Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gun Control

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Gun Control

    Heads up on SB219 introduced yesterday at the Hawaii State Legislature. Very broad definition of "assault weapons". I'm surprised it doesn't include golf clubs or steak knives. Maybe someday only rounded tip steak knives will be legal

    www.assaultweapon.info (food for thought or utter crap, depending on your disposition)

    I've never liked the NRA enough to give them my money, i think roughly only 5% of gun owners are NRA members, but I'm considering it again...

    If you find the NRA too annoying, there's also the HRA and the Second Amendment Foundation to consider.
    "By concealing your desires, you may trick people into being cruel about the wrong thing." --Steven Aylett, Fain the Sorcerer
    "You gotta get me to the tall corn." --David Mamet, Spartan
    "
    Amateurs talk technology, professionals talk conditions." --(unknown)

    Comment


    • Re: Gun Control

      Originally posted by matapule View Post
      "Gun Appreciation Day" is being sponsored by a white supremacist group, American Third Position. Be aware folks, never let your guard down.
      I was thinking, what if this event decided to leave A3P on their sponsor list, even if they themselves don't support white supremacy?

      Bad political move, but it would be a statement that owning firearms is a right which every American has, regardless of their beliefs, until their actions (like committing a felony) warrant otherwise.

      As much as I'd like the Westboro Baptist Church to STFU, they have the right to free speech (and to sue anyone they can anger enough into doing something stupid).
      "By concealing your desires, you may trick people into being cruel about the wrong thing." --Steven Aylett, Fain the Sorcerer
      "You gotta get me to the tall corn." --David Mamet, Spartan
      "
      Amateurs talk technology, professionals talk conditions." --(unknown)

      Comment


      • Re: Gun Control

        Originally posted by Ron Whitfield View Post
        but arming the public is the only recourse I can see
        It didn't work in Arizona! There were several people who were armed around Gabby Giffords (and not associated with her). It didn't prevent the massacre there and it wont prevent a massacre in the future. Oh, and there was an armed guard at Columbine, a lot of good that did!

        unless you want a police state to control everything,
        Excessive hyperbole, but what else should we expect?

        and that still won't stop everything.
        Nobody says it will, but it WILL reduce the incidence if strict gun control is enacted according to verifiable statistics.


        mata sez restricting guns will save lives, but other lives will be lost by being defenseless.
        Do you think if Gabby Gifford had a gun she could have prevented the whole massacre? You don't need to answer because I know what your answer will be. But the guy next to her with a gun couldn't stop the massacre.

        It's probably a no-win situation, but allowing the Gmt. to take away guns is opening a can of worms that we don't want even more.
        Who is "we?' Polls say that Americans are in favor of banning assualt weapons by a 80% to 90% margin! I want government to open that can of worms! It is about time to call out the gun nuts of this world!

        Gotta run! Going out to Bella Cucina to celebrate TWO birthdays! I'll be riding "shotgun!"
        Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

        People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

        Comment


        • Re: Gun Control

          Originally posted by MyopicJoe View Post
          News reporters covering the event should ask all the minorities if they are white supremacists. You never know where those sneaky buggers are hiding
          Yes, perhaps even here on HT.

          If you think they're a front for white supremacy, then you'd say it's an evil conspiracy.
          You are trying to put words in my mouth and it ain't going to work. I never said that.

          by being clear with his intentions.
          Well then let me further clarify. My intention is to promote strict gun control so that we can reduce gun violence in the US. It appears that there is progress being made toward that end in the last couple of weeks despite the dismay of a few individuals on HT.

          c) in the chaos, you may mistake another armed citizen or off-duty/under-cover cop as the killer
          d) in the chaos, law enforcement may mistake you for the killer
          e) you could die in an exchange of gun fire
          f) you may harm an innocent
          g) you may be vulnerable to criminal and/or civil charges
          h) even if found innocent, you could lose a lot of money defending yourself in court
          All of the above have happened.

          3) An armed citizen's first responsibility is to themselves and their family.
          I consider everyone my family.

          If I become maimed, killed, thrown in jail, or sued; I can no longer take care of my family.
          Having a gun in the house does not mean you are taking care of them either.

          4) Other adults are responsible for themselves and their families. They made the choice whether to arm themselves or not.
          I made a statement about people making choices and taking responsibility for those choices earlier in this thread. There seemed to be some agreement by some HT members that my statement was incorrect. So which is it?

          5) An armed citizen's priority should be to leave the kill zone with their family. This makes the job of law enforcement easier. Draw your firearm only if you are cornered and in immediate danger.
          There were several guns in the immediate area of the Arizona shooting and I presume those who had guns in the immediate area felt they were in immediate danger, yet no shots were fired.

          So you are telling me if we arm teachers like the NRA wants, the teachers are responsible for themselves and if they are not in immediate danger they should just leave? They should only shoot if they are being shot at? I'm having trouble following your convoluted logic.

          6) Law enforcement is trained to run towards danger. Citizens should run from danger.
          A citizen can take NRA classes from now to kingdom come but they will never be as capable as law enforcement when it comes to a situation involving guns. I can just see those armed teachers running from danger in a school that is under attack!

          7) Finally, until people are thrown into such a situation, they don't' really know what they will or won't do. On one day they may do this. On another day they may do that.
          And this is exactly why citizens are incapable and inappropriate for handling a gun violence situation, even in their own home.


          In the case of Gifford, we can imagine two groups of people. Those who were physically close to her at the time of the shooting, and everyone else. Everyone else, whether armed or not, should protect themselves and their family by running away. Armed people close to Gifford should simply run, if the killer isn't after them or their family.
          And how does this concept apply to teachers in schools or someone in their own home. What you are saying is that people should flee their home BEFORE a gun battle breaks out? So if you are going to flee, then a gun in the home is not necessary.

          There's a good chance that those close to Gifford were supporters and less likely to be armed.
          That's not what the record shows. Armed law enforcement in the immediate vicinity could not tell where the shots were coming from and the shooter had an automatic weapon that killed quickly. He was apprehended only because he had to reload another high capacity clip in the magazine.

          Many people have an instinct to help others (especially children).
          Yes, I am one of them.

          In those fews seconds, they may make the mental calculation that they are willing take the risks to try and stop the gunman.
          And I would like to think that I would become involved without a gun despite the risks.

          Another thing to keep in mind is if an armed citizen does stop the gunman early, the incident doesn't become a "mass shooting" and fails to make the news (not enough blood).
          And how often does that happen? Rarely, if at all.

          Here is an anecdotal story of one experience. Matapule and uaifi were staying in a bed and breakfast inn in Los Angeles about 20 years ago. We decided to go for a walk in this residential neighborhood abut 7 am on a Sunday morning - the bad guys are still sleeping, right? We were accosted by a young punk (about 15 or 16 y.o.) simulated (maybe for real) a gun in his coat pocket and demanded money. I had about $30 on me and he took my wedding ring. He ran off and I did not pursue. We returned to the inn and called the police who came immediately and took a report. They said I did the right thing. Had I a gun on me (concealed weapon) and shot the kid (who was probably unarmed) for a lousy $30 and a wedding band, I would still be in jail today. Had I pulled a gun and he was armed and he shot me, I would not be around today! How would either of those two scenarios be classified as putting my family first? As it is, I have a new wedding band better than the other, I have made the $30 back several times over, and I just spent a wonderful weekend with the whole family. No guns, no problems.
          Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

          People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

          Comment


          • Re: Gun Control

            Originally posted by MyopicJoe View Post
            Heads up on SB219 introduced yesterday at the Hawaii State Legislature. Very broad definition of "assault weapons". I'm surprised it doesn't include golf clubs or steak knives. Maybe someday only rounded tip steak knives will be legal
            Hopefully the legislature will have the cajones to pass it!

            I've never liked the NRA enough to give them my money, i think roughly only 5% of gun owners are NRA members, but I'm considering it again...

            If you find the NRA too annoying, there's also the HRA and the Second Amendment Foundation to consider.
            All of them gun nut organizations who are promoting a form of domestic terrorism.
            Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

            People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

            Comment


            • Re: Gun Control

              Originally posted by MyopicJoe View Post
              I was thinking, what if this event decided to leave A3P on their sponsor list, even if they themselves don't support white supremacy?
              Then you and everyone else should call them out on it.

              Bad political move, but it would be a statement that owning firearms is a right which every American has, regardless of their beliefs, until their actions (like committing a felony) warrant otherwise.
              Right now felons can purchase guns at gun show with no background check. 40% of weapons are purchased at gun shows.

              As much as I'd like the Westboro Baptist Church to STFU, they have the right to free speech (and to sue anyone they can anger enough into doing something stupid).
              The right to free speech is limited. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. The right to own guns should be equally limited.
              Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

              People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

              Comment


              • Re: Gun Control

                Five more people killed in a mass shooting in Albequerque today including three children. The shooter was a 15 y.o. The carnage must stop!

                A neighbor said, "It's a horrible thing," Gomez said. "You see all this stuff that happens all over the country, the shootings in the schools and theaters, and then it happens right here. It's sad."

                Gun nuts want to ignore this until it happens in their neighborhood.
                Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

                People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

                Comment


                • Re: Gun Control

                  You are trying to put words in my mouth and it ain't going to work. I never said that.
                  My bad on that one. I started off with your quote and then in my mind started thinking of people in general, but I failed to make that clear.


                  Having a gun in the house does not mean you are taking care of them either.
                  Not automatically, no. Just like merely having a gun doesn't make you safe. Training and mindset are more important than the gun. The firearm is a form of insurance to be used when you've exhausted other options

                  I just hope more of the people buying guns off the shelf right now are taught that by other gun owners.


                  I made a statement about people making choices and taking responsibility for those choices earlier in this thread. There seemed to be some agreement by some HT members that my statement was incorrect. So which is it?
                  Could you quote and cite the post numbers, so I know what you're referring to?


                  There were several guns in the immediate area of the Arizona shooting and I presume those who had guns in the immediate area felt they were in immediate danger, yet no shots were fired.
                  I suppose we have different definitions of "immediate danger". Were those with guns actually shot at? Might be tough to say. Now if they were hit, then that would be more certain. And in my #7 statement, no matter what you think you'll do in a life or death situation, you never know until you're dropped into it.

                  Also, could you cite the source of "several guns in the immediate area of the Arizona shooting"? It's always challenging finding decent information for my personal research.


                  So you are telling me if we arm teachers like the NRA wants, the teachers are responsible for themselves and if they are not in immediate danger they should just leave? They should only shoot if they are being shot at? I'm having trouble following your convoluted logic.
                  Two main things:

                  1) don't force teachers to arm themselves. just give them the choice to, if they wish. they do this on their own dime, not taxpayers'.

                  2) there's a difference between children at a super market, where Giffords was shot, and children in school. at a super market, children are most likely under the care of an adult. it's up them to protect the children they are responsible for. at a school, parents leave children under the care (and responsibility) of another adult. there's more of an obligation in that case.

                  3) then it's up to them to decide what they feel is appropriate, without us second guessing their decision. at that moment, they decide how best to protect themselves and the children they are responsible for. some may decide to aggressively confront the shooter. some may decide to hide somewhere with the children, shooting only if the shooter goes after them. some may decide to tell their students to run as far and fast as they can from the school, only engaging the shooter if he/she notices them.


                  A citizen can take NRA classes from now to kingdom come but they will never be as capable as law enforcement when it comes to a situation involving guns. I can just see those armed teachers running from danger in a school that is under attack!

                  In general I agree with you, though some citizens are better trained than some law enforcement . Anyways, using a gun is a last option for a civilian. Running is better.

                  The main thing is having the option of using deadly force, if things get desperate.


                  And this is exactly why citizens are incapable and inappropriate for handling a gun violence situation, even in their own home.
                  They are incapable if they don't train or not taught properly. Merely owning a gun doesn't not do anything for self-defense.

                  Here's a key issue. If you don't think you're capable of responsibly owning a firearm, then you can't imagine other regular citizens being capable. But there are capable citizens out there.


                  And how does this concept apply to teachers in schools or someone in their own home. What you are saying is that people should flee their home BEFORE a gun battle breaks out? So if you are going to flee, then a gun in the home is not necessary.
                  Whether to flee or stay is a decision the owner will have to make on the spot. Hopefully they've thought it through before being thrown in the situation.

                  Also, fleeing may not be an option, if you are somehow cornered, or you feel it's more dangerous to leave your home (perhaps you hear other people around your home).

                  My personal plan is to surrender most of the home except for the room where family has gathered in and wait for the police. If the home invader(s) are not content with the rest of our stuff, and tries to enter our room, then they have cross my personal line. Of course, I don't know 100% for sure that's what I would do, because I can't predict every eventuality, but at least I thought someone of it through.


                  That's not what the record shows. Armed law enforcement in the immediate vicinity could not tell where the shots were coming from
                  That's why police truly aren't "first responders". The victims are the real "first responders" who need to effect self rescue (either to end the situation or to buy time for the police to arrive). When seconds count, the police are minutes away.


                  and the shooter had an automatic weapon that killed quickly. He was apprehended only because he had to reload another high capacity clip in the magazine.
                  Did he have an automatic or semi-automatic weapon?

                  Because the shooter was armed and his victims were unarmed, they had no choice but to wait until he reloaded. Being armed gives you another option (out of a handful of others).


                  And I would like to think that I would become involved without a gun despite the risks.
                  We are social creatures with strong instincts to protect those we identify with and especially children. We can hope to act a certain way, but we never really know.


                  Here is an anecdotal story of one experience. Matapule and uaifi were staying in a bed and breakfast inn in Los Angeles about 20 years ago.
                  You absolutely did do the right thing. You probably sensed that his only concern was the money and not to harm you. Marc MacYoung says when it comes to criminals who use violence to make a living, they often give you instructions on how to protect yourself: "Give me your money, or I'll shoot you."

                  Also, if he really did have a gun pointed at you, and you sensed he intends to do more than just take your money, the last thing you should do is try to draw your own, because you won't beat him. Something else needs to be done first.

                  For me, I view a firearm as a form of insurance whose use should be avoided if at all possible. Even though many of us drive everyday without getting into a potentially fatal accident (knock on wood), we wear a seat belt just in case. Of course, that analogy can't be taken too far because insurance and seat belts don't kill people.


                  Originally posted by matapule View Post
                  Then you and everyone else should call them out on it.
                  Could you clarify what we should be calling them out on? I think we're talk about different things?
                  "By concealing your desires, you may trick people into being cruel about the wrong thing." --Steven Aylett, Fain the Sorcerer
                  "You gotta get me to the tall corn." --David Mamet, Spartan
                  "
                  Amateurs talk technology, professionals talk conditions." --(unknown)

                  Comment


                  • Re: Gun Control

                    Originally posted by MyopicJoe View Post
                    Heads up on SB219 introduced yesterday
                    As far as my non-expert eyes can tell, the bill doesn't offer a grandfather clause.

                    So, if you don't surrender (according to §134-D) semi-automatic rifles you bought before this bill, you will then be guilty of a class C felony (according to §134-C). Once you're convicted of a felony, they can take away your firearms not covered by the bill.

                    I guess this is one reason to give money to gun rights organizations.
                    "By concealing your desires, you may trick people into being cruel about the wrong thing." --Steven Aylett, Fain the Sorcerer
                    "You gotta get me to the tall corn." --David Mamet, Spartan
                    "
                    Amateurs talk technology, professionals talk conditions." --(unknown)

                    Comment


                    • Re: Gun Control

                      Bill SB219 is a by request bill by Ihara. Does anyone know what person or persons ask Ihara to introduce it? Wasn't the introducer smart enough to find someone else to "champion" the bill, instead of a "by request", such as a lawmaker that consistantly got "F" grades from the NRA.

                      On another note,

                      In my opinion the media is partly to blame for things like this. It turns no future losers into celebrities overnight. All they gotta do is commit a mass murder, blow up a large building, or be a serial killer. The fact that a gun was used it NOT a key component to the equation. Jeffery Dahmer became famous for his crimes and he never used a gun in any of them. The sicker or more revolting the crime the more coverage it gets.

                      An ignored, shunned loser becomes the center of attention with whole hour documentries talking about every little thing about their life and showing their "pain" to the world. It's the same in a non-violent way with the Westboro Church. The more disgraceful they act - the more "earned media" they get.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Gun Control

                        Originally posted by MyopicJoe View Post
                        As far as my non-expert eyes can tell, the bill doesn't offer a grandfather clause.

                        So, if you don't surrender (according to §134-D) semi-automatic rifles you bought before this bill, you will then be guilty of a class C felony (according to §134-C). Once you're convicted of a felony, they can take away your firearms not covered by the bill.
                        Good, that is even more reason it should be passed.

                        I guess this is one reason to give money to gun rights organizations.
                        There is no "right" to own a semi-automatic weapon. Throw your money away to these domestic terrorist organizations if you want, but significant and strict gun control IS going to happen.
                        Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

                        People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

                        Comment


                        • Re: Gun Control

                          Originally posted by AlohaKine View Post
                          Bill SB219 is a by request bill by Ihara. Does anyone know what person or persons ask Ihara to introduce it? Wasn't the introducer smart enough to find someone else to "champion" the bill, instead of a "by request", such as a lawmaker that consistantly got "F" grades from the NRA.
                          I'm assuming this bill is mostly to test the political waters? Don't put your name behind something until you know how well it'll do?

                          Or it could be a negotiating tactic.


                          In my opinion the media is partly to blame for things like this. It turns no future losers into celebrities overnight.
                          Yeah, I know what you mean. It's a shame the media focuses more on the negative than the positive. On the other hand, it seems to be a reflection of what the public wants. Even though I know better, I'm more likely to click on a link involving bad behavior.
                          "By concealing your desires, you may trick people into being cruel about the wrong thing." --Steven Aylett, Fain the Sorcerer
                          "You gotta get me to the tall corn." --David Mamet, Spartan
                          "
                          Amateurs talk technology, professionals talk conditions." --(unknown)

                          Comment


                          • Re: Gun Control

                            Originally posted by matapule View Post
                            significant and strict gun control IS going to happen.
                            I totally agree with you. It IS inevitable. I just don't know when nor how fast.
                            "By concealing your desires, you may trick people into being cruel about the wrong thing." --Steven Aylett, Fain the Sorcerer
                            "You gotta get me to the tall corn." --David Mamet, Spartan
                            "
                            Amateurs talk technology, professionals talk conditions." --(unknown)

                            Comment


                            • Re: Gun Control

                              Originally posted by AlohaKine View Post
                              The sicker or more revolting the crime the more coverage it gets.

                              An ignored, shunned loser becomes the center of attention with whole hour documentries talking about every little thing about their life and showing their "pain" to the world. It's the same in a non-violent way with the Westboro Church. The more disgraceful they act - the more "earned media" they get.
                              The NRA gets plenty of "earned media" attention for its disgusting agenda. The more outrageous their proposals, the more attention they get.
                              Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

                              People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

                              Comment


                              • Re: Gun Control

                                Originally posted by MyopicJoe View Post
                                then in my mind started thinking of people in general,
                                Your generalizations have no basis in fact.


                                The firearm is a form of insurance to be used when you've exhausted other options
                                That assertion is not supported by actuarial tables.

                                I just hope more of the people buying guns off the shelf right now are taught that by other gun owners.
                                Has not happened in the past and there is no indication it will happen in the future.

                                Could you quote and cite the post numbers, so I know what you're referring to?
                                You have not been paying attention.

                                2) there's a difference between children at a super market, where Giffords was shot, and children in school. at a super market, children are most likely under the care of an adult. it's up them to protect the children they are responsible for. at a school, parents leave children under the care (and responsibility) of another adult. there's more of an obligation in that case.
                                You present a circular argument that makes no sense. Go back and read this paragraph and try to present a more cogent argument.

                                3) then it's up to them to decide what they feel is appropriate, without us second guessing their decision.
                                Second guessing a persons decisions is an important part of learning.

                                at that moment, they decide how best to protect themselves and the children they are responsible for. some may decide to aggressively confront the shooter. some may decide to hide somewhere with the children, shooting only if the shooter goes after them. some may decide to tell their students to run as far and fast as they can from the school, only engaging the shooter if he/she notices them.
                                And who exactly is going to teach and train these teachers to make these split second decisions. Do you want more money spent on gun education for teachers and less money for math and science, arts and literature for students?

                                The main thing is having the option of using deadly force, if things get desperate.
                                There is no research that supports your contention that this is a feasible option. Oh, that's right the NRA (which you are considering supporting financially) has lobbied Congress to prevent any sort of research on gun violence. Don't you see that the NRA is working against your best interest in terms of presenting a verifiable thesis.

                                If you don't think you're capable of responsibly owning a firearm, then you can't imagine other regular citizens being capable. But there are capable citizens out there.
                                There is no way to determine who is capable of owning a gun because there is no national licensing procedure to demonstrate proficiency. The NRA is steadfastly opposed to licensing. So your statements are merely speculative opinion and have no basis in fact.

                                Of course, I don't know 100% for sure that's what I would do, because I can't predict every eventuality, but at least I thought someone of it through.
                                "Thinking it through" does not make things any more realistic.

                                Being armed gives you another option (out of a handful of others).
                                Being armed in Arizona and at Columbine was not a viable option.

                                For me, I view a firearm as a form of insurance whose use should be avoided if at all possible.
                                I view common sense as the best form of insurance. I don't need a gun to exercise common sense.

                                insurance and seat belts don't kill people.
                                The NRA says that guns don't kill people. Absurd!
                                Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

                                People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X