let the marginalization of the NRA begin (Page 2)

Whimsical Fairy: I would agree with that Dave. There is NO reason to own an assault rifle.

davesdatahut: This could at least be a starting point for negotiations among those who will make decisions on where to go from here - a ban on civilians owning assault weapons. This is a minimal compromise, to say the least.

Wild__: Davesdatahut says...

Ok, so the NRA's part in that was to make sure that when someone was denied a weapon because of mental problems, they had a right to contest it. A noble stance on behalf of the deranged, but how was that an effort to make it harder to get guns?

And I respond...

My point was quite simple. Contrary to the OP, The NRA is in fact involved in the debate to keep firearms out of the hands of lunatics. Recognizing that not all psychological disorders should be treated the same was a part of their input in a proposed Bill they supported. A proposed Bill which never made it to the white house.

And differentiating between someone who suffers depression as opposed to someone diagnosed with schizophrenia is in fact a noble cause.

Look at what is happening on Capitol Hill now. Is there ANY debate on how to keep guns out of the hands of deranged lunatics? All I can see is politicians using the tragedy in Connecticut to ban assault weapons.

Regardless of how you feel about assault weapons, will that do ANYTHING to keep guns out of the hands of truly deranged lunatics?

davesdatahut: Wild, to say the NRA was involved in the debate is akin to saying that banks have been involved in debates over stronger regulations of financial institutions. Involved - but only to try to thwart compromise and make sure the crazy people who have been denied a gun have every possible avenue to contest such decisions, and get their guns.
As for the debate on Capitol Hill, we will have to see how that turns out. If the only thing that comes of it is an assault weapons ban, then pathetic little progress will result. The issue is way bigger than an assault weapons ban, as much as this kind of ban would be a no-brainer and good for society.

duncan124:
Who is creating these Demand a Plan videos?



When the Spanish attacked people with automatic weapons stood a better chance then those without. In fact the Spanish tactics seem to have been aimed at over whelming defenders with numbers rather then with fire power.

Wild__: davesdatahut says...

Wild, to say the NRA was involved in the debate is akin to saying that banks have been involved in debates over stronger regulations of financial institutions. Involved - but only to try to thwart compromise and make sure the crazy people who have been denied a gun have every possible avenue to contest such decisions, and get their guns.

And I respond,

The NRA strongly supported legislation to make it harder for "psychologically unstable" people to obtain firearms. Apparently the federal government failed to take action.

davesdatahut says...

As for the debate on Capitol Hill, we will have to see how that turns out. If the only thing that comes of it is an assault weapons ban, then pathetic little progress will result. The issue is way bigger than an assault weapons ban, as much as this kind of ban would be a no-brainer and good for society.

And I respond,

Our federal government missed an important opportunity to make it harder for people with psychological disorders to acquire firearms in 2007, and they are again neglecting the root of the problem in favor of a band aid.

In the case of Adam Lanza, his access to firearms could have easily been thwarted had his mom kept her firearms in a gun safe.

duncan124:
I meant that modern weapons are far more powerful, and they couldn't be used in most homes by law , but the Spanish killed far more by being insane in large numbers and by using those ice water pistols.

People with more powerful guns survived longer while they used the guns for protection.

It seems offensive to ask the govt that did nothing when millions were being killed to control guns.

The reasoning behind the US policies was created by the police who wanted to shoot people who they thought were going to pull a gun on them.

davesdatahut: Wild, I am surprised to hear that Congress actually voted down an NRA-endorsed bill to make it harder for unbalanced people to get weapons. Is this indeed what occurred? What legislation was this. I would be interested in checking it out, for my own knowledge.
If that is indeed what happened, hopefully Congress can rethink this and come up with a way to stop nuts from getting weapons. That would at least be a step in the right direction.
As for Lanza, his mother, sadly, might share some of the blame in this, assuming she didn't lock up her guns. Of course, we don't know. It's possible she did, and that the kid simply broke into the gun case. The bottom line on that is she should have thought twice, three time and four times about having guns under the same roof as her very troubled son.

davesdatahut: On point here, see this arcticle in Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbasile/2012/12/21/how-wayne-lapierre-may-have-banned-his-own-assault-weapons/
I could not agree more about the tin-eared, mouth-foamer who leads the NRA. What a disgrace.

loraxian: guns dont kill people, people kill people, always will be that way. take away guns and all you will protesting sticks and stones next. The biggest problem we have is that most people are more interested in getting the worlds information at their finger tips on their I phones and apps to scratch their butts instead of raising kids to know how tapped shooting people is period. But yeah... as long as somebody else can take the blame we dont have to look at the truth i guess. Count the number of good news stories you hear about in the media over a months time... then ask yourself what really drives the world.

LiptonCambell: >>>Lipton, David was going on about alcohol, drugs and swimming pools, which have nothing to do with this debate.

I think it has some relevance. It's a comparison- that, if we are to create strict laws about some things that can cause harm, why not others? Why are there different rules for pools than guns?

>>>So I'm not sure there is any value in quoting his claims, regardless of their truth.

Wait..so if someone states a non-sequitur...then any facts they make from that point on, even ones that bring your entire position into question, are irrelevant? That's not a position made by someone who seeks the truth in all things- that's a position made to avoid and dodge the truth, by making arbitrary rules challenging not the facts the person states, but the character of the person who states it.

>>>As for violence control, I am not sure what the answers are.

Then why did you present the issue like your position had more to do with violence control than gun control? All your suggested solutions have to do with guns- and when I ask what changes beyond guns are you suggesting? All i get is a shrug, and an answer suggesting someone smarter should handle it....huh?

>>>A couple of points that DO have great value are better background checks that would prevent guns from getting into homes where someone is crazy.

But they haven't worked in the past. Isn't the definition of crazy "doing something over and over again, and expecting different results"?

In the Columbine tragedy? The guns were legally purchased, having passed background checks, proving your laws completely ineffective

In the Virgina Tech tragedy? The guns were illegally purchased- the gun dealer simply sold it black market, proving your laws completely ineffective.

In the recent Aurora Dark Knight Rises tragedy? The guns were legally purchased, having passed background checks, proving your laws completely ineffective

In the recent tragedy? The guns were legally purchased, having passed some of the strongest background checks in America, proving your laws completely ineffective.

Despite being the catalyst of your push for these laws, your suggested laws would have no preventative effect on these kinds of tragedies. Ironically enough, when your background checks fail, that would be the rallying call for more background checks, which will continue to fail, which would be the rallying call for more background checks.

It doesn't make sense.

>>> But I'd like to see it tried.

Tried?

Every State in the United States has the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which has been mandated since 1993. And since 1992, there have been over 100 fatalities in school shootings.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

It's been tried. Clearly it isn't preventing these tragedies.

>>>In addition, I would like to see a concerted education campaign in this country aimed at changing the glorification of violence we see all around us, starting at the youngest ages.

That's pretty unclear. What are you suggesting? Censoring violent TV shows? Games? What of the First Amendment?

>>>There are a lot of factors that come into play when talking about crime rates.

I can certainly agree that that.

>>>So to quote one city's crime rate and tie it to gun control is a huge stretch and a serious case of circular reasoning,

The same is true to quote other countries. Like you said- there's differences in "economics, neighborhood makeup, police strategies, demographic changes, and more"- so while comparing what goes on in one American city may be flawed, comparing what goes on in another country entirely is bizarrely and utterly useless as a comparison.

>>>What, if I may ask, are your thoughts on how to address this problem?

I think there should be less restrictions on guns, and more education on how to handle them. Imagine if 50% of the population was packing heat? That'd mean every mugger, every thief, and every rapist had a 50-50 chance that, if they try something, they might get involved in a shootout. Criminals aren't stupid- and very few of them have a death wish. You'd see crime in general go down as people learn that it simply isn't worth the risk to engage in that kind of violence.

>>> is there any reason anyone should have a semi-automatic machine gun like an AR-47?

One. It isn't very practical, but it is profound, and it the reason for the second amendment in the first place.

To fight Tyranny.

Should one dark day, an official comes into power and ends elections, ends freedom, and tries to take control of the country? Assault Rifles would be alot more effective.

Wild__: Oh shoot, I forgot about this thread. I hope everyone had a great Christmas.

Be back later.

LiptonCambell: Yea, Xmas kinda made it impossible for me to participate...

davesdatahut: Lipton, the comparisons with swimming pools, drugs and alcohol ARE irrelevant to this discussions. We are talking about violence in society, how to deal with it and whether there should be increased controls on guns. Those other questions are not germane. To ask why we create separate laws for swimming pools versus guns is akin to asking why there are different rules for football versus baseball. One has nothing to do with the other. This is a distraction, a red herring and a canard to avoid discussion of the issue at hand.
And as for David's assertions, they were simply that - assertions with no sources or citations to back them up. So I don't know what to do with them other than move on.
So u=nless you can show otherwise, let's stick to the question at hand.
You say that better background checks haven't worked in the past. I am saying we need better background checks than we have NOW, so you can't know if they will work unless we try them. My thought is to beef up the background checking so that we do a BETTER job of keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals, nuts and any house where they reside. This involves giving the FBI, ATF and other law enforcement more information and more time to do their checks. How anyone can oppose that is beyond all comprehension. To oppose it is to abdicate responsible gun ownership.
These kinds of checks might have kept guns out of the Lanza house, or out of James Holmes's hands, or Jared Loughner's hands. How can you object to that unless you view is that you want no controls over weapons at all? Would better background work in all cases? No. Would it work in some. Absolutely.
Let me pose a real-life scenario: relatives of mine have their two grown male sons living with them. Both have plead guilty over the past year to misdemeanor assault charges and both are troubled. The parents have two guns and are talking about a third. Granting this purchase is asking for trouble. Do you think there should be guns in that house?
The comparisons with other countries ARE useful because there is a consistent pattern. European countries have much more restrictive gun laws and much lower gun-crime rates. While other factors come into play, there is enough of a trend there to make a comparison meaningful.
As for 50 percent of the society being armed - maybe you would like to live in that dystopian vision where everyone is worried about everyone is packing heat, as you put it. That is not what i want in my community, in my workplace, in my schools. That is giving up and letting fear rule. You are free to hide behind your guns. I choose not too.
And regarding your view on AR-15s, I don't even know what to do with that bit of paranoia other than to suggest some counseling. Good lord...an official coming into power in the US who ends elections and ends freedom? Really???

LiptonCambell: >>> I am saying we need better background checks than we have NOW

What changes are you actually proposing? Besides "Better"? I'm sure we could get alot of pie in the sky ideas to work if we only made them "better", but what are you actually physically suggesting be changed?

>>> This involves giving the FBI, ATF and other law enforcement more information and more time to do their checks.

Please, elaborate- what is "More information"? What information? How is this information collected?

>>>How anyone can oppose that is beyond all comprehension.

Oppose making government more intrusive and larger? I bet some people would have reasonable issues with that (potentially, at least...again, your solutions are rather vague )

>>>Would better background work in all cases? No. Would it work in some. Absolutely.

So if you accept that some dangerous people will slip through the cracks, then why are you reacting this way when it happens?

>>> Granting this purchase is asking for trouble. Do you think there should be guns in that house?

Well, first off, more background checks and longer background checks wouldn't have any effect on the situation you described. Background checks check the individual who is purchasing, not their entire family.

Nonetheless, I think that, using proper safety controls such as a locked gun cabinet, that it'll likely turn out fine.

>>>The comparisons with other countries ARE useful because there is a consistent pattern.

But certainly with a different culture, different beliefs, different media, different laws, different stances on law enforcement, different economies, and numerous of other issues, all of this makes it impossible to point and say "Hey, they've got strict gun laws- that's what makes their violence numbers so low"- it's more than that, and you just said in a previous post exactly that regard.

Now you want to use such flawed reasoning as evidence for your beliefs? Are you kidding me?

>>>maybe you would like to live in that dystopian vision where everyone is worried about everyone is packing heat, as you put it.

Worried? Why on Earth would I be worried? I'm not going around looking to get myself killed, and I'd like to think most people would act the same. And the ones who are looking to hurt others won't last very long.

In such a world there would not be the same kinds of massacres we're seeing now. They simply couldn't exist- someone would start shooting, and 50% of the population would pull out their guns and defend their right to live, rather than accepting that they cannot win and are going to be killed.

Having alot of guns doesn't mean everyone's going around shooting each other- have you ever heard of a massacre at a gun show? The biggest massacres in American History are places where guns were banned- like Columbine, Virgina Tech, and this recent massacre in Connecticut- all were in gun-free zones- which means no one there was able to protect themselves when someone proved there is nothing enforcing such a law.

>>>That is giving up and letting fear rule.

HA! Your entire push for new laws is based on fear.

>>> I choose not too.

That's great- no one should handle a gun if they are not comfortable with it.

>>>an official coming into power in the US who ends elections and ends freedom? Really???

I didn't say it was practical. But that IS the purpose of the second amendment. The signers of the bill of rights just finished a brutal war against a tyrant, who would destroy whatever guns they were not using, to prevent the revolutionaries from getting them. They knew when they signed the Bill of Rights that one day, America may be put in a position of tyrants banging on their door- and that their citizens should be ready and prepared to protect the freedoms of all Americans should that day come.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure"
~Thomas Jefferson

Is it practical? Fuck no. But you asked for a good reason, and since it was the ENTIRE REASON why the second amendment exists, then I'd say it's a good reason.

Look at other nations, how they fell into tyranny and dictatorship- it's certainly not impossible, and would be insanely irresponsible for future generations to suggest that it is worth risking the end of their freedom if it means that less, but not all, massacres happen.

jsonaut: Lipton, after reading all the posts here and starting out hating guns, i must say that you have given me a lot to think about, and I agree with most of your points,
The only thing I'd ask is, do you trust in the masses? As in, if the masses have guns, do you trust that they will wield them in a positive way, even in the case of a takeover? What if they mostly side with the wrong side, like Germany?
I'm not picking a fight, but am truly interested in this topic.

LiptonCambell: >>>The only thing I'd ask is, do you trust in the masses?

I trust them more than the government. I honestly don't believe that background checks work as effectively as people insist, and if someone cannot legally buy a gun, they could always illegally buy a gun. I sincerely doubt that if someone is comfortable with breaking the law with assault, rape, and murder, that they'd be scared off by the law on guns....

>>>even in the case of a takeover? What if they mostly side with the wrong side, like Germany?

You have to trust that enough people will stand up for the right thing. If anything, historically, the nazi's were strong believers in gun control....

davesdatahut: Lipton, getting back to this after a few days away...
You ask what I would propose by way of better background checking. Ill repeat what I said here in earlier posts, which you probably won't like. But here it is - you give law enforcement the power to do criminal AND mental health background checks not only of the gun buyer, but the people in the gun buyer's house. So if you have a convicted felon in the house, or someone with a history of mental problems, the answer to the gun buyer is going to have to be no. Yep, that's potentially intrusive on a gun buyers' privacy. But a gun is unlike anything else because the purpose of a gun is to kill or main. So with the constitutional right to own a gun comes an obligation to be responsible in the community.
Everyone - or at least everyone but those seriously incapable of compromise - agrees nuts shouldn't have guns. So how do you at least TRY to achieve that goal? You accept backgrounding on your mental history and the mental histories of those under your roof.
If you have a better way, I'm all ears. Assuming you are among those who do think we need to try to keep guns away from kooks.
And if you want to respond with your calls for an armed society, I will again repeat that this is among the scariest notions ever and leave it at that.
Oh, and your comment about the push for various laws is based on fear - your goddamn right it's based on fear...fear of what happens when every Tom, Dick and Harriet has a gun. Your dystopian view about an armed society scares the shit out of me. I can just imagine your scenario of someone pulling out a gun and a bunch of other people firing back, not necessarily with good aim. Yeh, talk about the potential for a massacre indeed. I will definitely pass on that.

jsonaut: daves, reminds me of the old cream pie fight.

I'm happy to be in Australia where there are relatively few guns, but I can see that America is a different culture, and a different system.
This issue is so full-on cause both sides are right, from their own point of view. Maybe there is no "objective" right or wrong in this case. I don't know, but the freedom thing is a powerful idea.

LiptonCambell: >>>you give law enforcement the power to do criminal AND mental health background checks not only of the gun buyer, but the people in the gun buyer's house.

How are you suggesting law enforcement give an entire household a mental background check? Again- would this have prevented, say, Columbine or the Virgina Tech tragedy? Or the recent tragedy in Connecticut?

And if someone is found with a mental issue, but isn't intended on handling the gun- then no gun? How is that fair?

>>> So if you have a convicted felon in the house, or someone with a history of mental problems, the answer to the gun buyer is going to have to be no.

And this will stop violence with guns? I'm not convinced. If anything, it'll prevent criminals from legally getting guns- they'll just get it from the blackmarket.

Like the old saying goes- if you outlaw something, only outlaws will have it...

>>>Yep, that's potentially intrusive on a gun buyers' privacy.

Potentially? It absolutely does. Not just the gun buyers' privacy, but the privacy of everyone in the household.

When you get a drivers license, is the mental health and criminal history of your entire household put into question?

>>> So with the constitutional right to own a gun comes an obligation to be responsible in the community.

Lol don't re-interpret the constitution. If the framers of the Bill of Rights intended people to have their criminal and mental history of their family put into question, then that is what they would write down.

>>> So how do you at least TRY to achieve that goal? You accept backgrounding on your mental history and the mental histories of those under your roof.

Is it unreasonable to ask HOW IS THAT EFFECTIVE? Is it unreasonable to ask WHY WOULD THAT BE EFFECTIVE?

You assume your stance works, and conclude that if anyone disagrees that they are foolish. I believe your stance is a feel good measure that doesn't work.

>>>If you have a better way, I'm all ears.

Instead of mental and criminal background checks, make it so people must prove some aptitude behind gun handling and gun storage.

We make sure people have some aptitude behind the wheel before giving their driving license- why not here?

>>>And if you want to respond with your calls for an armed society, I will again repeat that this is among the scariest notions ever and leave it at that.

Glad to see how open-minded you are. You ask for my suggestion, and utterly refuse to consider it, without giving reasons why.

>>>Oh, and your comment about the push for various laws is based on fear - your goddamn right it's based on fear...fear of what happens when every Tom, Dick and Harriet has a gun.

Huh? Now you're getting all mixed up....the changes you are suggesting is already in a situation where not every Tom, Dick, and Harriet has a gun....in my changes, certainly they could, but not in the current situation, which is what your changes are attempting to effect. If that was the case, then you would just have to compare the reality to what you predict to happen, and see the startling difference.

>>> I can just imagine your scenario of someone pulling out a gun and a bunch of other people firing back, not necessarily with good aim.

Didn't I say that part of my changes is that the people who possess guns would be trained to use them?

Why are you misrepresenting my stance? Is your stance so weak that you must?

>>>Yeh, talk about the potential for a massacre indeed.

Wait....so you'd rather be in a situation where a psychopath has guns while regular people have none, rather than give those regular people a chance to fight for their lives?

And you have the gall to claim that giving these people a chance to fight for their lives will *cause* a massacre, but having them being completely defenseless wouldn't?

davesdatahut: How government would do this would be pretty intrusive, I agree. But it would involve background the buyer for a criminal history and a mental history. The buyer would have to sign a waiver allowing interviews with his or her employer or family members on the subject of his or her mental history and the mental history of family members. If the answer comes up with red flags, then yes, the answer is sorry, no gun. I suspect you might find that way too intrusive, but that is one way you could have stopped guns from getting into the Connecticut house or the hands of the Arizona or Colorado shooters. Unless you have a better idea. If you want a deadly weapon, prove that you are of sound mind and that you won't have that gun within arms reach of family members who are not. It is your responsibility as a gun owner.
And, no , it won't stop every nut from getting a gun. Nothing would stop every bad thing from happening. But it'd sure help.
As for the constitutional framers, they wrote broad guidelines for society to abide by, and for society to establish frameworks to carry out. So this is well within the right of society to do. Well within. If you carry your logic to the extreme, then every law in place now would have needed to be written into the constitution.
On the matter of letting everyone is packing a gun in their pocket, sorry, I am not willing to take the risk that people running around with guns will get good enough training that their aim is perfect and their mood on any given day is as well. No way, no how. You wanna hide behind your guns in your town, Lipton, and have a society that can't figure out how to get out of it's own way with that gun, have at it. I won't no part of that scary scenario.
As a coda, I will repeat what I have said in the past...people have a right to defend their homes and businesses. I do not oppose your right to own a gun. As long it's done responsibly.
I should also note that on the broader matter of gun violence beyond massacres, another way to reduce it is to legalize drugs. Large number of killings in crappy neighborhoods are drug-related. Legalize the drugs and there won't be no more drug dealers on the streets shooting at each other and anyone else nearby. See the end of Prohibition for a case study.