Gun Control

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

Let's get this straight:

You are NOT in danger because of my guns or my rights.

IF you are in danger it is because of an evil or insane person.

How would YOU stop that person?

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

Eliminate the young and the old and the mentally or physically infirm and that 34% suddenly becomes a pretty sizeable chunk of the population, well over half the country.

Plus, we already have all the guns we need. Why buy more if everyone already has enough?

Wikipedia estimates 90% per capita, other sites claim up to 101% per capita.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Gun Control

These people represent only 34 percent of the estimated 318 million people residing in the country.

Eliminate the young and the old and the mentally or physically infirm and that 34% suddenly becomes a pretty sizeable chunk of the population, well over half the country.

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

Well, this is some good news!

By the mid-1970s, the NRA felt that a non-profit lobbying division was necessary in order to provide political defense of what they viewed as an increased assault on the Second Amendment. This new political focus of the organization also coincided with an increase in violent crimes in the 1970s.
The news was filled with reports of rapes, robberies and serial killers. The crime statistics continued to rise in the 1980s amid the backdrop of stories about the crack epidemic in the inner city and the related crimes. People were scared and they bought a lot of guns.
By the late 1980s, almost 50 percent of all households had at least one handgun. Three million guns were entering into circulation every year. This trend continued until 1993, which started seeing a decline in gun sales, as well as the number of households owning a gun.
Interestingly enough, this coincided with a decline in violent crime.
Violent crime has been on a steady decline since the 1990s. The reasons why are varied and often speculative. In spite of the local news’ tendency to lead with the scariest stories, America has become less violent. There are also fewer gun owners. That’s because fear is the primary motivator for gun sales.
The most recent FBI crime statistics show that violent crime is at its lowest levels since the 1970s. Based on reports from more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies around the country, in 2013 all crimes, including murder, rape and robbery, declined significantly since the previous year. The murder rate is at its lowest since 1968.
This is not good news for the NRA.
Along with the decline in violent crime, gun sales have been on a downward spiral. The NRA has turned its focus from education and training, to largely representing the interests of gun manufacturers. Earlier this year, several gun manufacturers announced a dramatic drop in sales. The fears of Democrats acting on gun control proved to be unfounded, with legislation blocked consistently at the national level. There has been some movement at the state level, largely through various restrictions on high capacity firearms often used in the mass shootings of the past several years.
All of this has led to less interest in buying guns for the vast majority of Americans.
The market for manufacturers – and the NRA – has gotten much, much smaller. Today, there are nearly 300 million guns in circulation in America. Most of them remain in the hands of hunters, collectors and the most fearful. These people represent only 34 percent of the estimated 318 million people residing in the country.


Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/bad-news...#ixzz3J9gzeYq8

STRICT GUN CONTROL NOW!

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Gun Control

Rush to confiscate http://www.examiner.com/article/acti...o-confiscation

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Gun Control

It actually makes it more unsafe due to people fucking up, but that's the risks and choices to be considered. We should be allowed that ability to choose.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

From Gallup: The percentage of Americans who believe having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be has nearly doubled since 2000. Majorities of both men (67%) and women (58%) believe having a gun improves home safety.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Gun Control

Ryder Douglas, an atty. from San Diego stated:
"I’ve worked in criminal justice and law enforcement for 20 years; I have a Master of Science in Forensic Sciences, I have a Doctorate of Jurisprudence, and I am a licensed attorney.
It is patently naïve and ignorant to believe that increased gun control laws will stem the random acts of gun violence that have been occurring. Gun control is merely a panacea. Gun control merely affects the innocent, not the guilty. There are literally millions of law abiding citizens that own firearms in the United States. In fact, according to 2004 statistics there are approximately 275 million lawfully owned firearms in the United States.
I have been hampered in law abiding activity, reenacting, by nuisance gun control laws. Gun control laws are pointless. The Jurisdictions with the greater gun control laws actually have more gun violence than the jurisdictions that have minimal gun control laws. People are calling for a ban on assault weapons, but these are generally unavailable to the civilian population in most states already. An assault weapon is a firearm capable of being fired fully automatic, a machine gun. The shooting in Connecticut did not involve an assault weapon. In fact, I don’t believe there has been a shooting in recent years involving such a weapon. Other people are calling for a ban on semiautomatic firearms, as they are “killing machines.” This also is untrue. The only difference between a semiautomatic firearm and a revolver is the manner in which the ammunition fed into the firing position. A revolver uses a turning cylinder, while a semiautomatic uses a magazine. Each weapon fires one shot with each pull of the trigger. Furthermore, laws restricting the size of magazines for semiautomatic firearms are also pointless. Many states, California included, have a ten round magazine restriction for civilians. However, what is to prevent the shooter with ill intent from bringing multiple ten round magazines. Just as many people are at risk from a shooter carrying ten 10 round magazines, as they are with a shooter that in is carrying a smaller quantity of larger magazines. Actually the acts of random violence such as that in Connecticut and Aurora, Colorado are extremely rare. The majority of gun violence is rooted in drugs and gangs. These individuals will acquire guns regardless of the law. This is true because criminals do not obey laws, including gun control laws, and acquire guns through illegal means. The bottom line is that you cannot prevent evil and stupidity. You can only punish it. The Second Amendment was put in place to protect the average citizen’s right to own and carry arms. It is not about muskets. This argument is specious at best. The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It does not specify muskets, although they would have been the only firearm that was contemporaneously available at the time the Constitution was written. Furthermore, the Second Amendment did not concern hunting, although that is a collateral benefit. It concerned the ability of the average citizen to protect themselves against threats, both external by foreign powers, and internal by criminals and tyranny by the government. It is not the job of the police to protect you. The police are there to clean up the mess after a crime occurs. In most jurisdictions it takes between 5 and 10 minutes for the police to arrive once they are called, longer in rural locations. It is actually your right and really duty for you to protect yourself and your loved ones. Absent the availability of a firearm this right and obligation is fundamentally impaired. In fact, on average more civilians protect themselves using a firearm than do police. In 1994, there were 48 justifiable homicides in San Diego. 12 were by the police, 36 were by civilians protecting themselves. Thirdly, don’t fall into the trap to believe that the Second Amendment doesn’t refer to the civilian population because it references a militia. At the time the Constitution was written all able bodied men were members of the militia, thus it is applicable and intended for the average citizen. You want to have a positive effect on gun violence? Lessen gun control laws for the average citizen, so they have the ability to protect and defend themselves. Increase the amount of armed and trained law enforcement in the United States. Many law enforcement jobs, probation, parole, etc., are unarmed, even though they are dealing with the same offenders and are at as much risk as police and sheriffs. Furthermore, make efforts to strengthen laws and punishments for violent and serious criminal offenders. Prisons should be used for their intended purpose to punish the guilty. People who deal drugs and are members of street gangs should be punished severely, as in life sentences in prison. Execute people that commit murder. Eliminate the prolonged appeals process that has been foisted on society. Once someone is convicted of murder, let the Court of Appeals review the case for legal errors. If none are found, then promptly execute the person. The purpose of an appeal is, just as I stated, to review the case for legal irregularities. It is not to relitigate the guilt of the crime. Also, it would eliminate the subjectivity and appearance of bias and prejudice in sentencing if certain crimes, such as first degree murder were automatically subject to a mandatory death sentence. The reality is that once someone has killed another person, any sentence other than death devalues the life of the person they killed."

What he said.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

Ryder Douglas, an atty. from San Diego stated:

"I’ve worked in criminal justice and law enforcement for 20 years; I have a Master of Science in Forensic Sciences, I have a Doctorate of Jurisprudence, and I am a licensed attorney.

It is patently naïve and ignorant to believe that increased gun control laws will stem the random acts of gun violence that have been occurring. Gun control is merely a panacea. Gun control merely affects the innocent, not the guilty.

There are literally millions of law abiding citizens that own firearms in the United States. In fact, according to 2004 statistics there are approximately 275 million lawfully owned firearms in the United States.

I have been hampered in law abiding activity, reenacting, by nuisance gun control laws. Gun control laws are pointless. The Jurisdictions with the greater gun control laws actually have more gun violence than the jurisdictions that have minimal gun control laws.

People are calling for a ban on assault weapons, but these are generally unavailable to the civilian population in most states already. An assault weapon is a firearm capable of being fired fully automatic, a machine gun. The shooting in Connecticut did not involve an assault weapon. In fact, I don’t believe there has been a shooting in recent years involving such a weapon.

Other people are calling for a ban on semiautomatic firearms, as they are “killing machines.” This also is untrue. The only difference between a semiautomatic firearm and a revolver is the manner in which the ammunition fed into the firing position. A revolver uses a turning cylinder, while a semiautomatic uses a magazine. Each weapon fires one shot with each pull of the trigger.

Furthermore, laws restricting the size of magazines for semiautomatic firearms are also pointless. Many states, California included, have a ten round magazine restriction for civilians. However, what is to prevent the shooter with ill intent from bringing multiple ten round magazines. Just as many people are at risk from a shooter carrying ten 10 round magazines, as they are with a shooter that in is carrying a smaller quantity of larger magazines.

Actually the acts of random violence such as that in Connecticut and Aurora, Colorado are extremely rare. The majority of gun violence is rooted in drugs and gangs. These individuals will acquire guns regardless of the law. This is true because criminals do not obey laws, including gun control laws, and acquire guns through illegal means. The bottom line is that you cannot prevent evil and stupidity. You can only punish it.

The Second Amendment was put in place to protect the average citizen’s right to own and carry arms. It is not about muskets. This argument is specious at best. The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It does not specify muskets, although they would have been the only firearm that was contemporaneously available at the time the Constitution was written.

Furthermore, the Second Amendment did not concern hunting, although that is a collateral benefit. It concerned the ability of the average citizen to protect themselves against threats, both external by foreign powers, and internal by criminals and tyranny by the government. It is not the job of the police to protect you. The police are there to clean up the mess after a crime occurs. In most jurisdictions it takes between 5 and 10 minutes for the police to arrive once they are called, longer in rural locations. It is actually your right and really duty for you to protect yourself and your loved ones. Absent the availability of a firearm this right and obligation is fundamentally impaired. In fact, on average more civilians protect themselves using a firearm than do police. In 1994, there were 48 justifiable homicides in San Diego. 12 were by the police, 36 were by civilians protecting themselves.
Thirdly, don’t fall into the trap to believe that the Second Amendment doesn’t refer to the civilian population because it references a militia. At the time the Constitution was written all able bodied men were members of the militia, thus it is applicable and intended for the average citizen.

You want to have a positive effect on gun violence? Lessen gun control laws for the average citizen, so they have the ability to protect and defend themselves. Increase the amount of armed and trained law enforcement in the United States. Many law enforcement jobs, probation, parole, etc., are unarmed, even though they are dealing with the same offenders and are at as much risk as police and sheriffs.
Furthermore, make efforts to strengthen laws and punishments for violent and serious criminal offenders. Prisons should be used for their intended purpose to punish the guilty. People who deal drugs and are members of street gangs should be punished severely, as in life sentences in prison. Execute people that commit murder. Eliminate the prolonged appeals process that has been foisted on society. Once someone is convicted of murder, let the Court of Appeals review the case for legal errors. If none are found, then promptly execute the person. The purpose of an appeal is, just as I stated, to review the case for legal irregularities. It is not to relitigate the guilt of the crime. Also, it would eliminate the subjectivity and appearance of bias and prejudice in sentencing if certain crimes, such as first degree murder were automatically subject to a mandatory death sentence. The reality is that once someone has killed another person, any sentence other than death devalues the life of the person they killed."

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Gun Control

Strict pointless posts control now!...?

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

Just had the opportunity to spend a week with a close friend who is a retired 30 year veteran cop from the mean streets of Oakland, CA. Currently his main residence is in downtown San Francisco, but I was staying at his casa in Mexico. We had many discussions about gun control. He regaled me with many hours of his experiences as beat cop, sergeant, and detective, including one account of a running gun fight with a bad guy. Fortunately he wasn't hit but he nailed the guy in the leg with a lucky shot (his words) and brought him down, the only time in 30 years of police work he fired his gun as a weapon. Fascinating!

I asked him how many guns he owned. He said five or six service hand guns of various calibers - paid for by the taxpayers of California - plus a couple of antique guns he inherited from a goofy (his words) uncle. He said he keeps them all locked in a gun safe in a storage unit except for one he keeps in his home. I asked why. He said, "because I can." He has a lifetime concealed weapon permit. He said he doesn't practice anymore and he really doesn't trust himself to use it for defensive purposes now. He said hitting some one with a hand gun at even close range is "hit or miss" even by trained police. For the untrained, who don't practice on a weekly basis, a handgun will get you into more serious trouble than it will solve. He said that shooting someone will be life altering in a bad way for a sane person. He saw it happen many times on the police force.

He has been to my home. I asked him if I should buy a gun. He said absolutely not. I asked him if he were not police and living in San Francisco, would he still own a gun. He said, no, no need for one. I asked him if he was a member of NRA. He said, yes, sort of. His goofy uncle pays for a membership for him. He gets a quarterly magazine, but he doesn't read it. He said if it were his money, he would not be a member of NRA.

He went on to say, that in his opinion, California has the best trained local police forces in the United States. I asked about California's gun control measures which as one of the strictest in the US. He said he generally votes Republican, but he supports Gov. Jerry Brown and the current gun laws. He will vote for Brown again.

I asked about the execution in Ferguson, MO. He said very poor police procedure by the shooting officer and he has a lot of explaining to do. He said if the guy was attacking the police officer and trying to take his gun, then the officer has a right to shoot to kill. However, this kid was shot 6 times when he was 30 feet away from the officer. That distance is no longer perceived as a threat, at least in California. He said you always aim for the trunk because handguns are so inaccurate. You are trained to shoot as many times till the victim comes to ground and then stop. He has never heard of a case where 6 hits were justified to bring someone to ground. He said that case does not look good for the killing officer. I asked about the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida. He said, that is a tough one. There were two witnesses and one of them is dead. As a detective, he said Zimmerman's story doesn't add up. He does not support "stand your ground" laws.

He went on to tell me many of the humorous incidents in his career, like the time his face was beaten black and blue by an 87 year old man with dementia, while he was trying to drag him out of his Cadillac for driving at night with his lights off. He said he was laying in the guys lap trying to turn off the ignition with the car door open and the guy drove off, driving with one hand on the wheel and beating him with the other. He finally got his Mace out and blasted him in the face. The car veered off the road, crashed through a fence and wound up in someone's front yard planter bed! The guy then got out of the car and said, "Now I am really going to kick your a$$." By that time, backup had arrived and grampasaurus was subdued and cuffed. He was laughing so hard while telling the story and he said he was the butt of jokes for months down at the precinct office.


STRICT GUN CONTROL NOW!

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

Always nice to know those people who practice ALOHA spirit and those that don't.

[TATTRAT]

Re: Gun Control

What if they didn't care about taking your stuff, but something much more valuable, like your kid's life?

Just because someone carries a gun doesn't automatically mean start shooting, it's a means of last resort in dire cases to save a life. That last part is what I want to preserve with the availability to carry and protect for all, why you wish to eliminate that protection is confounding, especially when you tell a story of being lucky to have gotten away with minor loss.

You illustrate well how MP selects his facts like food from a buffet.

mata too busy showing how brave a matapule is by putting us on ignore. da way of a true matapule!

STRICT MATAPULE CONTROL NOW!

.....bingo

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Gun Control

mata too busy showing how brave a matapule is by putting us on ignore. da way of a true matapule!

STRICT MATAPULE CONTROL NOW!

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

What if they didn't care about taking your stuff, but something much more valuable, like your kid's life?

Just because someone carries a gun doesn't automatically mean start shooting, it's a means of last resort in dire cases to save a life. That last part is what I want to preserve with the availability to carry and protect for all, why you wish to eliminate that protection is confounding, especially when you tell a story of being lucky to have gotten away with minor loss.

You illustrate well how MP selects his facts like food from a buffet.