Gun ownership is MAD?

Yes Proud

Sometimes when I’m low I think that humans don’t even seem willing to work toward there own survival.

But most of the time I’m optimistic and think that actually most humans are decent and honourable if they are allowed to be and could create a better future.

 

In light of this i propose a temporary suspension period for user: Balbus.
To commence tomorrow 10/05/06 until such time as said user can get his shit together.

All those in favor say: "Aye"!

Besides, this is an issue you can't win, and there are more relevant things going on right now.

Why waste your time on "God, Guns, and Gays" when there are more pressing things to discuss?

 

Oh NO, do I have to explain it again?

Drugs are prohibited, a person is not allowed to possess, use or buy recreational drugs

OK

In the measures I suggested and you agreed to regarding guns, I said person could possess, use or buy guns

OK

So they would not be prohibited so there would be no prohibition on guns.

I do agree that I would want to limit ownership from its original level but even then if ‘law abiding’ people wished to own and use a gun they could.

**

And the reason I pressed you was because I assumed (and rightly so) that some of your ideas were ALREADY law. A point that has apparently yet to sink into your closed mind.

And once again I have to say that (1) Not all the measures I suggested (and you agreed to) were already laws and (2) I’m still not sure why the laws are not being enforced, and nor it seems do you.

**

ACCORDING to EXISTING LAWS this is already addressed. Issue closed.

But some of the measures you agreed with were not covered by existing laws and we still haven’t addressed the problem of why the existing laws are not being enforced. So I would think the issue is very much alive.

But you advocated new laws with increasing regulations with no limit.

Remember that while I do agree that I would want to limit ownership from its original level but even then if ‘law abiding’ people wished to own and use a gun they could.

**

This is a thread about gun ownership not not the indepth psycology of criminal reasoning.

This is a thread about the uses of guns in combating a ‘threat’, I asked what threat and you replied that crime was the threat.

So since you brought it up we need to examine crime, why it might take place and the ways in which it can be seen and dealt with.

**

I am pro gun ownership, where else should my enthusiasm be?

Yes this is my point and the one I’ve presented time and again.

I’ve been saying that many people because of there enthusiasm for guns put more emphasis on them as a means of tackling crime than thinking about the possible reasons for crime.

You claimed that to you people could do both, I tried to find out if this was true by seeing what your know of alternative views on crime.

It turns out you don’t seem to know much or care that much.

You seem to support my theory.

**

Read again “People use guns to protect themselves from crime every day, to deny them this right would make me feel complicient in thier death should this occure.”

“should this occure”

Which just means that you are saying that it could occur, you are saying that if someone does not have a gun they could be killed.

I also stated that the likelyhood of becomming a victim is comparitively low for the ordinary person and death from crime is even lower.

It implies as I’ve said that you think it could occur, that if someone does not have a gun they could be killed.

To me this sounds like fear mongering to try and push gun use, but when this is pointed out to you, you then say that it is very, very, very, very unlikely that someone might be killed. In other words you seem to change your reply to suit the argument, without seeming to see the contradiction.

**

holy chit man you really are streaching or you really dont get it. You are saying if a person carries a gun they are living in fear of being killed by a criminal. This is a completely irrational statement based on nothing.

I’m saying that you seem to be telling people that they could be killed if they don’t carry a gun, (as have other pro-gunners here over the years).

To me that promotes an atmosphere of fear.

The comparison to using a seatbelt is to show you how silly it is. Just because a person is wearing a seatbelt does not mean he is living in fear of being killed in an accident.

But don’t you se the seatbelt comparison defeats your own argument?

People wear a seatbelt because an accident could happen (as I know from personal experience), that is why people are recommended to use one when in a car. They know that the chances of been injured or killed if you are wearing a seatbelt are a lot less than if you are not.

You argue that people should have a gun because there is a chance that they might be in a situation that could result in injury or death.

But you are then saying that there is no need to carry a gun or even have it out ready to use.

It is like having a seatbelt but not putting it on or leaving it at home.

But then why have the seatbelt or gun?

**

“Violent crime CAN happen at anytime and anywhere”

So just like a car accident, so you would recommend having the seatbelt on whenever you go out in a car?

But you say no -

“Sometimes I wear a seatbelt and sometimes I do NOT wear a seatbelt”

So you are clairvoyant! (Could you tell me what the winner of the 3:00 at Epsom is going to be?)

**

You say this because you claim that some place have a higher probability of an incident than others (a bit confusingly after just saying it “CAN happen at anytime and anywhere”)

“You cannot deny this and you instead just try to twist things around to suit you”

So you are saying that an incident can happen anywhere but it is more likely to happen some places more than others.

OK

So how do you know in advance if you are going to be in greater risk and put your belt on (get your gun out) and when you are somewhere of little risk and take it off (leave the gun at home)?

What places?

**

Why is it in your opinion that the laws are not being enforced?

I dont know why, perhaps the DA's are just to lazy to persue such things, I just know that it happens every day and personally I am sick of it. You tell me in YOUR infinate wisdom why these LAWS are not being enforced?

You don’t know?

Shouldn’t you try and find out?

**

“You tell me in YOUR infinate wisdom why these LAWS are not being enforced?”

They are enforcing the gun control laws over here.

What I’m asking is why you think they are not being enforced over there.

And seemingly you can’t be bothered to find out, so you ask me.

This just continues the trend -

You couldn’t really think of any ways to reduce crime so you asked me and I gave you some and you argeed with some, you couldn’t really think of some proposals to limit guns so you asked me and I gave you some and you agreed with some.

Come on man can’t you think for yourself?

**

Again you are associating "fear" with "reasonable precaution". And Again I have told you MY main reasons for owning guns and thier imporntance to me. so your deductions are baseless and meaningless.

But you say violent crime CAN happen to someone anytime and anywhere and that without a gun they could be killed.

Sounds like fear.

Or are you saying it is not fear just manipulation?

The spreading of fear.

**

Christ you are again drowning. Again I will ask you WHAT IS THE ONE REASON OR ARE YOU SAYING THER IS MORE THAN ONE?

This is the thing I’ve been trying to point out to you, you claim to want to look to other ideas than the gun to deal with crime but you just don’t seem to have a clue. You flounder and reach for the same excuse of there being too many things to understand, so there is no point trying.

The other thing you do is try and find someone else to answer the questions for you.

Think about it -

Teacher – “Johnny…johnny come on wake up..now..what do you think were the aims of the allies and axis leaders in WWII?”

Johnny “Easy dude.. they were varied, each one thought like different and they changed due to circumstance”

Teacher – “That is not a very enlightening answer”

Johnny – “OK, WHAT WERE THEIR AIMS THEN”

The thing is that I’ve mention before (see how I have to keep repeating myself because you haven’t paid attention) there isn’t one reason there are many but you can see the main themes and currents that might be tackled.

The problem as I see it is that you aren’t even trying to find them.

You just shrug and say ‘too many, too difficult to think about’

However when it comes to defending guns, suddenly you are thinking up many arguments and researching many sources.

**

You want to list the many varied reason a person turned to a life of crime? There is no answer to this that will satisfy you. If I say they were hooked on drugs, you say why were they hooked on drugs,
I say they lost thier spouse, job and kids so they turned to drugs, you say why did he loose his spouse etc etc etc. This is an endless cycle with you . So I will ask you yet again, WHAT IS THE ONE SINGULAR REASON FOR CRIME?

And again you want me to answer the question, so you don’t have to think about it.

So why don’t you want to think about it?

**

Basically like I said the laws in place are NOT ENFORCED now, I said you had some decent ideas that I would have no major objections to if the existing laws were enforced first.

And you don’t know why they are not being enforced.

**

do not think that if the existing laws are not enforced, the new ones would be? Should we not work on enforcing the existing FIRST?

But again you say you don’t know why the laws are not being enforced.

**

I have said enforce the existing laws before adding to the list of laws that will never be enforced, yet you dont even agree with this.

I will repeat myself again - why is it in your opinion that the laws are not being enforced?

Again SEE PREVIOUS ANSWER

And again you say you don’t know why the laws are not being enforced.

**

But that does not answer the question you continually ask me WHAT IS THE ROOT CAUSE of all crime?

Are you yet again wanting me to think for you?

**

Yes I have had to repeat myself, I have had to go back and explain myself several times. But as you might see the reasons are that I often have to.

Because you refuse to answer questions, conceede valid irrefutable points and just wish to divert/revert back to another point.

LOL

Hell man I’ve not only been answering you questions, I’ve been answering the question put to you by me as well, because you don’t seem able to think of much yourself.

**

You have never answered the few real basic questions of what would you suggest to the people that your would take away thier guns and who become victims do to protect themselves until your eutopian works exist?

What is dangerous and scary about a LAW ABIDING person owning a gun?

The measures I’ve suggested which you supported would not prohibit legally owned firearms just regulate their use, I would want to limit ownership from its original level but even then if ‘law abiding’ people wished to own and use a gun they could.

 

Ok so how will legalizing MJ reduce the "activities" surrounding it?
After prohibition on alcohol ended did the crimes associated with it end? There are still moonshiners, there are still drunkard brawls, drunk drivers etc etc.#

And how would this decrease crime? By making something no longer Illegal is not reducing crime. There will still be people that would try and rob the local dealer/drug store, raiding crops etc.

**

I’ve tried to explain to you more than once that it is not one measure but the measures as a whole, with integrated policies, a holistic approach.

So it’s not just about marijuana.

After alcohol prohibition in the US the criminal organisations moved into other illegal activities, prostitution, gambling, drugs etc. With the end of drug prohibition I would try to give the organisations nowhere to go while at the same time inviting them to become legitimate.

People might grow their own cannabis for a small fee, they would have to pay a larger fee if they went commercial. Governments could by opium and coca on the world market.

Crimes such as possession, growing, taking etc would not exist as crimes and so those crimes would no longer be crimes and the crime rate would be lessened.

As to drunken brawls, they were a part of life even with prohibition, and most stoners can’t be bothered to brawl.

As to drunk drivers, that wasn’t really tackled as a social problem until the seventies and has reduced considerably in this country since the introduction of police testing kits.

As to stores being hit, well those that were robbing such places to feed their habit, wouldn’t need to since they would be getting proscriptions or treatment.

The reason that dealers get attacked in most cases is about turf, (just as in prohibition rival ‘companies’ would attack the warehouses of rivals and smash the barrels). Drinks companies don’t do that today because they don’t want to jeopardise their licence to sell. Thugs and guns would be replaced with laws and regulation.

As to crop raiders is there a big problem with tobacco rustlers in the US?

 

Pitt

You claimed that you (and other pro-gun people) thought as much about the causes of crime as they do about having guns as a means of dealing with the symptoms of crime.

I’ve been trying to find out if that is true.

And I‘ve discovered that you don’t seem to be putting the same thought into the causes of crime as you are to defending guns.

Your ideas of the causes are vague to the point of worthlessness.

You don’t seem to have given much thought to what could be done, asking me what my ideas are because you seemingly don’t have much to offer.

You complain that no answer will satisfy me, but frankly if I thought you were even giving the problems some thought I’d be very happy.

You say that there are many reasons so the answers are too many to go into, but the thing is that I’ve identified what I see as many of the reasons already. It’s just seems that you have been so blinked by your defence of the gun that you don’t seem to have noticed.

I mean I’ve given you my views of what are some reasons and given you what I think might be the solutions and you even have supported some of them.

But then in the next moment you are screaming at me to give reasons and remedies.

I’ve told you several times that these things can only be dealt with by a holistic approach but you keep screaming at me to supply a single cure.

Your mindset seems to be one of seeing threats rather than about seeking understanding.

But I think if you stick with it you just might begin to open your eyes and your mind to new possibilities.

**

 

"I do agree that I would want to limit ownership from its original level but even then if ‘law abiding’ people wished to own and use a gun they could"

"However some of your suggestions would limit the ability of law abiding people from gun ownership such as education levels etc."

You said of the education level idea that it “might not be a bad idea”, people would have to iron out the details of Phase One but I’m comfortable with that.

**

Your right I cannot say for sure why they are not enforced, I not sure anyone has a definate answer for this. Perhaps lazyness, or just the fact there are so many of them (20,000+) that the people in charge of enforcing these are just ignorant of them.

There is no reason they should not be enforced, why they are not? I dont know, which I have already stated. I have searched for an answer yet have not found one.

laws already restrict possession og weapons to some people yet there is apathy toward prosecuting these violators, what good will it do to add more restrictions if they are not willing to enforce the existing.

Even the NRA calls for these to be enforced as do most law abiding gun owners.

the non-law abiding cannot by law possess a gun now.

you dont say why adding new ones [laws] would be enforced when existing ones are not.

I highly doubt the DA will let me in on his reasonings.[for not enforcing existing laws]

So shouldn’t you try and find out why the laws are not being enforced? I mean you seem to be making this a major part of your argument.

If it is that there are too many laws or these are too complex, don’t you think that maybe those should be repealed, then replaced with something more straightforward (such as the Balbus-Pitt Phase One Gun Laws)?

As to the DA aren’t District Attorney’s elected in the US? If so why can’t people demand to know what are their reasons?

And if they’re not, they’re still public servants and should have to give an account of themselves.

**

"Actually the thread is about "gun ownership" reasons for and reasons against."

"There are more reasons to own a gun that just "crime" as I have stated."

In the original post someone said people needed guns to protect themselves from “outside threats”, I asked “What threats”.

You in your very first post in this thread, line two, said “What threats? Take a look in the newspapers, violent crime is everywhere”

And so crime became a major factor in the thread.

I mean all the other reasons for having a gun that you put forward are because you like playing with guns.

The only reason for people having a gun that isn’t about entertainment, but about threat, that you put forward was to tackle crime.

This thread is about that threat which you identified as crime

**

You claimed that to you people could do both, I tried to find out if this was true by seeing what your know of alternative views on crime.

It turns out you don’t seem to know much or care that much.

You seem to support my theory.

Yet I have shown you that I DO both.

No, you have shown that you know a lot about guns and are enthusiastic in their defence but you seem to know very little about other stuff and don’t seem that interested in finding out. How are you meant to actually contribute if you're not interested in doing something about crime, other that pushing guns?


**

To me this sounds like fear mongering to try and push gun use, but when this is pointed out to you, you then say that it is very, very, very, very unlikely that someone might be killed. In other words you seem to change your reply to suit the argument, without seeming to see the contradiction.

Its not fear mongering its stating a FACT that you cannot refute.

And even if they HAVE a gun they COULD be killed.

Not spreading fear simply stating a fact you cannot refute. A person can be killed with a gun or without.

There is a probability that a person could be killed by lightening or being struck by a meteorite, hell I’m sure someone has worked out a persons odds of being killed by a grand piano.

People ‘COULD be killed’ by many things, what I’m saying is that when it seems to suit your argument you seem to imply the threat from crime is imminent and dire. That people could get attacked and killed at ‘anytime and anyplace’ and so people need guns to protect them, which is fear mongering.

But when you are accused of fear mongering, you change your argument to say that it is very, very, very unlikely that a person would ever be attacked and there is no need to carry a gun.

As I’ve said you seem to change your argument to suit the question being levelled at you.

**

So how do you know in advance if you are going to be in greater risk and put your belt on (get your gun out) and when you are somewhere of little risk and take it off (leave the gun at home)?
What places?

high traffic areas, rush hour etc
High crime areas, late nights at the office etc etc.

But the three accidents in cars I’ve had were on roads that were not high traffic and didn’t take place during rush hour. I always tell people that they need to put their seatbelts on for every trip because you cannot know in advance what might happen.

You seem to be implying that you can?

You’re afraid when you stay late at the office? I’ve often stayed late at work and have never felt threatened. Are you saying that the US is that unsafe?

As to ‘high crime areas’ why are those areas ‘high crime areas’? Do you think anything could be done to make those areas less dangerous?

**

 

As to the Drugs policy ideas

“Well by this logic lets just have nothing illegal and we would have 0 crime”

That’s it, that’s your considered and reasoned argument?

Oh come on man, do you honestly think that statements like that makes you sound ‘clever’?

It is about harm reduction and regulation, I think the supposed ‘war on drugs’ does more harm than good, so I’m think of ideas to lessen the harm and boast the good.

I’ve given you details of my idea, what is your idea?

Well you did mention DARE, which seems to be a ‘just say no’ programme that many people seem to think does very little to actually help.

**

 

“when I give you some of the many reason for crime its not good enough.”

As far as I can tell you have given one root cause for crime – greed.

I asked about why people would turn to crime and you said “I told you "WHY" there is such crime, GREED” asked about this you said “its those that cannot control thier greed that turns to criminal activity to try and satisfy thier greed”. When pushed you said “there are reasons they cannot control the greed” and asked what they were you said those reasons ““vary from person to person”

I find that answer a bit simplistic, don’t you?

**

“When I give you a deeper answer its still not good enough you still want to dig deeper until you find your "root" cause for crime”.

When I asked why you think greed was the root cause you basically replied ‘because’

Again I find that a bit simplistic.

**

“Wake up man there is no one "root" cause for crime”.

I haven’t said there was. But you have.

You seem to imply that there is one basic cause of crime – greed

You say there are many reasons for people being unable to control their greed but you haven’t said what they are.

**

“I have given you my answer to the question, you have not responded yourself as to what this one root cause is”

I’ve said there are many causes, social, economic, environmental, to do with up-bringing and peer pressure, I’ve pointed out the effects of a consumerist and an unequal society. I’ve written often at length about them.

And I’ve even tried to explain some things that could be done.

Gun control ideas, the regulation of some existing criminal activities, I’ve mentioned that this would have to be integrated with other social and economic policies.

All you seem to have said is that there are many reasons for people being greedy.

Your way of dealing with them is what - youth programmes you don’t seem able to explain or know about, counselling that you don’t seem able to explain or know about, and a diatribe about parents teaching their kids ‘right from wrong’ but you don’t seem to have a clue on how to help them do this.

Many youth workers will tell you that often they are in a holding operation trying to do what they can but knowing that many things are beyond their ability to change. Councillors will tell you that often the damage has been done before a person reaches them and although they can do their best to alleviate the symptoms many of the causes are beyond their ability to change. Many parents don’t want some moralistic sermon about looking after their kids they need help, financial, educational, etc.

You’ve mentioned shelters, but as I’ve pointed out shelters are places people go when things have gone wrong, should we be trying to find ways of stopping things going wrong in the first place?

**

"You have not offered any realistic reasons to increase restrictions on guns that are not already in place. Yes some of your suggestions I would not have a big problem with if the government/law enforcement demonstrated a willingness to enforce existing laws."

As I’ve pointed out, first thing to do is work out why the laws are not being enforced, if the reason is they are too many or they are too complex then those should be repealed in favour of more direct laws.

"nor have you offered any realistic options as far as what law abiding people should do until the criminal element has been dealt with."

I seem to have to keep telling you that the laws I suggested and you supported do not stop law-abiding people owning guns.

What is you problem with this reply that you just can’t seem to understand it?



**

 

"Certainly, peace is a good thing. However, freedom is far better. If I must abandon peace in order to live as a free being, so be it."

Good post!

 

So I guess the money I put out every year is meaningless then? Maby Ill just buy myself a new big screen tv this year instead. I guess hooking up kids with local youth organizations is meaningless. I guess giving abused women rides to shelters is meaningless. I guess Ill just save my gas money from now on.

This sounds like a petulant teen again

Of coarse I’m not saying you should stop helping people as I’ve said many times already social programmes are worth supporting.

What I’ve been saying is that it seems to me that “many people have stopped asking themselves why things are the way they are and have fallen into the trap of believing that this is how things are”

It seem to me from our conversations over this thread that you don’t seem to give that much thought, to why there are social problems or there causes.

Hooking up kids with local youth organisations isn’t meaningless, but are you thinking why they may need such organisation? Giving abused women rides to shelters isn’t meaningless but are you wondering why they are being abused?

That is what I’ve been trying to find out, and the answer seems to be that you don’t.

The question then becomes why?

It seems to me that your views seem rather reactionary, in favour of a how things are or believing things can’t change, rather than looking for alternatives.

**

So you admit live in constant fear of being in an auto accident.

I have a healthy respect for the possibilities that travelling in a car can cause serious accidents even death. That is why I tell people to wear seatbelts.

If I thought the threat from crime was as dangerous I’d be as worried about crime but I’m not because it isn’t.

You on the other hand seem very afraid of crime or give that impression when it suits your argument.

**

You’re afraid when you stay late at the office? I’ve often stayed late at work and have never felt threatened. Are you saying that the US is that unsafe?

As to ‘high crime areas’ why are those areas ‘high crime areas’?

So there are no places in the UK that is more dangerous than others?

Of course some areas have higher crime rates than others, just as some types of criminal live in different areas and are from different socio-economic groups.

It depends on what crime you are talking about.

Think about it, why did you change ‘high crime areas’ into ‘more dangerous’ areas.

I mean some areas are going to have more of a particular type of crime or criminal than another does but not all will be dangerous.

Wrongful accounting, tax fraud and internet crime might not go on in the streets or the ‘bad’ neighbourhoods but they are still crimes.

Then there are non-confrontational crimes; burglary of empty premises, shoplifting etc

Then there are confrontational crimes that don’t involve ‘civilians’, pimping for example.

I mean a crime a crime isn’t it? So a ‘high crime’ area might not be a ‘more dangerous’ area.

**

It is true that in the UK, statically, people in an impoverished area you are more likely to be accosted with criminal intent than if you are in a middle class suburb, but why do you think that is?

**

And so do you think anything could be done to make those areas less dangerous?

**

No place where there are office buildings where you are more likely to get mugged at night than main street?

I don’t know of anyone mugged in an office, it may have happened but it isn’t something that is so very common that people are afraid of it. Is it common in the US?

**

Yep best I can do, Like I said before just making something no longer illegal is not reducing crime.

Why do you believe that?

I mean are you saying that if someone, who sold beer illegally in the Prohibition, then sold it legally afterwards, was/is still a criminal?

Or are you saying that drug related crime will continue when addicts get their drugs on prescription?

I’m not really sure what you are saying?

**

"lets solve crime but only after we restrict people ability to own a firearm for protection" Yeah ok I got ya.

I don’t recognise the quote can you tell me where you got it from?

As I seem to have to keep telling you, the laws I suggested and you supported do not stop law-abiding people owning guns.

**

“Law abiding citizens are already the only people that can by law own guns.”

What’s your point?

You’ve already pointed out you don’t know why the laws aimed at getting the guns out of the hands of criminals are not being enforced.

Shouldn’t you try and find that out?

**

 

OK Pitt

RE: Gun laws not being enforced.

“There is no reason they should not be enforced, why they are not? I dont know, which I have already stated. I have searched for an answer yet have not found one.”

You said that you had looked but couldn’t find anything, so to try and help you out I typed ‘gun laws not being enforced’ into Google and at the top of the list was this on the Brady campaign website.

It seems to put the blame on the pro-gun lobby saying that while they claim to want the laws enforced they seem to be trying to stifle attempts to do so?

Is that possible?

**

The Truth about Enforcement of Gun Laws and Prosecution of Criminals
During the Clinton Administration, the NRA complained that the laws on the books weren't being enforced. Wrong. Gun laws were enforced more vigorously than ever, and overall firearms prosecutions were up. Prosecutions were more frequent than ever before; sentences longer; and the number of inmates in prison on gun offenses was at a record level. The NRA's criticisms of federal prosecution statistics ignore the basic fact that both federal and state authorities prosecute gun cases, and federal authorities typically focus on the most serious type of offenders. Since more criminals who use guns are going to jail for longer sentences, it's clear that the gun lobby's attack on federal law enforcement efforts are meant to dodge a subject that they don't want to talk about - namely, gun control works to help reduce gun violence and stop children and criminals from getting guns in the first place.
Key Facts: Firearms Prosecutions in America
 From 1992 through 1998, the total number of federal and state prosecutions has increased sharply - about 25 percent more criminals are sent to prison for state and federal weapon offenses than in 1992 (from 20,681 to 25,186)
 The number of higher-level offenders (those sentenced to five or more years) has gone up nearly 30 percent (from 1049 to 1345) in five years.
 The number of inmates in federal prison on firearm or arson charges (the two are counted together) increased 51 percent from 1993 to 1998, to a total of 8,979.
 In 1998, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) brought 3,619 criminal cases involving 5,620 defendants to justice.
And all this was during a time when crime fell for eight consecutive years so that by 1999, the violent crime rate was at its lowest level since 1978. Gun-related deaths by 1999 had fallen to a 30-year low.[1]
What The NRA Doesn't Want You to Know about Enforcement
 For years, the NRA has successfully blocked the computerization by ATF of gun sale records from out-of-business gun dealers. Thanks to the NRA-imposed restrictions, when a gun is traced as part of a criminal investigation, the files must often be retrieved manually from warehouses where the records are kept. As a result, hours or even days are added to the time needed to complete the successful trace of a crime gun. As a result, criminals avoid detection and criminal investigations are impeded.
 The NRA has maintained its steadfast opposition to waiting periods for handgun purchases, despite the need for a "cooling off" period to prevent impulse crimes and suicides. Because of the NRA, the waiting period included in the original Brady Law expired in 1998, and the gun lobby is fighting efforts to reinstate it.
 The NRA likes to talk tough when it comes to criminals. But in 1999, the NRA spent almost $4 million to try to pass a referendum in Missouri that would have allowed almost anyone, even convicted criminals with misdemeanor records, to carry a concealed weapon almost anywhere in the state. The referendum would have even permitted people convicted of stalking and child molestation the ability to carry a hidden handgun into bars, stadiums, parks, school yards and other public places. Fortunately, Missouri voters rejected the NRA's intense lobbying effort to put more guns on our streets, voting the measure down.
 At every opportunity, the NRA has sought to decrease or eliminate the funding of the ATF, the law enforcement agency whose mission it is to oversee gun crimes and trace the guns used in the commission of crimes. Because of NRA-sponsored legislation, investigators seeking to trace the path of the guns used in the Littleton school massacre were forced to plod through paper records stretching among numerous states, culminating in a dead end at Colorado gun shows. Only through legwork and luck were investigators able to piece together how the four weapons ended up in the hands of the teenage shooters. The NRA continues to vociferously oppose any record-keeping system that would allow law enforcement to easily trace guns used in crime.
 In 1986, the NRA got legislation passed which restricts ATF inspection of gun dealers to once a year. Even dealers who are the source for hundreds of crime guns cannot be routinely inspected more than once a year without a special court warrant. Of course, this is consistent with the 1995 NRA letter describing ATF agents as "jack-booted thugs," which caused former President George H.W. Bush to publicly resign his NRA life membership in protest.
 As of April 1999, there were more than 100,000 federally licensed firearm dealers (FFL's) in America - more licensed gun dealers than there are McDonald's franchises. Yet there were only 1,783 ATF agents to police them; many of those agents are detailed by law to only investigate crimes involving explosives.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=preventing


It links to a PDF file about supposed NRA involvement in preventing laws being enforeced
http://www.gunlawsuits.com/downloads/fable.pdf

 

At the beginning of this thread I said -

“My thesis is that the problem with many American attitudes towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social problems within their society. It also seems to me to led to a belief that threat and suppression is the best means of defence.

For example someone said that a gun protected them from such people as crackheads and gangbangers but the problem as I see it is this can lead to the mentality that there is therefore no need to deal with the societal problems that has lead to drug addiction and exclusion.

Just as (I’ve pointed out in another thread) Israel believes it can defend itself against its Muslim neighbours makes them seem to believe that they don’t have to deal with what is causing the hostility to them.

Many people have stopped asking themselves why things are the way they are and have fallen into the trap of believing that this is how things are. As long as you keep out of the bad parts of town and carry a gun ‘that stuff’ doesn’t need to be dealt with.

And the best way of keeping it under control and in its place is by the threat that comes from owning a gun.

And it seems to me that if people believe that the threat of violence works it is not much of a step for many to start thinking that the actual use of violence is acceptable.”

**

I was told I was wrong that pro-gunners were as interested in looking at the reasons why people committed crime as they were guns and wanted to think of ways to alleviate those causes as much as they thought about defended guns.

But I believe the last few pages have shown otherwise. The one person willing to discuss the matter seem very enthusiastic at defending guns but seem not only incredibly vague on social policies but seems to have little or no idea on what are the possible causes or in what way socio-economic problems could be dealt with.

 

Proud

"I just wanted to say I think we've gotten off-track with the whole "causes of crime" thing. Protection from criminal activity is a good reason to own a gun, but it's not the only reason."

I’ve covered that, crime was put forward as one of the threats that Americans needed guns to protect themselves against, the other reasons were entertainment and to fight the government (covered also, see below)

**

(I would argue that no reason at all should be reason enough. Ownership of a gun is something you shouldn't have to justify to anyone but yourself.)

Why?

What is the argument?

**

Certainly, peace is a good thing. However, freedom is far better. If I must abandon peace in order to live as a free being, so be it. If it could be proven that so-called "reasonable gun control" would save 1,000 lives per year, I would still not advocate or condone such control. Same story with 10,000 lives per year. Or a million. If the lives in question were those of the sweetest, most innocent rosy-cheeked children imaginable, I would not sway in my position. Those children would be better off dead than slaves.

What ‘freedom’ are you taking about?

**

Mister Balbus, you have stated that the laws you propose would not prevent a law-abiding citizen from obtaining a gun. However, they would constitute a grave impediment. Any infringement on the rights of free indivduals is something to be avoided at all costs. Freedom is not free. It's dangerous and messy and ugly and painful. And it will always be worth it.

Why does it have to be dangerous, messy, ugly and painful?

Why can it not be joyous, harmonious, beautiful and comfortable?

I mean come on mate you sound like some sado-masochist, dreaming of a good whipping. -)

 

Consider tyranny. I believe private ownership of weapons is an effective check on tyranny. I further believe that any government, unchecked, will devolve into tyranny. It has been stated, correctly so, that the Second Amendmant constitutes the "reset button" of the United States. While I may never live to see the armed revolution that this country so sorely needs, I will not condone any means that would squealch that revolution before it arises.

I gave my views on this early on in the thread and repeated them once already, both times I got no reply, but ok for the third time -

In my view guns can give a false sense of power.

Over the years in the gun debate several people here have implied that ‘the holocaust may never have happened if the Jews had been armed’.

The problem was that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this justified and come to their defence or just seen it as proof the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed locking away?

By 1943 many people realised what Hitler was doing many wanted him gone a faction in the military even attempted his assassination in 1944. The German people were under arms but did not rise up against the Nazis, because many still believed in the ‘nazis dream’.

Large numbers of the Russian people loved Stalin and thought of him as a great leader even when he was murdering millions of them because many people believed in the ‘communist dream’.

Think about US history, did the Native American that fought back, get the support of the ‘freedom’ loving’ American citizenry?

What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had put up armed resistance to the completely unconstitutional internment imposed on them, what if they had shot at the police that came to take them away, would they have got general popular support?

What about these hauled in front of McCarthy, would the ‘people’ have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such a witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?

The point being that tyrant’s and tyranny have a habit of getting people on their side then slowly tightening the noose.

Remember that many Americans supported the Bush Admin in their efforts to ‘protect’ the US and if Iraq had gone differently, it is very likely they still would. Bush’s credibility is shot so they are less willing to accept than they were. But I don’t think they haven’t changed their mind set. They are just as likely to go along with some other leader and will be quite willing to support the ‘policing’ of dissenters, just as they were with the Native Americans, Japanese, Communists and the ‘terrorists’ being tortured in the secret (and not so secret) prisons. Why will they follow?

Because many of them believe in the ‘American Dream’.

The problem is what is that dream?

Who defines it, who shapes it?

**

 

Wait a minute...

Are you trying to say that as long as an oppressive regime has popular support, armd resistance against that regime is ridiculous and/or futile?

That as long as the majority of a nation is going along with the stated or unstated agenda of those in power then the minority shouldn't be just as armed for physical defense as they are for philosphical, ethical, moral, or political defense?

That when the U.S. government does start "policing dissenters" the only option for those being policed are non-violent/pacifist in nature?

Or is it possible to resist a popular movement physically (especially when it attacks physically) as well as ideologically?

 

The American natives did respond and reacted violently with guns and bows.

And they were slaughtered by the thousands. The Japanese had they responded in the same way would have be destroyed.

A gun will never make you more of a man. Wisdom and revolt following the current laws and cultural ways of the day, will get more done.

Consider the perverts that have recently murdered little girls attending school in Pennsylvania and Colorado. Did their gun make them more of a man? Their guns killed innocents. If they had, had to do that with their bare hands do you think they would have? I think guns made it easy for them to do what they were doing...these were people that couldn't kill someone with their bare hands. They felt powerless without something that made killing easy. These were men that could only get their dick up because they owned a gun. Six little girls could be alive today if they hadn't owned one.

 

If those perverts hadn't had a gun at their disposal, I doubt they would have had the "balls" to do what they did. They did these acts because they felt emasculated. Having the opportunity to own a gun that made them feel more like a man only made the act more easy for them. Some perverted men will go to any lengths, but these two had easy access to guns that seemed to provide them with the means to prove their "manhood".

Lame perverts like these don't kill their victims with their hands they use weapons, whether it be guns or bombs or knifes. I don't make the distinction. Want to be a man, do the deed your self without a weapon.

 

gardener: still waiting for a reply....

1.) How do you explain the growing number of females who choose to legally own firearms? Are they proving their manhood?

2.) Doesn't your point of young gang members (few of which are using registered legally owned firearms) using violence to gain prestige underline the very reason one should be able to have the means to protect oneself?

 

Yeah if those men that killed the students had done it with their bare hands they would have been more manly, but they didn't, and they wouldn't have. They had guns that made what they did easier. They didn't have the "dick" to stand up to the women that made them feel useless in the first place.

Gang members shoot up and do drive bys because they can do it without looking their victims in the face. The little shits wouldn't do it if they had stand over the cribs and shoot the babies they kill by accident.

More females own guns because they buy into the whole good old boys' "balls "spiel". If they own a gun they feel more powerful. It doesn't make them more powerful, but you little dicks have sold them on the premise that a gun makes them powerful. It doesn't the only thing that can make you powerful is being able to control another with your own power.

 

Ooookay, i'm sure there was a direct answer to my questions somewhere in there between the "dicks" "balls" and "shits".

As far as women "just wanting to feel powerful", i doubt it, more likely they just want to protect themselves from getting mugged and raped...

I would rather my daughter/sister/mother/wife have the ability to shoot a rapists balls off (or at least scare him away), than to try and psycho-analyze him into not raping her...

I don't know any women bragging about their "piece" and "how powerful they are", but i do know some who are more comforable walking to their car after work.