Enough already...

[Repertoire]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

I read somewhere that the majority of gun deaths are suicides. If true, brings up other issues, such as the military wars we're waging.

Not trying to spam this thread, but that's very interesting and I'll be sourcing it



Edit: added this source

"In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600."

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/...S/GUNSTAT.html

[engelbach]

Deaths from firearms, whether homicides or suicides, would be reduced were they banned.

According to the ATF, only 10-15% of guns used by criminals are stolen. The rest are legally registered guns, although they may have been transferred illegally or acquired with false affidavits and documents.

A black market in guns would be nothing like the black market in alcohol during Prohibition or that in drugs now. It's much harder and more expensive to smuggle guns than alcohol or drugs.

Prohibition didn't work because it was too unpopular, and it was easy for organized crime to bribe politicians and cops to look the other way.

Drugs are easy to produce, transport, and smuggle, and pot is immensely popular.

Arms manufacturing is not something done on a farm or with a still. And were guns to be banned I doubt that all those law-abiding former gun owners would go to the great expense and risk a prison term to acquire one on the black market.

I might have said that it'd be okay for single-shot weapons to be legal. But now that I know that more gun deaths are by suicides than any other cause, why make it easy for people to kill themselves?

[jazzbluescat]

Originally Posted by engelbach

Deaths from firearms, whether homicides or suicides, would be reduced were they banned.

According to the ATF, only 10-15% of guns used by criminals are stolen. The rest are legally registered guns, although they may have been transferred illegally or acquired with false affidavits and documents.

A black market in guns would be nothing like the black market in alcohol during Prohibition or that in drugs now. It's much harder and more expensive to smuggle guns than alcohol or drugs.

Prohibition didn't work because it was too unpopular, and it was easy for organized crime to bribe politicians and cops to look the other way.

Drugs are easy to produce, transport, and smuggle, and pot is immensely popular.

Arms manufacturing is not something done on a farm or with a still. And were guns to be banned I doubt that all those law-abiding former gun owners would go to the great expense and risk a prison term to acquire one on the black market.

I might have said that it'd be okay for single-shot weapons to be legal. But now that I know that more gun deaths are by suicides than any other cause, why make it easy for people to kill themselves?

Jerry, you make some very interesting suppositions and observations. But we/you really should drop the argument 'if firearms were banned, etc.' You know, what if pigs could fly?' Meaning no disrespect, but "the camel is already in the tent." We certainly need more controls, but I fear our love of freedom is biting us in the ass on this one. And the gun manufacturers, the NRA, et al, will use that excuse if the argument every comes to that particular bottom line, and they'll win. As distasteful as it may be I'll be with them, albeit for different reasons.

And yes, the black market would flourish to rival Prohibition if guns were totally banned.

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

Jerry, you make some very interesting suppositions and observations. But we/you really should drop the argument 'if firearms were banned, etc.' You know, what if pigs could fly?' Meaning no disrespect, but "the camel is already in the tent." We certainly need more controls, but I fear our love of freedom is biting us in the ass on this one. And the gun manufacturers, the NRA, et al, will use that excuse if the argument every comes to that particular bottom line, and they'll win. As distasteful as it may be I'll be with them, albeit for different reasons.

And yes, the black market would flourish to rival Prohibition if guns were totally banned.

It's not an "if," as in wishful thinking. It's a proposal, a demand, whatever you want to call it, with arguments and statistics to back it up.

One has to start from a position of principle. Compromise comes at the end of negotiations.

We both know that no gun control legislation that this Congress proposes will have enough teeth in it to make any real difference. I'm not going to take a position that I know in advance would be meaningless. If I'm going to lose I want to know that I at least stood for something.

I'm dubious about that black market. The average person risking prison for a gun? I doubt it.

[jazzbluescat]

Originally Posted by engelbach

It's not an "if," as in wishful thinking. It's a proposal, a demand, whatever you want to call it, with arguments and statistics to back it up.

One has to start from a position of principle. Compromise comes at the end of negotiations.

We both know that no gun control legislation that this Congress proposes will have enough teeth in it to make any real difference. I'm not going to take a position that I know in advance would be meaningless. If I'm going to lose I want to know that I at least stood for something.

I'm dubious about that black market. The average person risking prison for a gun? I doubt it.

Well, if your position is to ban all guns then you've already lost.

If it's reasonable control, actually just enforcing the laws we already have which would entail some intent/spirit of the law, of firearms/ammo/accessories sales and buyer screening, then you might have a reasonable argument.

The "all or nothing" stance ain't gonna get us anywhere. That's what's wrong with our current Congress in the first place.

[Repertoire]

Originally Posted by engelbach

I might have said that it'd be okay for single-shot weapons to be legal. But now that I know that more gun deaths are by suicides than any other cause, why make it easy for people to kill themselves?

In my opinion suicide should be easy, for advanced terminal illness it's a reasonable option. Or mental illness, such as the issues Ernest Hemmingway was having.

On the other hand if someone wants to kill themselves from depression, I'd rather they use a gun than a knife as it would be less painful for them. Jumping off a bridge is just a shitty way to die as well

[Jay Norem]

I want a gun, a firearm. We, my wife and I, live in what has turned out to be a dangerous neighborhood, and we can't afford to move.

Just tonight there were three police cars across the street, at the house that's been broken into before. I don't know why they were there, but they were there, just like before.

I'm going to buy a Remington 20 gauge 870 shotgun in the "tactical" configuration, which means that it has a short barrel and it's black. It holds six rounds, six shells of 00 shot.

What are you going to do? What am I supposed to do? Sit around like a jerk or be prepared?

I'll tell you something that is absolutely true. There's a gas station about a mile from where I live. There are a couple of guys who sell guns there. It's a very scary place fill your car up.

Will I feel safer with a shotgun at my immediate disposal? I suppose I would. Anyway I'm getting one.

[good rhythms]

jay, i can understand your concern...my once tranquil neighborhood is getting more and more violent , with an asault /murder , kiddy corner from where i live , last year ,reports of homes being broken into , the people violently held hostage and someone i know had it happened and had a gun pointed at his head etc

the thing is, unless you are sitting in your chair with your gun loaded and you are awake to hear the people breaking in, more than likely, they will get the drop on you, and end up getting your gun

but, who knows,if it happens to me, i might re think my position and arm myself

[jav]

I am adamently against guns, and have been all my life. I am also an ethical vegetarian, so I hate hunting as well, and suffer through the sounds of gunshots in the air during hunting season in my country home. I have argued passionately for gun control, wishing for an end to the madness fueled by the closed minded black and white thinking of so many arrogant and ignorant pro gun folks. Yesterday I spent the better part of the afternoon reading and contemplating the compelling blog by author and gun expert Larry Correia on his Monster Hunting site. It was hard to ignore some of the swipes at those of us left of center, but it was a compelling read nevertheless. Pushing aside my personal feelings, he appeared to address all of the issues we in favor of gun control have raised and counter the practicality of each. I am not yet ready to change my views, and no matter what will never embrace the gun culture, but at the very least it has made me question rather I am educated enough about the issues to be engaging in the debate in an informed and meaningful way. I wish an equally competant supporter of sane gun control could as easily be found and offer counter points that would broaden the discussion in a way that would give me hope that sane gun control measures would be productive in addressing this madness. Has anybody else read this article, and if so what is your opinion. Have I given this guy more credence than he deserves?

[jav]

Since writing the above post have located the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence web site that looks promising to enhance the discussion in my head, and the Op- Ed piece from the LA Times on December 20th by Federal District Judge Larry Alan Burns sure sounds reasonable. This issue and that blog I read yesterday in particular have really kicked my butt for now, here I am a radical leftist never at a loss for a passionate opinion stating that a very conservative judge's take on gun issues now sounds reasonable to me!

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

Well, if your position is to ban all guns then you've already lost.

If it's reasonable control, actually just enforcing the laws we already have which would entail some intent/spirit of the law, of firearms/ammo/accessories sales and buyer screening, then you might have a reasonable argument.

The "all or nothing" stance ain't gonna get us anywhere. That's what's wrong with our current Congress in the first place.

Having a strong, principled stand is not an "all or nothing" position. It's where you start a negotiation.

If everyone starts in the middle, no negotiation would be necessary. But as we've seen in politics, every time Obama starts partway towards the GOP, the Republicans, understandably, feel empowered to raise the bar.

Debate begins with two diametrically opposed positions, which in the course of negotiation move towards each other. My position is exactly the opposite of the NRA's.

[Homer]

It looks like we may get some movement tomorrow but I'm afraid it's not enough. The POTUS is ready to implement 19 executive orders but from my perspective they're barely a start.

I hope he includes something about psychiatric drugs. If you take them you should not have a gun.

I really feel video games need to be tamed down a lot. These first person shooter games should be illegal. Violence in Hollywood movies cannot be dismissed, it's really gotten disgustingly violent.

7 bullets is still a lot. Walmart is no longer selling ammo, others can stop as well.

***
The conservative in me hasn't gone away. If we can require license renewals every five years for 250+ million firearms, we can also track every illegal alien and we can require photo IDs to vote. We should all of the above. ***

[Vaughan]

Any more pork belly items you want to add to the list while people are paranoid? You forgot evil rappers, Russians, hoodies, the unemployed, single mothers, and the over-weight......

Or the government could just deal with guns before moving on............

[Homer]

I don't see Pork in these changes. In fact there should be very little incremental cost to implement all of the above.

No, I don't think more is required at this time to address guns but I wouldn't oppose even more stringent requirements than what I wrote in my last post.

If you're talking more broadly about what government should do to improve all our lives, then yes. We should do something about:

Obesity - More tax on junk food, sugar, processed foods
Smoking - double the price per pack of cigs by increasing the tax. I'd be very okay with a full ban on all smoking.
Alcohol - especially while driving. I would agree to lower blood/alcohol levels to half of what they are today and to put in an automatic testing device in every car.
Drugs - I see NY wants to put in GPS devices...I say good and I also agree with limiting both dosage and qty.
Plastics - especially those bags, beer rings, and water bottles. No need for them at all.

None of these items are good for people or our society. We need to take measures that keep our citizens and planet healthy.

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by Homer

I don't see Pork in these changes. In fact there should be very little incremental cost to implement all of the above.

No, I don't think more is required at this time to address guns but I wouldn't oppose even more stringent requirements than what I wrote in my last post.

If you're talking more broadly about what government should do to improve all our lives, then yes. We should do something about:

Obesity - More tax on junk food, sugar, processed foods
Smoking - double the price per pack of cigs by increasing the tax. I'd be very okay with a full ban on all smoking.
Alcohol - especially while driving. I would agree to lower blood/alcohol levels to half of what they are today and to put in an automatic testing device in every car.
Drugs - I see NY wants to put in GPS devices...I say good and I also agree with limiting both dosage and qty.
Plastics - especially those bags, beer rings, and water bottles. No need for them at all.

None of these items are good for people or our society. We need to take measures that keep our citizens and planet healthy.

This is one of those rare times when I actually agree with you about a couple of things.

I, too, would like to see far more limitations on guns.

I'd like to see less non-biodegradable plastic.

That's it.

Mental health checks on gun sales are a meaningless bandaid, impossible to objectify.

Limiting video games and Hollywood movies is censorship, and there's no evidence that these lead directly to violence.

I think blood alcohol level maximums are adequate as they are.

Putting usage taxes on items that are consumed by the poor and working class is regressive.

Drugs should all be legalized.