|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 7, 2016 8:42:38 GMT
AGAIN, PLEASE STOP THE POLITICAL BASHING. I said that political bashing was the main concern I had over discussing things like gun control when the board first opened, and also warned that I was quite willing to close down threads that started to head in that direction. You lot have shown yourselves to be fairly good at self moderating in the past, which is why I decided not to close this thread down to start with. Don't make me reconsider that decision. As a note, if you want to discuss sensitive topics in future contact the mods and ask for permission before starting such a thread. Noted and awarded myself a slap on the wrist for that one., starting this thread without asking... Again please DONT get me into trouble here by letting this descend into political, I had hoped we could do this without all that, I wanted to find a solution to the problem MINUS all the political wrangling?... I had hoped we could do this without annoying Cyber too much...?... or anyone else at that?... We are all from very different political interests, so, can we get this to "Cross party" talk stage without bringing the party into the talks at all, no "We as the laftist lunatic wing" or "Daym!Right paramilitary action group" thoughts, just individual thoughts and beliefs as to what should make good law and agreement that we can all get along with without any political bickering PLEASE..... When it comes to the finest minds on the plant having these types of discussion, perhaps we may be the ones who I would turn to first to have these discussions, so thats why I am having the idea you all should be the ones I ask..... And I didnt think. Therefore, I didnt ask the Mods if this was sensible. 'Cos we can all "Stupid" at times, and I may have been wrong with this idea?...
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 7, 2016 9:28:49 GMT
I won't pretend I'm not a little annoyed you didn't stop to think and ask the mods before posting. But as I said we have had discussions on this before where members showed themselves to be capable of self moderating and not descending into political rants or attacks. Hence not deleting the thread at the start.
For those of you who are descending into political ranting, try and step back and understand that both sides of the gun control issue have valid points.
On one hand it is clear that the majority of gun owners are not dangerous to themselves or others. As such it is rather unfair to punish everyone for the misdeeds of a few.
On the other hand guns kill, which the only thing they were designed to do, and it is hard to justify needing assault weapons for home or self defence...Lets face it if you are attacked by something that requires you to fire off 9 rounds a second your probably screwed anyway. You certainly don't want firearms in the hands of people who have little or no regard for anyone other than themselves.
Maybe one answer would be to treat the right to bear arms like driving, in that it is considered a privilege not a defaco right. Like driving maybe you should be required to undergo and pass a test to be given that right, with different tests and requirements being needed to own more powerful weapons, carry them out of the home and so on. Such a licence would have to be a federal one, presumably administered by the ATF, but individual states could decide to some degree as to what weapons would be covered by various licences. The testing would require that you show you can not only safely use firearms, but also can safely store them at home.
This would seem to me to be a fair compromise. The gun lobby likes to harp on about gun safety, so they can't really object to the idea of people having to prove they are safe to handle guns. While the control lobby can't really object to the idea on much the same grounds. The ability of individual states to decide, within reason, what firearms are covered by what level licence likewise doesn't override their laws regarding guns all that much - some States for example might decide that a basic licence covers bolt action hunting rifles.
Add in a provisional licence, which would allow you to own a gun if it is stored in a safe place, say a gunclub or by someone who has a full licence, and use a fire arm under supervision at a target range, and you should have a practical way of dealing with most complaints and issues.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 7, 2016 11:59:09 GMT
personally I don't see a problem. We're all adults here and have shown time and time again that we can disagree but still have civil discussions, all coming away the better for it.
For a board that is in a death spiral, I wouldn't be too picky on what is discussed. But you set up the board, that's your decision.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Jan 7, 2016 14:37:22 GMT
I won't pretend I'm not a little annoyed you didn't stop to think and ask the mods before posting. But as I said we have had discussions on this before where members showed themselves to be capable of self moderating and not descending into political rants or attacks. Hence not deleting the thread at the start. For those of you who are descending into political ranting, try and step back and understand that both sides of the gun control issue have valid points. On one hand it is clear that the majority of gun owners are not dangerous to themselves or others. As such it is rather unfair to punish everyone for the misdeeds of a few. On the other hand guns kill, which the only thing they were designed to do, and it is hard to justify needing assault weapons for home or self defence...Lets face it if you are attacked by something that requires you to fire off 9 rounds a second your probably screwed anyway. You certainly don't want firearms in the hands of people who have little or no regard for anyone other than themselves. Maybe one answer would be to treat the right to bear arms like driving, in that it is considered a privilege not a defaco right. Like driving maybe you should be required to undergo and pass a test to be given that right, with different tests and requirements being needed to own more powerful weapons, carry them out of the home and so on. Such a licence would have to be a federal one, presumably administered by the ATF, but individual states could decide to some degree as to what weapons would be covered by various licences. The testing would require that you show you can not only safely use firearms, but also can safely store them at home. This would seem to me to be a fair compromise. The gun lobby likes to harp on about gun safety, so they can't really object to the idea of people having to prove they are safe to handle guns. While the control lobby can't really object to the idea on much the same grounds. The ability of individual states to decide, within reason, what firearms are covered by what level licence likewise doesn't override their laws regarding guns all that much - some States for example might decide that a basic licence covers bolt action hunting rifles. Add in a provisional licence, which would allow you to own a gun if it is stored in a safe place, say a gunclub or by someone who has a full licence, and use a fire arm under supervision at a target range, and you should have a practical way of dealing with most complaints and issues. You willing to do the same for voter ID? Owning a gun cannot be a privilege under the current Constitution.TSCOTUS upheld under Heller the right of the individual to own a firearm. Asking for "common sense gun control" while going out of your way (as most of the politicians on a certain side) to do the opposite for voter id does not make much sense to me. My collection ranges from a Harper's Ferry pre Civil War musket to very exotic NFA items, yet Teddy Kennedy's car has killed more than my guns since they left the military. Overall the government is very poor at protecting us. When seconds count the police are minutes away. That gun at the club is useless to me at home. Look at Chicago, very strict gun laws, yet how many shootings every day? On the old fan club board we had interesting discussions about AR-15 type rifles as home defense. Especially with frangible projectiles and a suppressor, they make excellent defense, and the projectiles have less penetration through walls than one would expect ( especially compared to a 230 grain .45 ACP round. As to full auto, the faces of the MB team when firing speaks for itself. Just like a Ferrari you don't need it but it is sure fun to own, and live in a society where you have the liberty to buy it should you want. Just like tanks, armored cars and other "useless" items. Liberty should rule.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 7, 2016 15:56:14 GMT
With great rights come great responsibilities.
every time someone says personal liberty is more important than keeping kids from getting shot, another person decides maybe it is time to rethink the second amendment.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 7, 2016 15:59:45 GMT
In the case of the United States the issue isn't laws, it is culture. The UK has FAR stricter gun laws than any part of the US, but it is also very clear that those criminals in the UK who want firearms can get them. They tend not to however. Not because of the laws in place but because there is no strong gun culture in the UK, except what has been imported from the US. You don't need to go into the history of the US to see the evidence of this, you just need to look at pop culture. American tv shows, especially action or adventure series, almost always have the hero(s) holding and using guns. Be that Star Trek, Star Wars, CSI, Bones and so on. There are only three shows I can think of where the heroes never use firearms. Buffy the vampire slayer (although they do use crossbows), Knight Rider and McGyver. Compare this to British tv series, where unless the show has been made with an eye towards overseas markets (meaning the US) the heroes rarely if ever have guns of any kind - The Doctor for example has only picked up a gun three times since the regeneration back in 2004, in only one case was the gun even pointed at a living being and in all three cases he shot inanimate objects or machinery. The basic attitude between the two countries is that in the UK guns are usually viewed as being more trouble than they are worth. While in the US they are often seen as the ultimate problem solvers. But this is not that surprising, unlike the US Britain wasn't formed or settled in the gun age, never needed firearms to protect against dangerous wildlife (we managed to wipe that out with the bow and the spear) and while the English civil war was fought at the time of the musket this was at the very beginning of that period so battles were decided more by the sword and pike than firearms. (To say nothing about the civil war effectively being reversed within a generation). in MacGyver the bad guys used guns. McGyver once used a gun as a wrench.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 7, 2016 17:01:41 GMT
Actually Mac used guns at least seven times in the shows 7 seasons and the two tv films. Twice he used a gun as a wrench, twice used automatic rifles as a distraction (held up in a basic rig firing into the ground), twice fired a gun at inanimate objects (once as a kid in an episode that showed why he hated guns and once in a tv movie. Both occasions showed he was actually a remarkable shot) and in the first five minutes of the pilot episode he picked up a rifle and fired it at the bad guys. (Although it isn't clear if he was actually aiming at them or just trying to keep their heads down).
I know rather a lot about the show, having watched all the episodes while taking notes. Where do you think mythbusters got the McGyver cement truck myth that will be aired in the last season from? It is actually a remarkably good series, even though it started towards the end of the cold war so had a lot of episodes regarding the Soviet Union in its first few seasons. If you haven't seen McGyver before, which is likely if you are not American, it is one of those series worth looking at.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 7, 2016 17:09:39 GMT
Actually Mac used guns at least seven times in the shows 7 seasons and the two tv films. Twice he used a gun as a wrench, twice used automatic rifles as a distraction (held up in a basic rig firing into the ground), twice fired a gun at inanimate objects (once as a kid in an episode that showed why he hated guns and once in a tv movie. Both occasions showed he was actually a remarkable shot) and in the first five minutes of the pilot episode he picked up a rifle and fired it at the bad guys. (Although it isn't clear if he was actually aiming at them or just trying to keep their heads down). I know rather a lot about the show, having watched all the episodes while taking notes. Where do you think mythbusters got the McGyver cement truck myth that will be aired in the last season from? It is actually a remarkably good series, even though it started towards the end of the cold war so had a lot of episodes regarding the Soviet Union in its first few seasons. If you haven't seen McGyver before, which is likely if you are not American, it is one of those series worth looking at. In an interview done while he was starring in Stargate he (Richard Dean Anderson) mentioned that while he is opposed to guns, he really had a lot of fun shooting guns in Stargate.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Jan 7, 2016 18:32:23 GMT
With great rights come great responsibilities. every time someone says personal liberty is more important than keeping kids from getting shot, another person decides maybe it is time to rethink the second amendment. Yes that personal liberty comes with responsibility. 4 rules of gun safety. I was taught at a very young age. I have taught my children. I do feel Liberty while not a natural human condition can win. I believe in the country my ancestors fought to found.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Jan 7, 2016 18:38:12 GMT
In the case of the United States the issue isn't laws, it is culture. The UK has FAR stricter gun laws than any part of the US, but it is also very clear that those criminals in the UK who want firearms can get them. They tend not to however. Not because of the laws in place but because there is no strong gun culture in the UK, except what has been imported from the US. You don't need to go into the history of the US to see the evidence of this, you just need to look at pop culture. American tv shows, especially action or adventure series, almost always have the hero(s) holding and using guns. Be that Star Trek, Star Wars, CSI, Bones and so on. There are only three shows I can think of where the heroes never use firearms. Buffy the vampire slayer (although they do use crossbows), Knight Rider and McGyver. Compare this to British tv series, where unless the show has been made with an eye towards overseas markets (meaning the US) the heroes rarely if ever have guns of any kind - The Doctor for example has only picked up a gun three times since the regeneration back in 2004, in only one case was the gun even pointed at a living being and in all three cases he shot inanimate objects or machinery. The basic attitude between the two countries is that in the UK guns are usually viewed as being more trouble than they are worth. While in the US they are often seen as the ultimate problem solvers. But this is not that surprising, unlike the US Britain wasn't formed or settled in the gun age, never needed firearms to protect against dangerous wildlife (we managed to wipe that out with the bow and the spear) and while the English civil war was fought at the time of the musket this was at the very beginning of that period so battles were decided more by the sword and pike than firearms. (To say nothing about the civil war effectively being reversed within a generation). in MacGyver the bad guys used guns. McGyver once used a gun as a wrench. The spear bow and arrow that civilized the wilderness were the gun of their age. Some of the best collections of early weapons I have ever seen are in the UK. I bet if rolls were reversed the out come would be similar.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 7, 2016 18:48:01 GMT
The basic attitude between the two countries is that in the UK guns are usually viewed as being more trouble than they are worth. While in the US they are often seen as the ultimate problem solvers. But this is not that surprising, unlike the US Britain wasn't formed or settled in the gun age, never needed firearms to protect against dangerous wildlife (we managed to wipe that out with the bow and the spear) and while the English civil war was fought at the time of the musket this was at the very beginning of that period so battles were decided more by the sword and pike than firearms. (To say nothing about the civil war effectively being reversed within a generation). There's more to it than just that, however. For most Americans, a gun is nothing more than a potentially dangerous tool. It's a means to protect oneself and one's loved ones against a variety of dangers, including criminals and wild animals.* It's also a means of bringing down game animals, most of which are taken in for food.** And for some, it's a means of sport due to assorted target-shooting competitions. While a weapon can be used to protect against egregious government oppression, this is only as a last resort when all other alternatives (such as petitioning for redress and public discourse) have failed. The issue comes when we have people who take them to the extremes. On one hand, we have the Bundy types who seem to think that the government is coming for them any day now and so they must create their own private arsenals. On the other hand, we have the "thug" types who think that "having a gun" is a symbol of their personal power. If we can reach the extremes and change their culture, then this will be a big part of the gun violence problem right here. *In my part of Texas, for example, we have a major issue with feral hogs. Not only do these animals cause absurd amounts of damage to public and private property alike, a number of them have proven so aggressive that they'll even go after people and animals. In some counties, the feral hogs are such a direct threat to public well-being that various organizations have even set out bounties for harvesting them. *Texas, at least, has what are known as "wastage laws" on the books. If you take an animal as game, you must process all edible meat from the carcass. As a result, the edible meat above and beyond what is needed for any trophies that a person will take are typically donated to third parties, such as food banks.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Jan 7, 2016 19:07:36 GMT
With great rights come great responsibilities. every time someone says personal liberty is more important than keeping kids from getting shot, another person decides maybe it is time to rethink the second amendment. If it would save just one child, should we not outlaw alcohol, tobacco, cars and everything else that kills children?
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 7, 2016 20:45:01 GMT
With great rights come great responsibilities. every time someone says personal liberty is more important than keeping kids from getting shot, another person decides maybe it is time to rethink the second amendment. If it would save just one child, should we not outlaw alcohol, tobacco, cars and everything else that kills children? All of the above have age limits and in the case of cars require a licence and test to prove you are reasonably safe to use. To me it only makes sense if it was also a requirement to prove you are reasonably competent and safe before being allowed to own a gun. This isn't a question of refusing to allow gun ownership, as anyone would be able to apply for a licence unless bared on the grounds of mental illness or criminal records. Nor would a licence scheme prevent ownership of more powerful weapons automatically require a higher licence if individual States are allowed to decide what different levels of licence would cover within reason. For example a basic licence in New York City might only cover hand guns up to 9mm calibre, but not hunting rifles or shotguns. The same licence in Texas might cover basic handguns, bolt action rifles and shotguns. Likewise a learners permit may only allow you to have and fire guns within the confines of a target range in cities. While in other places it may be considered legal to use a firearm for, say, hunting and practice if you are under the supervision of someone who holds a full basic licence. The gun lobby seems to argue, not unreasonably, that guns are only as dangerous as the person holding them. So why would they not want to have a system that requires people to prove that will be the case? And just as importantly is teaching those that would be unsafe, and often give gun owners a bad name? This isn't going to stop gun crime, criminals are always going to be able to get their hands on fire arms. But it should drastically reduce the number of fatalities caused by stupid accidents when owners don't treat guns with the caution they deserve. That idea, that criminals are going to get guns if they want them, is something the gun control lobby needs to accept in turn. Banning firearms isn't the answer here, and changing the gun culture isn't something you can do by passing laws. Indeed it is not unreasonable to say that trying to ban or strictly restrict firearms would only make things worse. You'd end up with people owning guns anyway, but without any legal way to learn how to store or use them safely. The result would be an increase in gun related accidents. To say nothing of The increase in firearms in criminal hands as status symbols. This, btw, is ignoring the constitutional angle in the US and simply looking at the practicality and effects such measures would have. Constitutionally speaking there are in effect amendments and exceptions to a lot of the parts of the US constitution, including firearms. Adding in a requirement that you need to show reasonable understanding as to how to safely own and use a gun by passing a test shouldn't be something anyone objects to. In fact if the gun lobby were to think about it it is something they should support. After all if there are several levels of licence, each having stricter criteria to obtain in order to own more powerful weapons, it seems likely that some states that outright ban some types of firearm may make them legal again.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Jan 7, 2016 22:01:23 GMT
Since the bill of rights, there have only been 17 amendments. The Constitution cannot be changed otherwise There are no "exceptions"
My dad was the one who determined when I was safe to have a firearm. He was much stricter than any government test as he was not only a NRA instructor, but a Ohio State Highway Patrolman. He gave me my first an M-1 Carbine. I bought my first gun, an M-1 Garand through the Department of Civilian Marksmanship when I was 18. My high school had a rifle team. I have shot all my life.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 8, 2016 3:15:33 GMT
With great rights come great responsibilities. every time someone says personal liberty is more important than keeping kids from getting shot, another person decides maybe it is time to rethink the second amendment. If it would save just one child, should we not outlaw alcohol, tobacco, cars and everything else that kills children? the proportion of children killed through negligence with the above in relation to the number of kids killed through misbehavior is significantly higher than the same statistics with guns. you hear about a nutbar driving a car through a crowd now and then, but not as often as you hear about a nutbar either buying a gun from an alternate source, or killing a friend or family member and taking THEIR gun - and going on a shooting spree.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 8, 2016 3:17:09 GMT
Since the bill of rights, there have only been 17 amendments. The Constitution cannot be changed otherwise There are no "exceptions" My dad was the one who determined when I was safe to have a firearm. He was much stricter than any government test as he was not only a NRA instructor, but a Ohio State Highway Patrolman. He gave me my first an M-1 Carbine. I bought my first gun, an M-1 Garand through the Department of Civilian Marksmanship when I was 18. My high school had a rifle team. I have shot all my life. my first gun was a .22 magnum Derringer. I bought it when I was 18, with no paperwork or background check. traded it in later on a rifle.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 8, 2016 9:29:48 GMT
Since the bill of rights, there have only been 17 amendments. The Constitution cannot be changed otherwise There are no "exceptions" My dad was the one who determined when I was safe to have a firearm. He was much stricter than any government test as he was not only a NRA instructor, but a Ohio State Highway Patrolman. He gave me my first an M-1 Carbine. I bought my first gun, an M-1 Garand through the Department of Civilian Marksmanship when I was 18. My high school had a rifle team. I have shot all my life. There are limitations as to what is and is not covered by the constitution, the right to bear arms doesn't cover convicted felons nor does it prevent States requiring licences or banning concealed weapons. That is what I meant by exceptions rather than ammending the right in itself. You are one of the lucky ones, in that you were taught how to handle firearms by someone who was not only a responsible owner but an expert. Unfortunately this can't be said for most gun owners, who were either taught by people who were not professional's or responsible. Or never had any training at all. There is, at present, nothing to stop someone who has never even handled a gun before from going out and buying one. It is these types of owners that cause the most problems. In this light you should see the idea of a tested licence as being a good thing as it would lower the number of accidents caused by such owners. In turn this would help protect against calls for further restrictions on gun ownership. As for comments about government tests...who do you think they are going to ask to help in regards working out the criteria for those tests and who do you think are going to be doing the teaching? Yeap, its going to be people like your dad. While you may have a right to own a gun under the constitution, I don't think anyone could really argue that you don't also have a responsibility to use, maintain and store that gun in a manner that doesn't pose a danger to those around you. Be that family members or someone who happens to be walking past your house at the wrong moment. Responsible owners and professionals already know this, evidence for which comes from members of this very board who have discussed how they were taught to view and use guns. Regrettably there are far to many who for one reason or another are not responsible owners. For example leaving loaded firearms where young kids can play with them, or shooting guns into the air where they pose a clear danger to people miles away.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 8, 2016 15:15:34 GMT
in fact that "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" clause implies the responsibility that goes with the right.
you know, the clause the most vocal gun proliferation supporters either ignore or try to pass off the claim that by "regulated" they meant "armed to the teeth"
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 8, 2016 16:02:26 GMT
in fact that "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" clause implies the responsibility that goes with the right. you know, the clause the most vocal gun proliferation supporters either ignore or try to pass off the claim that by "regulated" they meant "armed to the teeth" Or some think "regulated" means under control of the government.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 8, 2016 16:19:22 GMT
in fact that "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" clause implies the responsibility that goes with the right. you know, the clause the most vocal gun proliferation supporters either ignore or try to pass off the claim that by "regulated" they meant "armed to the teeth" Or some think "regulated" means under control of the government. I think "regulated" means organized and disciplined. - considering that in context "militia" means an independent volunteer army of civilians.
|
|