Skip to main content

View Diary: No to Gun Control ... (51 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  that is the silliest logic I have ever seen... nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries
    •  How so? (6+ / 0-)

      There are millions, potentially tens of millions, of "Assault Rifles" in private hands, yet fewer than 400 people were killed by rifles of all varieties in 2010.

      That means that millions upon millions of people are showing their responsibility every day. Why ban something, under the guise of encouraging "responsibility" when almost all owners of that object are, in fact, responsible with it?

      •  they should never have been available in the (3+ / 0-)

        first place.  That's the problem.  You can take any bad happening in the world and say 'well, that DOESN'T happen the other 99% of the time.'  But it's not that 99% i"m concerned about. It's the 1% where people die.  It would be like the airline industry saying 'well, why should we bother with our regulations on planes since they hardly ever crash'?

        The problem is that the gun lobby has managed to get these things that were never envisioned in the Consitution to become a fait accompli, so rather than reasonable regulation it's seen as confiscation and infringement.

        •  But people DO still die in plane crashes (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          noway2, theboz, fuzzyguy

          We do not respond by banning air travel.

          I am open to discussing regulation, but let's regulate the actual problem: People. Banning firearms or their accessories is a non-starter for me.

          •  no--we respond by increasing regulation and (3+ / 0-)

            oversight.  I wasn't talking about the ban (although I see no reason why we as individuals need this kind of firepower.)

            The problem is people + guns.  Don't play the guns don't kill people game--it's a farce and you know it.

            Bad people without guns are less good at killing as bad people with guns.

            •  How will the AWB keep bad people from getting guns (0+ / 0-)


              •  And, to be frank... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                People are the problem. Not the guns. People are the ones in poverty. People are the ones who are mentally disabled.

                Good people with guns have proven themselves to be almost universally responsible and trustworthy.  

                •  Profiting off of SELLING guns to those (bad) (0+ / 0-)

                  people is morally reprehensible.

                  Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                  I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                  —Spike Milligan

                  by polecat on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:40:40 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  well, yes, if you have a society with all guns (0+ / 0-)

                  and no people then yes, the murder rate will go down.

                  Guns STRONGLY enhance people's capacity to not only kill--but to kill instinctively.  And to kill more people at a time, and at longer range.  

                  •  They do, (0+ / 0-)

                    That power comes with responsibility, and many people demonstrate that responsibility every day. Rather than restrict access to items, and half-assedly at that, why not try to keep just the irresponsible people from obtaining guns?

                    •  profiling who is going Reto be violent--aside from (0+ / 0-)

                      criminals--is exceedingly difficult.  You don't need to know much about psychology to realize that--despite all of the cries to come up with 'mentally ill registries' or whatever....

                      we don't have an irresponsibility net, unfortunately.  We can try--but gun regulation (I don't like the term 'control' either) has got to be at the forefront of the issue.

            •  And regulating the good people with guns (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theboz, fuzzyguy

              will have little, if any effect at stopping the bad people with guns.  As unfortunate as it is, there is no regulation, ban, or law you can pass that will prevent tragedy and crime.  Since you can't deal with the real problem, you want to lash out at the innocent?

              •  oh poor innocent you. Look-- I have a license (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                for a Class C vehicle, right?  aka a car.  Do I feel that I've been violated because I have go through  more tests and training to drive a truck?  Or a tank?  

                The real problem is that we have a hyper violent society--EQUIPPED WITH THE MEANS TO PERPETUATE THE HYPERVIOLENCE.  I'm not capitalizing to yell at you--I'm capitalizing for extreme emphasis.  Those means are the guns.   I don't advocate to take 'em all away either...but they have got to be limited/regulated--because this country is fucking chaos.

                •  And those who are saying no training, no nothing (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fuzzyguy, annakerie

                  are a small subset of the gun owning population.  It is certainly true that some say that the 2nd-A is the only "permit" they need.  I am not in that camp.  Rather, I understand that some places, like schools, are considered sensitive.  What I am saying that the idea that just because a few individuals are nuts we should flat out prohibit everybody is ludicrous and it is clearly not working!  Lets establish some standards and let those who are willing meet those standards to carry in places.

                  Also, we need to consider what exactly it is we are regulating and what we are trying to achieve by it.  It seems to be a tacit assumption that additional regulation of the citizen with a gun permit is somehow going to reduce crime.   I don't believe it.  I think it is an emotional reaction based upon the desire to to something, anything, and it is the first thing that a few politicians with agendas have been after.

                  It also bears repeating that by focusing on these bans you are causing those who are both impacted and involved, who by extension may have some of the best suggestions to offer to do nothing but work to oppose you.

                  If you want real solutions, stop shouting nonsense.

                  •  the Brady Campaign isn't an on-the-fly organizatio (0+ / 0-)

                    n--they've been at this for years.  decades.

                    Yeah, there's definitely some ban-everything overreaction.  I don't subscribe to that either.  But the solution to gun violence sure as hell isn't more gun violence--that's what the NRA would like you to believe.  The very notion that W. LaPierre would actually say that that line about 'the only thing that can take down a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun' is one of the stupidest things I've heard in 25 years of following politics.  

                    Why is it so damn oppressive to have to earn, say, a license, a more stringenet background check, and say a training certification in order to own a semi-automatic rifle?

                    I don't think you have to 'ban' everything--but you do need to demonstrate that you're capable of owning it.

                    •  In regards to your statement: (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Why is it so damn oppressive to have to earn, say, a license, a more stringenet background check, and say a training certification in order to own a semi-automatic rifle?
                      In an environment where exact words matter, this is not what is being called for.  What is being called for is a complete ban, which is an entirely different animal.

                      With respect to the term, "more stringent background check", I would like to engage this line of discussion as I think it has some real merit.  In fact, in many ways this concept has been floated about the gun community in slightly different form for quite a while now: interstate and national permit reciprocity.  

                      The current standard is that the states get define the requirements for owning and carrying a gun in public.  A few states have what is terms constitutional carry, meaning anyone who isn't prohibited by statute may carry.  At the other end, you have areas like DC where you must demonstrate need, and specifically register the exact gun that will be carried etc.  Most states are somewhere in the middle.

                      In my state, you need to take an approved 8 hour class that covers both safety and use of force laws as well as a hands on portion to demonstrate proficiency.  I would be curious as to how this compares to law enforcement certification as a possible measuring stick.  Personally, I think more training is a good thing and I don't have a problem with it, but I realize that some will, especially if it is mandatory.   To this, I think that the answer is that we need a minimum standard for basic carry and then allow optional, additional certifications that enable one to remove various restrictions, such as the ability to posses in school environments.  This way, those who care have a path and the valid concerns of safety may be addressed.

        •  According to your logic (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          We would be banning an incalculable number of items.

          When a plane crashes we look at what went wrong and find ways to improve the system.  We don't eliminate the planes.  

          Just because you don't agree that people should be able to own semi-automatic rifles doesn't mean that you should be able to tell someone else that they can't.

          •  you keep falling back on the same reasoning: (0+ / 0-)

            X might not work, and even if it does, it only tackles a small amount of the problem, therefore X is useless so we're stuck.  

            That's completely loopy.

            Plus there's all sort of things that you 'can't' own (without appropriate regulations/paperwork/training/procedures)  You can't have plutonium.  You can't have drugs.  You can't have alcohol if you're under 21.  You can't have a lion.  You can't have unexploded ordnance.  Lots of stuff.

            •  More to the point, you can't own... (0+ / 0-)

              ...a Thompson submachine gun without a special permit. They and all other fully automatic weapons were "banned" after they became the weapon of choice in the mob wars of the Prohibition era. I put "banned" in quotes because you can still buy a fully automatic gun, but you have to jump through serious hoops to do it. This allows collectors and serious hobbyists to continue to own such guns - but they have to prove they are responsible. That's what we're asking here - you must prove to the satisfaction of society at large that you will behave in a responsible manner with your guns. And there are lines that can, and should, be drawn. I support expansion of background checks and closing of the gun show loophole for all guns, and restricting ownership of anything above a 6-shot revolver, 3-shot rifle and 3-shot shotgun in the same way fully automatic guns are restricted now.

              I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

              by ObamOcala on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:03:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site