Gun Control

[GregLee]

Re: The American Public does NOT want Gun Control

It is as valid as any other poll, Greg.

No. The statistical theories allowing inferences about an entire population from facts about a small number of individuals from the population assume that the small number are selected randomly. Here is a remark about "web polls" from the Wikipedia article on "Opinion Poll":

Some polling organizations, such as Angus Reid Public Opinion, YouGov and Zogby use Internet surveys, where a sample is drawn from a large panel of volunteers, and the results are weighted to reflect the demographics of the population of interest. In contrast, popular web polls draw on whoever wishes to participate, rather than a scientific sample of the population, and are therefore not generally considered professional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll

[TATTRAT]

Re: Gun Control

I would like to respectfully interject with NONE of the internet based surveys/facts/articles are purely factual.

The U.S.A. is a gun culture, more so evident now than before.

While the "control" part of Gun control has been lacking, I have NO issue with those wanting to own what they want. . .however, why not take more steps to make sure that the gun owner is suitable? I am ALL FOR a universal check to get a weapon.

Guns aren't going anywhere, like booze, pot, drugs, you name it . . .guns are part of the U.S. Culture, and that's it.

[lensperson]

Re: Gun Control

The fact that Kao was denied his legally entitled benefits

merits close scrutiny.

Sometimes These outrageous facts merit action.

Why is the state discarding elder heroes?

[Kaonohi]

Re: The American Public does NOT want Gun Control

No. The statistical theories allowing inferences about an entire population from facts about a small number of individuals from the population assume that the small number are selected randomly. Here is a remark about "web polls" from the Wikipedia article on "Opinion Poll":

COOL.

Frankly, that makes any 'opinion polls' invalid!

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

Guns aren't going anywhere, like booze, pot, drugs, you name it . . .guns are part of the U.S. Culture, and that's it.

I disagree. Slavery was part of the US culture and it is gone. Disenfranchisement of women was part of the US culture and it is gone. Smoking in public was part of the US culture and it is for the most part gone. Polygamy was part of the Mormon culture and it s gone.

The only thing that prevents STRICT gun control is a lack of will by the US culture. The US culture is the most violent culture of any first world culture. We have become slaves to the gun manufacturing lobby and their puppets, the NRA and their members.

But it doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. A majority of the US population is now tired of all the gun violence. The times they are a changin'.

Strict gun control now!

[Kaonohi]

Gun Control - does it work?

Yes, I agree, gun violence is excessive in the USA. We are an embarassment.

But how to reduce the violence? Do more restrictions even work?

Some places have stricter laws with MORE gun violence!

List of countries by firearm death rate.
Sort it how you like, the USA is NOT the most violent user of guns for homocide, not even total gun deaths per 100,000 population. Even mata's 'peaceful Mexico' is more violent!

Looking at the charts, dictatorships seem to have fewer deaths (since only the government has the guns?), and crowded countries have more. (Keep letting those illegal aliens in to the US, Obama!) Perhaps gun violence is one evolutionary counter to population explosion? Unfortunately, too many innocents die. Wouldn't it be nice if criminals just killed other criminals?

Confiscation just leaves the lawbreakers with guns, but it does reduce overall gun deaths, though it makes honest citizens 'easy prey.'

So, what kind of "strict gun control" would make a positive difference? You can demand "STRICT Gun Control NOW," but what kind? What would work?

It's counter-productive to have pressing questions without sensible answers, because such policies lead to knee-jerk reactions and failed legislation.

[Kalalau]

Re: Gun Control

There isn't much humor connected with this issue however in LA yesterday it came close. Not, however, for parents who might easily have to pay thousands of dollars. An LA high school was put on lock down, dozens of heavily armed cops responded, after a report that an armed man was prowling around the campus. Turned out two young ladies wanted to get out of class. If the parents don't get stuck paying expenses for this fiasco the tax payers will; money that could have been spent doing something useful. Also factor in the amount of police time wasted when they should have been doing something useful. Very like calling in false alarms to the fire department, people could suffer very bad damage while police or fire fighters are off on a bogus call. So...if disaster guns weren't out there, a problem like this would be much much less likely to even come up.

[Kalalau]

Re: Gun Control

"Second Amendment Remedies", a cute popular phrase among the right. Seems thats whats going on in Texas where a deputy prosecutor and the chief prosecutor & his wife have been murdered recently. Bullet riddled bodies...the usual. I venture to say that politicians & talk radio expressing for concepts like "second Amendment remedies" resonates with some folks. Flip side is, if you want to encourage the gvt to come in and completely crush you (which it so easily can), shoot at it, it never fails.

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

I venture to say that politicians & talk radio expressing for concepts like "second Amendment remedies" resonates with some folks. Flip side is, if you want to encourage the gvt to come in and completely crush you (which it so easily can), shoot at it, it never fails.

Obviously, it is getting worse which means that it will get better even sooner. Connecticut just passed a comprehensive and bi-partisan gun control law.

STRICT gun control now!

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

Obviously, it is getting worse which means that it will get better even sooner. Connecticut just passed a comprehensive and bi-partisan gun control law.

STRICT gun control now!

Actually, it's just the same-old, same-old:

Ban assault weapons (but don't define what assault weapons are),

Ban magazines over a certain capacity (how do they track this? No seriel #s, people can own them and only get prosecuted after it's "too late!")

Close the alleged "gun-show loophole." (Most states, like Hawaii, already require all firearm transactions to be recorded; i.e., no loophole!)

All good ideas, but much too impotent.
Government must first decide what weapons with what features make an "assault weapon." This is the main reason the last 'assault weapons ban' failed. They were banning hunting rifles if they had a hand grip! Dumb.

Ban the MANUFACTURE of large capacity magazines - oops, that would p-off the military and police. Put on seriel #s? What a nightmare!

There is no such thing as a "gun-show loophole," that's just a catch phrase for private firearm transactions. It makes you think the government is doing something.

The government is stupid, they are scrambling to make the People believe they are really doing something. IMHO.

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

Law enforcement personnel have been killed in Colorado, Texas, and now West Virginia in the last two weeks. That sort of eliminates the argument that armed citizens can protect themselves from other people with guns. Now that law enforcement has been specifically targeted with gun violence, I think we sill see an even greater push by law enforcement for

STRICT GUN CONTROL NOW!

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

The NRA and their gun nuts argue that universal background checks won't work because the criminals won't submit to a background check. But that is like arguing that murder should not be a crime because it doesn't prevent murder.

[TATTRAT]

Re: Gun Control

The NRA and their gun nuts argue that universal background checks won't work because the criminals won't submit to a background check. But that is like arguing that murder should not be a crime because it doesn't prevent murder.

That's a horrible analogy. . .

Also, if they don't consent to a background check, they don't get the gun. You have to pay to play, and if it;s not by the rules, then you aren't playing, pretty simple, no?

Also, law enforcement officers are killed in every state. I hate to say it, but, it comes with the territory. When you put on a badge, and go on a job to uphold the law, you put yourself in harms way everyday, and as tragic as it is, the good guys don't always win. Where are you getting that law enforcement has SPECIFICALLY been targeted? I think that when one is at the end of their rope, they don't care who goes with them. You open fire on police, just consider it suicide by cop. . .unless you live and then become a burden on tax payers.

I'm all for gun control, and better laws, but unlike your statement that slavery was once legal, smoking was once legal, womens rights were once different, the right to bear arms is in the constitution. It's not a matter of civil liberties. It's not a matter of owning a person. It's not a matter of saying someone is inferior because of their sex. It's the right to bear arms, the same way that arms can be used against us as civilians.

I respect your adamant enthusiasm and I understand where you are coming from, but the fact remains: Guns are not going anywhere in the USA culture. Period. Not in either of our lifetimes.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

The NRA and their gun nuts argue that universal background checks won't work because the criminals won't submit to a background check. But that is like arguing that murder should not be a crime because it doesn't prevent murder.

No, sorry, Matapule. You're adding apples and oranges.

Let me set you straight:

First of all, I believe in background checks, and so does the NRA.

Anyone who buys a firearm (by current federal law) is required to submit to a check, which includes a background check. There is a current law that requires the ICBS (Instant Criminal Background Check) attached to every public transaction. We cannot cover every private transfer between Mata Puke and Jimmy Jo-Bob, because it's private and illegal.

WTF have you been reading??????

It's like illegal drugs: no body records transactions because they are illegal.
Illegal gun transactions are not recorded for the same reason, and only criminals partake in them.

Duh.

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

That's a horrible analogy. . .

I just heard Larry Pratt, the president of the Gun Owners of America, say that he and his organization are opposed to background checks. He said that if someone doesn't pass the check, he will just purchase the gun somewhere else. Pratt was asked if he supports asking for proof of 21 at the liquor store. He said yes. Well then he was asked if someone isn't 21 they will purchase the alcohol somewhere else, so why not oppose asking for proof of 21 at the liquor. He couldn't give an answer.

These are very appropriate analogies.

Also, if they don't consent to a background check, they don't get the gun. You have to pay to play, and if it;s not by the rules, then you aren't playing, pretty simple, no?

So you are opposed to proof of 21, drivers licenses, proof of insurance, and criminalizing murder?

Also, law enforcement officers are killed in every state. I hate to say it, but, it comes with the territory. When you put on a badge, and go on a job to uphold the law, you put yourself in harms way everyday, and as tragic as it is, the good guys don't always win.

You are changing the argument. The NRA argument is that guns are a deterrent. The fact that gun owners are killed (specifically police) means that guns are NOT a deterrent.

Where are you getting that law enforcement has SPECIFICALLY been targeted?

It has been in all the news in Colorado, Texas, and West Virginia.

It's the right to bear arms, the same way that arms can be used against us as civilians.

You are in agreement with the current, conservative leaning SCOTUS. However, there is a legitimate argument by Constitutional authorities that the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT protect the type of paranoid gun obsession we have in the US today.

In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that "[bearing arms for a lawful purpose] is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.", but also stated that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government", as the amendment had not yet been ruled to limit the power of the states.
In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". This ruling has been widely described as ambiguous, and ignited a debate on whether the amendment protected an individual right, or a collective militia right.

Guns are not going anywhere in the USA culture. Period. Not in either of our lifetimes.

That is EXACTLY what a City Councilman told me in 1970 about his smoking during Council meetings. He died years ago from lung cancer. I am still enjoying my lifetime in a relatively smoke-free environment. Yes, guns are going someplace and it will happen in my lifespan, - I come from long lived genetics.

STRICT gun control NOW!