun folks decreed would occur. But, crime did go down, in ALL those states.

Whenever some germ shoots and kills someone, the headlines read, "assault weapon kills X". I swear before GOD, not once in over 40 years of gun ownership has one of my guns ever escaped from the gun vault and injured or killed anyone on its' own.

Further, for those that endorse gun registration and ask why does it hurt to go through it. Just remember all those people who dutifully registered their , then legal, assault style weapons in Kalifornia. A year or two later when the state legislature banned the ownership of those style rifles, the owners were given so many days to turn them in to authorities or have the authorities show up at their door and confiscate said rifle. So much for retroactive laws, confiscation without just compensation or reg's in the gun control laws that doesn't allow for the names and addresses of the owners to be kept for more than 6 months.

It is not that we gun owners want to kill every germ out there, rather, we want to insure that we have the ability to defend ourselves in the event of dire situation through concealed carry laws. Why should Sen Diane Feinstein have the ability to carry a concealed weapon when you and I, her employers, not have that right. What makes her life or possessions more important or valuable than mine or yours. If the Constitution doesn't forbid it, we should be able to have that ability. Our founding fathers knew what could occur if the Govt got too big for its' britches, that is why they wanted the citizen to be armed.

Gun control laws punish us needlessly by trying to removed from us our ability to own something we choose to own. It is akin to denying me, a safe driver of over 40 years, the ability of owning an Oldsmobile just because someone died in an Oldsmobile. Why not punish the guilty for their actions?

This conversation will continue to be fought. Gun owners will use reason in defense of our position and anti-gun forces will continue to employ lies, distortion and manufactured truths to create an illusion of fact for their positions. All I know is more people have died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than from the discharge from one of my guns.