In essence you want want gun ownership outlawed like in Japan. I'd respect your position much more if you'd just come out and admit that at the end of the day you want all guns outlawed..

I think he'd be pleased as punch to see that.

This thread started out being an extremely interesting discussion... it has waxed and waned with still some interesting interludes, IMO.

 

The NYT ran their first front page editorial since 1920 - on Gun Control - after the Islamic attack.

 

After the Islamic terrorism attack, Tom Brokaw did this segment in his Paul Harvey-ish radio segment (Brokaw is no Harvey):

 

An American Story 12/4/15 (Audio)

 

At the end of the segment Brokaw states that we have an obligation to have a civilized society. I agree. Legislation doesn't produce that, esp. gun legislation. Being civilized to others has to do with one's soul. Gov't can't do this. Parents, religion, etc. can.

 

I ask this respectfully, but do you know why KY leads the nation in background checks? Because the title, while not misleading, does not tell the whole story nor does the article.

 

If you haven't gathered by now, apparently KY does repeat background checks on people. The initial background check isn't all that is done. They continue to check your background to make sure you are still eligible to own a gun. I don't get how this works. Can they take your firearm away after the fact? If so, for what reasons?

 

Perhaps states will lead the way. In Colorado, Gov. John Hickenlooper was quoted in the Denver Post within the past few days:

 

"(Hickenlooper) said he's having private conversations with people previously opposed to any changes to gun laws "who are now saying, 'I'm in. Let's figure out what to do.' "

 

Encouraging.

 

This is the result of fear and emotion in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. It is not from a renewed application of reason. This is not encouraging. Emotion and fear are not a good reason to chip away at constitutional rights.

 

Since ash trays and table forks are also weapons ... my goal is to see more would-be mass murderers use ash trays and table forks instead of military assault weapons to do their thing.

 

If public safety is the motivation, you might want to include automobiles in your list of banned weapons. They kill more people than nearly everything else combined.

 

This is a great interview with Sam Harris, noted atheist.

He owns this interviewer over and over.

It is very long but well worth it.

Sam Harris: The ‘Salon’ Interview: Sam Harris

 

For once I can agree with much of what this "New Atheist" says. This was a fascinating interview and contained much truth. Thanks for posting.

 

What Harris says also addresses a dialogue between two BGP posters in another thread, the one where it was claimed bigotry was behind the idea that jihadists are more of a realistic threat than radical Christians and the Quran was presented as evidence for one side of the dialogue --this is my characterization of the debate not necessarily how they presented it themselves.

 

See post 156. We need to do what countries with low gun death rates do.

 

This is an interesting suggestion. I would suggest that we look at the history of our own country. In earlier times the percentage of gun owners in the population was higher (my hypothesis) and yet the murder by gun rate was lower. Why were people able to own guns in an earlier time of our history without shooting one another? This has to do with the kind of society and culture we have become. Perhaps we need to look at those societal and cultural influences from earlier times that enabled us to be a less violent America. Comparing us to other places and cultures that don't have the history of gun ownership and the 2nd amendment is comparing apples to oranges.

 

Just a thought.

Edited December 5, 201510 yr by oldgrappler
spelling and grammar

At the end of the segment Brokaw states that we have an obligation to have a civilized society. I agree. Legislation doesn't produce that, esp. gun legislation. Being civilized to others has to do with one's soul. Gov't can't do this. Parents, religion, etc. can.

 

 

 

If you haven't gathered by now, apparently KY does repeat background checks on people. The initial background check isn't all that is done. They continue to check your background to make sure you ar still eligible to own a gun. I don't get how this works. Can they take your firearm away after the fact? If so, for what reasons?

 

 

 

This is the result of fear and emotion in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. It is not from a renewed application of reason. This is not encouraging. Emotion and fear is not a good reason to chip away at constitutional rights.

 

 

 

If public safety is the motivation you, might want to include automobiles in your list of banned weapons. They kill more people than nearly everything else combined....

Sounds like you might be in favor of regulating firearms like we do motor vehicles: title, registration, proof of competency to operate, eyesight test, safety checks, etc.

 

Sounds good to me.

How would that work? How do you keep one guy from selling private property to another one?

 

Even if a law was passed saying that I had to do a background check on my neighbor before I could sell him a gun...I'm sure there would a be a Government Fee for that, right? The only people doing it would be people that are currently law abiding citizens, they would be paying the extra fees and keeping up with the extra paperwork...while those outside the law would just keep on doing things just like they are today.

 

The only people out money or inconvenienced would be law abiding citizens.

Law abiding,hard working people will always be the ones who bear the load, I don't pretend to have all the answers, I do know that when it comes to background checks, the laws are inconsistent! Do you think that background checks should be eliminated for buyers in a gun store? If so then I understand your position.

Law abiding,hard working people will always be the ones who bear the load, I don't pretend to have all the answers, I do know that when it comes to background checks, the laws are inconsistent! Do you think that background checks should be eliminated for buyers in a gun store? If so then I understand your position.

 

No I don't think background checks should be eliminated.

 

And while I also have no issue with private gun sales having background checks...In no way do I think it would have more than a miniscule, if that, impact on gun crimes.

In essence you want want gun ownership outlawed like in Japan. I'd respect your position much more if you'd just come out and admit that at the end of the day you want all guns outlawed.

 

Maybe instead of copying Japan we should copy another country with almost no gun violence, Switzerland. Where gun ownership is mandatory for nearly every male in the country.

 

How gun control works in America, compared with 4 other rich countries - Vox

 

Good read. In Switzerland militiamen get to keep their issued weapon. That's not exactly giving them out on a street corner.

 

One prevailing idea in the article is licensing of guns.

This country has a crime problem and a mental health problem...removing terrorism almost every other mass casualty event has been driven either by someone with pre defined mental health issues or it happened in the commission of another crime. When it is stated that there have been over 300 mass shootings this year what gets left out of that discusdion is that Most "Mass Shootings" that happen in this country are gang related attacks or retaliation.

How gun control works in America, compared with 4 other rich countries - Vox

 

Good read. In Switzerland militiamen get to keep their issued weapon. That's not exactly giving them out on a street corner.

 

One prevailing idea in the article is licensing of guns.

 

Who said it was?

Who said it was?

 

Your statement leaves out the fact that those guys had to serve in the military and were trained. There actually have been some changes to that after some incidents of suicide with those rifles.

 

Do we have more mental health and crime here than the rest of the world?

Sounds like you might be in favor of regulating firearms like we do motor vehicles: title, registration, proof of competency to operate, eyesight test, safety checks, etc.

 

Sounds good to me.

 

Guns are already quite regulated. One significant difference between automobiles and firearms is that firearm ownership is a constitutionally protected right. Car ownership is not.

 

Your proposal for more gun regulation does not address the problem--a person with bad intent--and thus it will not solve the problem. It will take away the rights of honest citizens. This is one of my objections to gun regulation.

 

It's like a dentist that pulls the wrong tooth. He may get paid for his efforts and the patient will feel good that something has been done, but when the Novocaine wears off the pain will return and the guy that was supposed to be helped will find that not only is the pain still there, but he's out a wad of cash that went into the dentist's pocket. The patient's pain has been multiplied. When he goes back to the dentist, the dentist pulls more teeth, but fails to extract the one that has the real issue. By the time they're all done, the dentist has all his cash and the patient is left with one tooth, the one that still aches. I prefer to address the real issue the first time and not surrender the good citizen's capital--self-governance.

Edited December 5, 201510 yr by oldgrappler
streamlined it

And all I can do is shake my head.

 

Then you're shaking it at the 14 families who will never see loved ones again. Political correctness prevented the neighbors from alerting the authorities.

 

There's no room for summer time soldiers in this country RTS.

Guns are already quite regulated. One significant difference between automobiles and firearms is that firearm ownership is a constitutionally protected right. Car ownership is not.

 

Your proposal for more gun regulation does not address the problem--a person with bad intent--and thus it will not solve the problem. It will take away the rights of honest citizens. This is one of my objections to gun regulation.

 

It's like a dentist that pulls the wrong tooth. He may get paid for his efforts and the patient will feel good that something has been done, but when the Novocaine wears off the pain will return and the guy that was supposed to be helped will find that not only is the pain still there, but he's out a wad of cash that went into the dentist's pocket. The patient's pain has been multiplied. When he goes back to the dentist, the dentist pulls more teeth, but fails to extract the one that has the real issue. By the time they're all done, the dentist has all his cash and the patient is left with one tooth, the one that still aches. I prefer to address the real issue the first time and not surrender the good citizen's capital--self-governance.

The time has come for the 99.9 percent to take a hit for the good of the country. I'm sorry, but this personal responsibility train has left the station. We have to try as best we can to remove certain types of weapons from general circulation.

Are you not willing to see why there was a time in this country when people were able to own guns and not kill their fellow Americans? Why not just look at the past and see if we can determine why this country has degenerated into a place of with increasing rates of violence and murder? MAybe we will learn what has happened to people to make them willing to kill and then if we can identify causes and contributing factors maybe we will have a chance to reverse that trend. You wanted to look at other countries for examples. Why not look at our own history for examples of how to reduce gun violence?

 

When you begin to erode individual rights you are making the path to tyranny more broad.

 

You really cannot see that guns do not kill?! Deranged people do and twisted people do. That won't change with legislation. It is insane to reduce the rights of honest citizens and think that by doing so you will stop the law-breaker or the nut.

 

BTW, the history of England and the United States provide examples of how culture changed from unjust and destructive patterns of behavior to a more positive society on the whole.

No I don't think background checks should be eliminated.

 

And while I also have no issue with private gun sales having background checks...In no way do I think it would have more than a miniscule, if that, impact on gun crimes.

I couldn't agree with you more, and the responsible Americans that I know would not privately sell a firearm to an individual who they suspect of mental illness or a threat to society. So many times in these threads we always end up beating a dead horse. I have no hidden agenda, just trying to point out an inconsistency in our laws!

The time has come for the 99.9 percent to take a hit for the good of the country. I'm sorry, but this personal responsibility train has left the station. We have to try as best we can to remove certain types of weapons from general circulation.

 

In all for paying a small fee to do a check for a private sale. Myself and the other person should be required to go to an authorized dealer or whatever and have them assist in the transaction. I am not against getting rid of 100% private gun sales.

 

But that is only one of many things that we need to do. I like the laws in Maryland, if you commit any crime with a gun you automatically get 5 years in prison with no parole.

 

This will not take away rights from law abiding gun owners.