Guns, the NRA, the constitution and senseless shootings

[jgmacg]

Posted this on another thread. But CNN got the gun shop owner from who the shooter purchased the gun. He said the guy had three forms of legit ID and passed the background check (no criminal record). Investigation so far shows that the gun shop owner did everything right, and the sale was legal. The gun shop owner has no way of knowing the guy has stalked women and was referred to counseling by Virginia Tech. So let's quit assigning blame to gun laws.

Virginia has some of the worst gun regulation in the country.

 

[HejiraHenry]

Posted this on another thread. But CNN got the gun shop owner from who the shooter purchased the gun. He said the guy had three forms of legit ID and passed the background check (no criminal record). Investigation so far shows that the gun shop owner did everything right, and the sale was legal. The gun shop owner has no way of knowing the guy has stalked women and was referred to counseling by Virginia Tech. So let's quit assigning blame to gun laws.

Virginia has some of the worst gun regulation in the country.

Sorry, but providing ID/background check for gun purchases is a federal law, no?

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

I was wondering how long it would take JR to blame this on the U.S., too. Gee, and just when I was starting to like you.

And I'm so madly in love with you I've ditched my partner.

No blame, baby.

But most of the guns that kill people in Canada come from the U.S.

Just a fact.

Of course.

And they just jump up on their own and kill innocent, simon-pure Canadians.

If you didnt' have us to blame for your ills, what would you do?

 

[Oz]

I was wondering how long it would take JR to blame this on the U.S., too. Gee, and just when I was starting to like you.

And I'm so madly in love with you I've ditched my partner.

No blame, baby.

But most of the guns that kill people in Canada come from the U.S.

Just a fact.

Of course.

And they just jump up on their own and kill innocent, simon-pure Canadians.

Happens all the time. Like on the Sopranos last week.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

Spectacular work, Alma.

Just spectacular.

 

[dog428]

I love the people who proclaim that handguns deter violent crime. My ass. For every instance in which a handgun is used to stop ANY crime, there are a 1,000 cases in which buying a handgun turns out not so good.

The fact of the matter is, you buy a handgun for one reason: A false sense of security.

You buy that hunk of metal, it makes you feel a little more manly, a little more invincible. You imagine all the great ways you'll be able to use it to send bad guys scurrying away, awed by your really cool gun.

The problem is, when it comes time to use it, you, the law-abiding citizen, will pause and consider the ramifications of taking a human life. The bad guys very rarely do that.

The bottom line is this: We make handguns illegal and start a concerted, well-funded, nationwide effort to get the things off the streets, you'll see the murder rates in this country drop like a damn rock.

 

[jgmacg]

Posted this on another thread. But CNN got the gun shop owner from who the shooter purchased the gun. He said the guy had three forms of legit ID and passed the background check (no criminal record). Investigation so far shows that the gun shop owner did everything right, and the sale was legal. The gun shop owner has no way of knowing the guy has stalked women and was referred to counseling by Virginia Tech. So let's quit assigning blame to gun laws.

Virginia has some of the worst gun regulation in the country.

Sorry, but providing ID/background check for gun purchases is a federal law, no?

Nope. State. The Feds allow access to the NCIC database to check for wants and warrants, but gun purchase is state regulated. And Virginia's regulations stink. They remain some of the loosest in the country.

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

I love the people who proclaim that handguns deter violent crime. My ass. For every instance in which a handgun is used to stop ANY crime, there are a 1,000 cases in which buying a handgun turns out not so good.

The fact of the matter is, you buy a handgun for one reason: A false sense of security.

You buy that hunk of metal, it makes you feel a little more manly, a little more invincible. You imagine all the great ways you'll be able to use it to send bad guys scurrying away, awed by your really cool gun.

The problem is, when it comes time to use it, you, the law-abiding citizen, will pause and consider the ramifications of taking a human life. The bad guys very rarely do that.

The bottom line is this: We make handguns illegal and start a concerted, well-funded, nationwide effort to get the things off the streets, you'll see the murder rates in this country drop like a damn rock.

d

The problem is, when it comes time to use it, you, the law-abiding citizen, will pause and consider the ramifications of taking a human life. The bad guys very rarely do that.

The bottom line is this: We make handguns illegal and start a concerted, well-funded, nationwide effort to get the things off the streets, you'll see the murder rates in this country drop like a damn rock.

So of course, the bad guys will give up their weapons without complaint. At least in dog's Fantasy World, wherever that is (and please, I want no part of it).

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[Tom Petty]

[book picture]

Read it, learn it, live it.

Tom, you are going to the extremes with your argument. The computer's sole purpose for existence is NOT to provide child porn. It was invented for work. It continues to be used for work. The fact that some people hijacked it for their own sick pleasure does not mean it cannot do work any longer.

The same cannot be said about guns. Their sole purpose is to destroy. I have yet to read the story about the guy who fired his gun at his wife only to have flowers come out. Once that trigger is pulled, something will be destroyed.

You can't use the gun as a pillow. It is not very soft and not shaped properly for this use either.

You cannot use a gun to stir up some soup you making. Well, I guess you can if you enjoy the taste oil from inside the gun's barrel.

You can't sign a contract with a gun. You can't browse the web with a gun.

It is because of this that the gun discussion is different than just about any other.

i'm sorry my friend, but you are the one going to extremes. i don't own a gun for the purpose of destroying ... that's where your logic breaks down.

also, you're not going to use a computer as a pillow or to stir soup either, chief. what other household item do you use to both sleep on and stir soup with? this is not a valid argument, and i think you know that.

 

[Tom Petty]

Protection is all fine and well, whether it's against criminals or a tyrannical government.

The Second Amendment gives "a well-regulated militia" the right to bear arms against domestic despots. In an era when tyranny reigned, and the people had just overthrown an inept monarchy ruling them from across an ocean, that right needed to be clearly spelled out.

And when the time comes to form "a well-regulated militia" against another tyrannical government, then we will have that right in our Constitution.

It doesn't give every Tom, deck and Harry the right to protect the womenfolk and chit'len with a rifle in the closet and a 9mm in the glove compartment.

But we obsess over protection in this country, we obsess over security. heck, we even gave up a shirtload of civil liberties to gain more temporary security when the Patriot Act was passed ... and then passed again.

There is no such thing as 100% protection. It's impossible to foster, it's especially impossible to promise, and it's simply foolish to believe that your government or your gun-owning head of household can provide it.

Your own post contradicts itself on several points, there Buck.
"The well-regulated militia" clause is often touted by gun control advocates, yet they seem to want to leave that regulation to the government. Well, if the government is tyrannical, and the time comes to overthrow it, how will it happen if the right to bear arms is lost? Do you really think the government is going to put the second amendment back in the constitution once it's gone? Or give a pissed-off citizenry the means to overthrow said government?
The same could be said of free speech, fair trials and search and seizure.
And "well-regulated" seems to be the order of the day in any case. How many gun laws are out there, whether they're enforced or not? I'd say our government has done a pretty fair job of trying to regulate our militia.

And you say there's no such thing as 100% protection. That's true. I could be the victim of a gun-toting psycho tomorrow...or a hammer-toting psycho...or bat-wielding psycho...you get the idea. But evening the odds gives people a little more of a fighting chance.
If there was one lesson I thought would be learned from Hurricane Katrina, it would be how quickly society can break down when all of our creature comforts are stripped away. If, god forbid, there were another terrorist attack or hurricane, things break down. Looting occurs. There's no food coming in. Guns are tools in that type of situation, offering protection and life.

How hard is it to understand? We have around 30,000 gun deaths in this country per year. Combine the populations of England, Ireland, Japan, Canada, Sweden and Australia and you're about at the population of the U.S., I'm guessing. They have less than 2,000 gun deaths, combined. I'm paraphrasing someone, I forget who, but do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or is it because those countries have strict gun-control laws?

how's that whole war on drugs -- a war declared in '72 i believe -- workin' out for us?

 

[dog428]

I love the people who proclaim that handguns deter violent crime. My ass. For every instance in which a handgun is used to stop ANY crime, there are a 1,000 cases in which buying a handgun turns out not so good.

The fact of the matter is, you buy a handgun for one reason: A false sense of security.

You buy that hunk of metal, it makes you feel a little more manly, a little more invincible. You imagine all the great ways you'll be able to use it to send bad guys scurrying away, awed by your really cool gun.

The problem is, when it comes time to use it, you, the law-abiding citizen, will pause and consider the ramifications of taking a human life. The bad guys very rarely do that.

The bottom line is this: We make handguns illegal and start a concerted, well-funded, nationwide effort to get the things off the streets, you'll see the murder rates in this country drop like a damn rock.

d

The problem is, when it comes time to use it, you, the law-abiding citizen, will pause and consider the ramifications of taking a human life. The bad guys very rarely do that.

The bottom line is this: We make handguns illegal and start a concerted, well-funded, nationwide effort to get the things off the streets, you'll see the murder rates in this country drop like a damn rock.

So of course, the bad guys will give up their weapons without complaint. At least in dog's Fantasy World, wherever that is (and please, I want no part of it).

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

So, you just skipped through the entire post and jumped immediately to: "Trying to take guns away, quick, make standard argument?"

It doesn't MATTER what the criminals are doing. The fact that you own a gun makes you no safer. It's your little security blanket that you pull over your head to keep the monsters out. Of all the things that might deter crime, you owning a gun is so far down the list it's not worth mentioning.

And you can get a ton of the guns off the streets. This idea that "the criminals won't turn their guns over" is so flawed it's laughable.

Maybe you've seen a gun. It's a big-ass hunk of metal that's somewhat difficult to conceal.

Every time a "bad guy" is busted for anything, the guns are taken. Every time a "bad guy" turns without signaling and has his car searched, the guns are taken.

You start taking all the guns off the street and there are no more in production, you get a drop in guns, no matter who's willfully turning them over.

 

[dog428]

Protection is all fine and well, whether it's against criminals or a tyrannical government.

The Second Amendment gives "a well-regulated militia" the right to bear arms against domestic despots. In an era when tyranny reigned, and the people had just overthrown an inept monarchy ruling them from across an ocean, that right needed to be clearly spelled out.

And when the time comes to form "a well-regulated militia" against another tyrannical government, then we will have that right in our Constitution.

It doesn't give every Tom, deck and Harry the right to protect the womenfolk and chit'len with a rifle in the closet and a 9mm in the glove compartment.

But we obsess over protection in this country, we obsess over security. heck, we even gave up a shirtload of civil liberties to gain more temporary security when the Patriot Act was passed ... and then passed again.

There is no such thing as 100% protection. It's impossible to foster, it's especially impossible to promise, and it's simply foolish to believe that your government or your gun-owning head of household can provide it.

Your own post contradicts itself on several points, there Buck.
"The well-regulated militia" clause is often touted by gun control advocates, yet they seem to want to leave that regulation to the government. Well, if the government is tyrannical, and the time comes to overthrow it, how will it happen if the right to bear arms is lost? Do you really think the government is going to put the second amendment back in the constitution once it's gone? Or give a pissed-off citizenry the means to overthrow said government?
The same could be said of free speech, fair trials and search and seizure.
And "well-regulated" seems to be the order of the day in any case. How many gun laws are out there, whether they're enforced or not? I'd say our government has done a pretty fair job of trying to regulate our militia.

And you say there's no such thing as 100% protection. That's true. I could be the victim of a gun-toting psycho tomorrow...or a hammer-toting psycho...or bat-wielding psycho...you get the idea. But evening the odds gives people a little more of a fighting chance.
If there was one lesson I thought would be learned from Hurricane Katrina, it would be how quickly society can break down when all of our creature comforts are stripped away. If, god forbid, there were another terrorist attack or hurricane, things break down. Looting occurs. There's no food coming in. Guns are tools in that type of situation, offering protection and life.

How hard is it to understand? We have around 30,000 gun deaths in this country per year. Combine the populations of England, Ireland, Japan, Canada, Sweden and Australia and you're about at the population of the U.S., I'm guessing. They have less than 2,000 gun deaths, combined. I'm paraphrasing someone, I forget who, but do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or is it because those countries have strict gun-control laws?

how's that whole war on drugs -- a war declared in '72 i believe -- workin' out for us?

There wouldn't be a war at this point if the major suppliers of drugs were shut down.

You stop the gun manufacturers from making handguns, the number of guns on the street drops like a rock inside a year. And the murder rate follows right behind it.