Thread: gun control

Tweet

Right on cnile64.

I carry for 1 reason: it's better to have & not need then need & not have. I've had a hand gun since I was 18 yrs. old - I am now 51.

I've also had some kewl home defense weapons since the late 80's.

I personally think when you are armed it puts you on a level playing field with the bad guys.

Regs

Ed Troyer, spokesman for the Pierce County sheriff, said no adults were home when the boy was shot. But three boys, who attend Spanaway Junior High, were present, and several weapons were easily accessible to them, Troyer said.

Two of the boys picked up a .22-caliber, semiautomatic rifle that was lying around and began playing with it. It apparently fired, and a bullet hit the other one in the head, Troyer said.

There was a "considerable" amount of ammunition in the home to which the boys had access, he said.

The shooting puts in stark relief the need for firearm safety and training, Troyer and others said.

"What 14-year-old boy is going to resist playing with" the rifle? he asked.

The dead boy was a ninth-grader. The other two youths attend Spanaway Junior High.

"Whenever something like this happens, it's tragic for the entire community," Bethel School Superintendent Tom Seigel said. "One lesson we can learn from this is the importance of firearm safety at home. We have to do everything possible to keep our guns out of the reach of children."

Op-Ed Columnist
Pitchforks and Pistols

LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMy SpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: April 3, 2009
Lately I’ve been consuming as much conservative media as possible (interspersed with shots of Pepto-Bismol) to get a better sense of the mind and mood of the right. My read: They’re apocalyptic. They feel isolated, angry, betrayed and besieged. And some of their “leaders” seem to be trying to mold them into militias.


Earl Wilson/The New York Times
Charles M. Blow

At first, it was entertaining — just harmless, hotheaded expostulation. Of course, there were the garbled facts, twisted logic and veiled hate speech. But what did I expect, fair and balanced? It was like walking through an ideological house of mirrors. The distortions can be mildly amusing at first, but if I stay too long it makes me sick.

But, it’s not all just harmless talk. For some, their disaffection has hardened into something more dark and dangerous. They’re talking about a revolution.

Some simply lace their unscrupulous screeds with loaded language about the fall of the Republic. We have to “rise up” and “take back our country.” Others have been much more explicit.

For example, Chuck Norris, the preeminent black belt and prospective Red Shirt, wrote earlier this month on the conservative blog WorldNetDaily: “How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?”

Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, imagining herself as some sort of Delacroixian Liberty from the Land of the Lakes, urged her fellow Minnesotans to be “armed and dangerous,” ready to bust caps over cap-and-trade, I presume.

And between his tears, Glenn Beck, the self-professed “rodeo clown,” keeps warning of an impending insurrection by saying that he believes that we are heading for “depression” and “revolution” and then gaming out that revolution on his show last month. “Think the unthinkable” he said. Indeed.

All this talk of revolution is revolting, and it hasn’t gone unnoticed.

As the comedian Bill Maher pointed out, strong language can poison weak minds, as it did in the case of Timothy McVeigh. (We sometimes forget that not all dangerous men are trained by Al Qaeda.)

At the same time, the unrelenting meme being pushed by the right that Obama will mount an assault on the Second Amendment has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms. According to the F.B.I., there have been 1.2 million more requests for background checks of potential gun buyers from November to February than there were in the same four months last year. That’s 5.5 million requests altogether over that period; more than the number of people living in Bachmann’s Minnesota.

Coincidence? Maybe. Just posturing? Hopefully. But it all gives me a really bad feeling. (Where’s that Pepto-Bismol?!)

You know Dave, you are really beating this thing to death. For every killing article you copy and paste, I can show you one where owning a gun has saved a life or two. I think we all agree with you that gun ownership comes with a large responsibilty. People should be trained (and are if they have a concealed weapons permit) before owning a weapon. But what is your solution? Ban all guns?? You are an intelligent man so you know that the old saying is true. Only the criminals will own guns then. You cant stop every nut job intent on killing someone....... I think EVERYONE should be given a gun at birth and educated in its proper use. Then we would all be on a level playing field.

Lets all just agree to disagree and let this be put to rest.

Article in todays ARAB NEW...true or not who cares really!!! they are a threat...

Pakistans most wanted militant claims reponsibility for US shooting rampage the left 14 dead...claiming one of our men carried out the attack and embraced martydom and the other fled the scene...

and now we see OBAMA BOWING TO THE SAUDI KING...who will he bow to next...

i know that since the influx of immigrants from south of the border (of many nationalities) even our small towns are being invaded like cockroaches...in the last very few short years alone...murder, muggings, robberies have skyrocketed...

i'll keep my guns...i'll protect what's mine including my family...the polictical guru's and liberial wusses can give up their right's if they like...

someone knew each that of the people Dave is talking about were disturbed before they commited these crimes...but by remaining silent they are just as guilty in my opinion...as far as hunting accidents yes you must be aware of your surroundings and just want the gun you're toting is capable of....

change gun shots to stab wounds and what do you have ? around here children are gun safe before they start school. a boys first deer hunt is by 1st grade. blaming guns may make you feel better but it does nothing for the problem. i do not intend to run down a coyote with a club or beat a rabid skunk with one either. take away guns and you'll end up banning large rocks.

I own and carry (and yes I have a ccw), I think about them the same as I do a fire extingiusher, hope I never need to use it but glad it's there.



Remember, "God did not make all men equal, Col Colt did"



And, "When sticks and stones are outlawed, only outlaws will have sticks and stones"

We have sunk to such a depth that the restatement of the obvious has become the first duty of intelligent men.

-- George Orwell, 1939

I find some delicious irony in that being a 70 year old quote. The human condition continues.

In this case the obvious is that laws don't necessarily stop bad behavior, their enforcement merely attempts to maintain civil harmony. In each of the sad circumstances that Dave's cut and pastes points out a fundamental and consistent law dating back millenia was violated: Thou shalt not kill. Fact of the matter is in each of those incidents multiple laws were violated. Calling for more laws to prevent death merely makes the caller feel better about themselves, it doesn't necessarily result in better outcomes. An added benefit for them is that the self righteous get to pummel those that disagree with them with catch phrases like "gun lover" (though they'd prefer to say "gun nut", but only with a more sympathetic crowd).

Likewise, licensing, training and government control don't guarantee a positive outcome. If preventing death is the primary objective then we should ban automobiles, if banning inanimate objects is considered effective. No single object kills more people in this country each year than the car: 41,059 for 2007. Of course, as with guns, the real problem is people behaving badly. Drunken drivers still cause approximately half those auto related deaths. The current wave of new laws seems to be banning text messageing while driving. Common sense should demand that people stay focused on driving, not texting, but then we know common sense is too uncommon.

Unfortunately these sensible discussion points often fall on deaf ears as, for a number of reasons, far too many in our society today value symbolism over substance.

this "rash" of recent gun crimes is nothing new, the media is just now reporting it alot more. in an effort to frighten everyday people so they can take our guns.

please deposit gun here and take bread line voucher for line #4.

[QUOTE=Bob Parmenter;347489]We have sunk to such a depth that the restatement of the obvious has become the first duty of intelligent men.

-- George Orwell, 1939

I find some delicious irony in that being a 70 year old quote. The human condition continues.

In this case the obvious is that laws don't necessarily stop bad behavior, their enforcement merely attempts to maintain civil harmony. In each of the sad circumstances that Dave's cut and pastes points out a fundamental and consistent law dating back millenia was violated: Thou shalt not kill.

Likewise, licensing, training and government control don't guarantee a positive outcome. If preventing death is the primary objective then we should ban automobiles, if banning inanimate objects is considered effective. QUOTE]


The Orwell quote is indeed relavant, and I'm not one of the one's who want guns banned. Guns are fine when they are in the hands of a mentally stable, intelligent, and trained user...

If mandatory licensing similar to the requirements for a driver's license, and mandatory training much like driver's education were required would it really be that big of an infringement on anyone's rights???

Nothing will guarantee a 100% positive outcome, and certainly banning inanimate objects wouldn't be an acceptable answer... But if licensing, training, and monitoring gun owners were to prevent just some of these deaths wouldn't it be a positive move??

To save even one death of an innocent person, especially if it were a friend or family member, would to me and to many be good enough reason to implement at least some requirements....

After all, does the 2nd Amendment really trump the law of "Thou Shalt not Kill"? As with many arguments, common sense would indicate that there is a common ground and a point of comprimise on the issue of gun control. As with many other issues, perhaps it's time we ignored the extremists at either end of the spectrum, and people with common sense were to seek a comprimise someplace in the middle????

Ya know Davey, there are a lot of folks that don't realize you and I have been "butting heads" like this for years.

Good thing for you I don't charge you for the amount of effort I have to put in to getting you to show your more moderate side!

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

After all, does the 2nd Amendment really trump the law of "Thou Shalt not Kill"? As with many arguments, common sense would indicate that there is a common ground and a point of comprimise on the issue of gun control. As with many other issues, perhaps it's time we ignored the extremists at either end of the spectrum, and people with common sense were to seek a comprimise someplace in the middle????

Unfortunately getting to the "middle ground" is more difficult for the more conservative types. The national narrative is more under the control of the left extreme. I suspect it was much easier for you to find those articles to cut and paste than it would be for someone who wanted to counter them by accessing the same forms of "popular" media. It takes more effort and passion to muster a comprehensive retort to the mass media echo chamber.

Dave wrote:

After all, does the 2nd Amendment really trump the law of "Thou Shalt not Kill"? As with many arguments, common sense would indicate that there is a common ground and a point of comprimise on the issue of gun control. As with many other issues, perhaps it's time we ignored the extremists at either end of the spectrum, and people with common sense were to seek a comprimise someplace in the middle????

As much as I am a proponent of gun rights, I agree that the 2nd does not trump the biblical law of "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Of course I am not going to get into the issue of whether the bible is truth or fiction or a little of both.

But we (the USA and other civilized countries) have laws on our books that make it illegal to kill (in most instances) regardless, if you use a firearm or the jaw bone of an ass (the four legged kind ). Guns are really not the problem, the problems is with who's holding the gun. I own a number of guns, yet excluding military service, I have never killed anyone nor do I have the desire to (although there have been fleeting moments that the thought may have crossed my mind).

I don't know how we go about doing it, but the issue to be resolved is how to keep the firearms out of the hands of those who have no remorse and who would feel little or no concern about taking the life of another human being. That, in itself, is the problem.

Take all the guns away, and I guarantee you there will be people bludgeoned to death with any available device including motor vehicles, baseball bats, knives, pokers, golf clubs, hockey sticks, tire irons, and the jaw bone of an ass. The gun is just a convenient tool. And in the hands of the wrong person, it's a problem.

I have found no way of solving this problem to the satisfaction of everyone. Not sure that it can be, or will ever be. But it is worth solving.

The Graham example is not necessarily a good one for your side either. Mass murder of one's own family is not, unfortunately, infrequent. Males tend to use weapons, however, women far too often kill their young, but tend toward more "natural" methods such as drowning. Read some Ann Rule, for instance about the woman in Or. who tossed her kids off a bridge. Or Andrea Yates in Tx who drowned her kids. Or the gal down south who pushed her car into the reservoir with the kids in it. Poor line of reasoning for attacking guns.

As for Greenwood, is that this year's date for the car show? I don't have the calendar with me down here. I used to go every year when we lived in Magnolia, (if you look in my gallery the '72 Chev pu and '55 Chev were in front of one of the beauty shops on the ave.) but haven't been to it since about 2002 or 3. If I do go this year I'll be there with a grey '36 Ford 3 window coupe. If we meet up I promise not to shoot you.

Your question, re; "... does the NRA really think that banning AK47's would make it hard to hunt deer?" I've hunted most of my adult life and have never seen or heard of anyone deer hunting with an AK-47. There are too many other choices that are far superior to the AK.

Private ownership of fully automatic AK-pattern rifles is strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The Gun Control Act of 1968 ceased the import of foreign-manufactured fully automatic firearms for civilian sales and possession.

In 1986, an amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act stopped all future domestic manufacturing of fully automatic weapons for civilian use (non-military/non-law-enforcement). Fully automatic weapons are still manufactured in the US for military and law enforcement use however; automatic firearms manufactured domestically prior to 1986 or imported prior to 1968 may be transferred between civilians in accordance with federal and state law.

Semi-automatic AK-type rifles, are legal and obtainable in most states of the United States, however they may or may not be legal to own or possess depending on state, county, city, and local laws and ordinances. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban specifically banned the AK-47 by name, and many other such weapons (including obvious clones of AK-47's) manufactured after 1994 had to be modified to the letter of the law (removal of barrel threading, bayonet lug and folding stock). This ban expired in 2004, making all domestically produced semi-automatic AK-47s legal. The import of AK pattern rifles is still banned. However, certain states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have specific restrictions which effectively ban new purchases of many semi-automatic rifles, with some mentioning AK-pattern firearms by name.

The NRA has never condoned nor have they endorsed ownership of fully automatic weapons (AK-47 or otherwise) except by individuals possessing the proper federal credentials. The NRA is the major proponent of gun safety and education in this country. Over 55,000 NRA Certified Instructors now train about 750,000 gun owners a year.

The NRA does not even suggest that the AK-47 would be a good deer hunting rifle.

The AK-47 uses 7.62x39mm, a .30-caliber round producing about 1,500 ft./lbs. of energy at the muzzle, which is suitable for deer hunting at close range. This round is less powerful than all other .30 calibers commonly used for hunting. Specifically:
.30-30 Winchester, 1,900 ft./lbs.
.308 Winchester, 2,650 ft./lbs.
.30-’06 Springfield, 2,800 ft./lbs.
.300 Winchester Magnum, 3,600 ft./lbs.
.300 Weatherby Magnum, 4,200 ft./lbs.

In about the past 10 years I have built new legal frames for different companies in USA that makes & sell AK-47's! Because USA made AK's are legal to sell in the USA! So much for your gun laws!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you don't keep locks on your guns, your kids will play with them. You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make them drink it! (free gun locks) It's your job to make them drink! Not mine or the goverments!!!!

Also, if you use a bat on an unarmed person, it's the same if you use a gun, if you use a knive on an unarmed person, it's he same if you used a gun. So why stand close enough to find out which they brought with them? If I standing that close, I know my barrel is in their mouth, till the cops come!

If everyone was able to carried a gun, do you think as many idit's would just start shooting! and if they did some one will take them out before 5-10-15-20 helpless people were shoot by them! I know I would!!!!!!! But then again...I hit my target without thinking about it. close don't count.

Pat