George Soros: The Lord of the Democrats?

Arlie: what have you got to hide? The point is to reduce the number of sketchy people with guns. Oh, and there's no direct correlation between guns and alcohol / DUIs. One evil at a time. I do remember that there was discussion of a law which would hold bartenders responsible for thsoe people who got involved in an accident while drunk, etc. Logic being that a bartender shouldn't be serving to someone clearly inebriated and potentially dangerous. While I don't thnk it's the right solution, it's a step in the right direction.

Challenge: try dusting off some of the unused material between your ears and ponder this little obvious tidbit: a car is not inherently designed to kill, a gun is. Simple.

And the whole point behind my premise is to put the pressure on those who make them. Control must be something that you exert at all levels. CLEARLY putting pressure and trying to add stricter measures isn't working. Why not try something new? So what if a gun company loses some money? Unless you own one or have stock in it, what the fu*K do you care?

And as for foreseeability, a gun is foreseeably going to be used to kill something. Either a haybale, or an animal, or a person. I've never heard of a gun being a means of transportation (except ni the case of an acceleration to the graveyard), nor provide any positive function in the same vein.

By the way, no one is suggesting to outlaw guns. Simply suggesting MUCH tighter control over the distribution of them. I know it's hard, but do try to think a little and READ what I have written.

--Dan

 

Bobafett, Art, and others: Do you guys remember a toy called "Lawn Darts"? They were giant darts about a foot long with a steel tip that you threw across your lawn and tried to land inside a giant hoop target. They were sold for many years. But after TWO children were killed when the Lawn Darts hit them in the head, the Federal Trade Commission ordered them removed from the market because they were unsafe. Those kids were using them as directed, but accidents happen, and two kids died. So the government reacted by removing this dangerous product from the market.

NOW WHY DOESN'T THE GOVERNMENT DO THE SAME THING WITH ALL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES?

THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of people die every year after using alcoholic beverage products, yet the government does NOTHING!!!!

It is a scientific fact that alcohol, when taken internally, builds up in the bloodstream and affects behavior. Owning a gun doesn't affect your behavior. A gun is a piece of metal. It does nothing unless something is done WITH IT, BY SOMEBODY.

Nobody answered my question so I will repeat it.
Which constitutional amendment protects a person's right to drink alcoholic beverages?

 

Arlie: none. But I don't see the relevance, STILL. Oh, and owning a gun DOES do things to one's mentality.

I'll relate a story of literally a week ago. Two of my friends have gotten into handguns, and about a week ago (last thursday, I think) were on their way home from the target range. Anyways, they're on their way home and this guy starts following them, flashing his high-beams and stuff. Guy starts to get a bit crazier...so my friend who is normally a sane person literally says "no worries, we've got something just in case this guy really is a nut".... This guy starts to WAVE A GUN and something else around tryign to slow us down. My friend literally tells me that perhaps we should consider making use of what we've got, I suggest otherwise. Turns out that the guy hit our bumper (I didn't feel anything?) and was tryign to pull us over. The other thing he was flashing was a badge, as he was an off-duty cop.

Now, a) why was the cop waving a gun? Clearly nto a sane thing. b) that my friend had a gun made him feel more empowered.

Oh, and about the steel tipped darts: I'm glad theyr'e gone. And with only two child deaths. How about the thousands annually frmo guns? Why aren't guns banned now? After all, a gun isn't even a tool of wholesome family fun, is it?

And yes, I thnk stricter DUI rules are necessary. That and licenses should be harder to get ni the first place (which would help cut down on a number of drunken accidents dramatically). There's a solution to that.

Again, the relevancy of alcohol to guns isn't there. We're talking about apples and oranges, and no one is saying that a) drunk driving is a good thing, or b) to ban guns.

--Dan

 

Here's news from today:

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7921892%255E13762,00.html

Notice how over there, the owners of the establishment, etc. might possibly face jail time. This is exactly what I was saying is a good thing. I bet that if enforced, other bar owners, etc. will be far more careful of their patrons.

--Dan

 

Bobafett, sounds like your "friend" is an idiot. I've known dozens, no HUNDREDS of people who own guns, and I've never known ONE of them to be driving around waving a gun at anybody.

Why aren't guns banned now?
Because the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Nobody is going to BAN somebody's right to bear arms any more than they are going to BAN your right to attend the church of your choice. That's why the NRA exists; to protect the Second Amendment from treasonist wackos who would attempt to "edit" the Bill of Rights for their own agenda.

"Again, the relevancy of alcohol to guns isn't there. We're talking about apples and oranges, and no one is saying that a) drunk driving is a good thing, or b) to ban guns."

We are NOT talking about apples and oranges. We are talking about banning products that supposedly harm people. My point is this: alcoholic beverages harm more people than firearms. Therefore, if you're going to ban anything that is harmful, then you MUST ban alcoholic beverages because they are NOT protected by any constitutional amendment.

 

I'm so sick of gun nutsos. There are the few extremeist wackos that want to ban guns, but most people just want some amount of gun control. Why the fanatical gun owners think that a small amount of gun control is bad just shows that groups complete lack of intelligence. And comparing guns to alcohol or cars is another sh!thead example that doesn't work. The idea of holding gun makers responsible is stupid, just another example of the "It's not my fault" mentality that's rolling over america. If someone uses a gun in a crime, execute them and that solves the problem. If someone is careless or negligent in ownership, they should never be allowed to touch a gun again. Same goes for bars, it's their job to sell alcohol. If you want to blame the bars for drunk drivers, that just feeds the "It's not my fault" mentality. This country is turning to **** because so many worthless parents are buying into the "It's not my fault" mentality and teaching it to their kids. It's sickening and embarassing. Adults need to start taking responsibilty for their actions and acting like adults, then the kids will have role models.

 

I would have to go someplace to have a frontal lobotomy, stay for an extended period, come out uh, you know, not quite right. Did I mention I'd need to be strapped in?
OR
I can have a bottle in front of me in the privacy of my own home - stay in - and be just fine, thank you very much. Maybe later I'd let my sweetie tie me up. Maybe she'd have me tie her up. Either way, I'm glad you brought the completely irrelevant subject up, as it's been a while since we've done that.

Guns are tools. Nothing more, nothing less. But like Mr. Goodwrench, you should be certified to use them. I have been, and remain, trained. I've never done anything foolish with a gun, nor do I know anyone who has, other than suicides. If they hadn't done it with a gun, they'd have done it with a rope. If they hadn't done themselves in with a rope, they'd have done it with some dope.

But these tools known as guns aren't just methods of madness or of self-destruction, they're not just tools of destruction - they're tools of protection. Protection from harm from those who seek to impose their will, forcefully upon a man, woman or child whom they regard as easy to control without said protection. There is strength in numbers, as well. Should a group conspire to exert their will upon the weak and defenseless, then their will is exercised, while the will of those who are unprotected is crushed.

Expanded further, a whole population left without measures to protect themselves from those who seek to divide and conquer would be rendered impotent in greater numbers and in lesser time.

Gun Control is a 2-way street. On one side, you've got those who seek to remove the rights set forth in the Constitution.

However, A Well-Armed Militia - aka John Q. Public times millions is this countries last and best defense. Without John Q. Public maintaining and sustaining the rights which were attained in the Second Amendment, this country would long ago have been crushed. Not may have. Would have. Just as our forebears unwittingly protected our livelihoods, so shall we protect the future for our descendants, and they for theirs by being well-armed and trained with tools for survival.

 

These are some statistics about deaths from the CDC:
source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_12.pdf

All causes: 2,404,624
heart disease: 709,894
malignant neoplasms: 551,894
Accidents(unintentional injuries): 93,592
Assault: 16,659
Assault by firearm: 10,417
Accidental gun discharge: 808

Now I suppose one could try to argue that the deaths from assault could be reduced with tighter gun control laws, but lets remember that people who commit homicide are CRIMINALS and criminals BREAK LAWS. I don't think it's without reason to assume that if a gun weren't available, another weapon would be used or a gun would be obtained illegally. The citizens who would obey the gun control laws are probably not the people we need to be worrying about.

Also interesting to note is that there are many countries with less gun control than the US that have LOWER homicide rate. Perhaps a better solution would be to SEVERLY PUNISH those people who commit crimes with guns.

Interesting timing for this topic though, as there is debate about whether to allow John Hinckley Jr., the man who shot Pres. Reagan and James Brady(the Brady Bill), to have unsupervised visits (doesn't seem like much punishment to me).

 

I think some of you mistook my statements about holding gun manufacturers and bartenders - what I was tryign to get at is not a shift of blame, but more of a 'let's include everyone so as to put the pressure on anyone related to it.' The idea being that ok, you can't necessarily stop a criminal (however one with a shovel is FAR less dangerous than one with a gun. No question about that), but you can control the means by which he might get access to a more dangerous weapon BY putting the strong-arm on everyone involved. Gun dealers aren't sweating enough, and neither are the manufacturers.

No one is saying to replace real punishment and shift the blame. That would be stupid at best. I think criminals need to be treated VERY harshly, and I'm a huge proponent of capital punishment. Just like the two snipers who are about to go on trial...those guys shouldn't even be GRANTED a trial. It's not like there's any doubt as to whether they did it, they admitted so. Shoot them, burn them, hell, make it CRUEL AND UNUSUAL to set an example (much like Spitzer is with half of the financial world)...do it enough and criminals WILL think about the implications. Those who don't, we can't stop, but we should be able to prevent new ones.

I do find it hugely amusing how crazy the anti-gun-control people get when you talk about it. Arlie, you have mentioned banning guns in every post, however I never once suggested it (and I'm sure I'm a major instigator here). I gotta say this one more time: what have *YOU* got to lose or hide by having a more thorough analysis done before you get your gun? What if you had to wait two weeks before you were allowed to take possession? Would you be opposed to this if it meant that in those two weeks, it is most likely going to stop some number of deaths and accidents? Would it be such a bad thing if gun dealers were heavily regulated? If you've got nothign to hide, I don't see why.

--Dan

 

Bobafett - I'm not going to respond to your insulting comments directed at me above. I never insulted you personally, only your ideas.

One thing that anti-gun people just CAN'T comprehend is that strengthening gun laws doesn't have jackschit to do with how criminals behave.
---------------------------------------
Bkaird1 said: Now I suppose one could try to argue that the deaths from assault could be reduced with tighter gun control laws, but lets remember that people who commit homicide are CRIMINALS and criminals BREAK LAWS. I don't think it's without reason to assume that if a gun weren't available, another weapon would be used or a gun would be obtained illegally. The citizens who would obey the gun control laws are probably not the people we need to be worrying about.
-----------------------------------------

That about sums it up. Making "stricter" gun laws only makes the LAW-ABIDING citizen jump through more hoops to legally obtain a weapon. Whereas criminals will find alternate sources/strategies to procure guns. Can't a gun be stolen or imported illegally?

While we're on the illegal importation subject, let's compare this to illegal drugs produced outside the USA--cocaine for example. Unlike guns, cocaine is illegal for 100% of citizens whereas guns can be purchased and owned legally. Tons and tons of drug laws are on the books, but is cocaine still attainable? Sure! Why, Bobafett, is that?? I guess those laws should be even stricter! Yeah, that's the answer...

 

So do you think there should be no gun control?

 

Take NYC out of the list. Crime here is the lowest it's been in 40 years and it is largely being attributed to the strict gun control efforts by the NYPD (and increased police presence in general). I come down somewhere in the middle on the gun issue, but I do get sick of seeing NYC lumped into these lists as per the old stereotypes when people that actually live here know that crime has been on the decline for a decade.

Oh, and back on topic, I spent a good bit of time working directly for George Soros and was in his company on many occasions. Say what you want about him, but he certainly is not some megalomaniacal lunatic bent on world domination. I nearly laughed out loud when I read some of that.

 

Challenge: My apologies if you were insulted, but I can't stand it when people (ahem, Arlie, ahem) refuse to read what is being written and then make egregious statements that aren't related directly.

As for importing illegal guns: so beef up security. You know why drugs are so proliferated in this country? BECAUSE YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT IS HELPING BRING THEM IN! That's right... it's widely documented and well known. The CIA, the FBI, even crooked cops. You think military slush funds are fiction? Kind of hard to watch the watcher, huh?

And I know this is starting to sound repetitive, but it doesn't seem to be getting throught he fog...but it's far less platitudinous than hearing that law-abiding folks can't get their guns. IF YOU MAKE IT HARDER FOR GUNS TO GET ON THE MARKET IN GENERAL, THEN BY DEFINITION AND DEFAULT, IT IS HARDER FOR A CRIMINAL TO GET ONE.

And no one, not once, said that gun control measures are supposed to change how criminals behave. The punishments and EXAMPLES of punishment are supposed to do that. Gun control is just supposed to make it harder for them to get a gun.

And as for the idea that a criminal will have another tool or device. I have two assertions: 1) a good deal of would-be criminals w/o access to guns will NOT go through with the crime (harder to rob a 7-11 with a baseball bat), and 2) a criminal with a shovel, baseball bat, golf club, hell, even a water pick is *DRAMATICALLY* less dangerous than one with a gun.

So isn't it worth it to try to make the criminals less dangerous?

And why do you care if the gun makers actually have some financial responsibility for the actions of their clients? If we can impact gun makers and their means of distribution by hitting them in the wallets, how is that a bad thing? I realize that controlling distribution might make it harder for you, whom I assume to be a law-abiding citizen, to get a gun. BUT, if in turn that same device made it harder for even 1% of all criminals to get a gun, isn't that worth it?

Oh, unless you think that everything is fine the way it is, and that you'd much rather let more people die at the hands of criminals with guns instead of inconveniencing you a little. That's what it sounds like, so PLEASE tell me I'm wrong in that assessment.

And frankly, there's no point in arguing with stricter gun laws by saying they won't work. W/o TRYING them, you can't say with any certainty. If they do work, BRILLIANT. If not, ok, go back to where it was and repeal the rules.

--Dan

OH - I have one other question for all of the pro-gun extremists who defend their rights to own guns with such vehemence (which, I should add, NO ONE has said to threaten, so don't even THINK about mentioning it) - what is so special about owning a gun? I mean, beyond the typical 'target practice' excuse, I don't get it. Sure, going on a proper shoot is great, but most gun owners aren't in the habit of dove-hunting in Argentina. So what is it? Safety? Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that most of those who claim they feel safer in a time of crisis won't actually be able to effectively use it (nervous, lack of self-control, etc)? I'm serious in my inquiry, I'm not trying to ruffle too many feathers...I really do want to know.

 

Challenge: I re-read my post and yours, and frankly, I'm amused. You call me (or my ideas) assinine, I say dust off what's between your ears. I'm the insulting one here? Oh, I did ask (tell) you to read what's written, rather than respond to what isn't. I can see how that's incredibly insulting...

--Dan

 

bobafett: I also re-read the posts and cannot find a post that disparaged people who support much tighter gun control or call them nuts or wackos (although certain arguments were questioned). As far as your previous post, I'll make a few comments

----------------------------------------------------------------------
As for importing illegal guns: so beef up security. You know why drugs are so proliferated in this country? BECAUSE YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT IS HELPING BRING THEM IN! That's right... it's widely documented and well known. The CIA, the FBI, even crooked cops. You think military slush funds are fiction? Kind of hard to watch the watcher, huh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I've yet to see documentation about a gov't conspiracy to import drugs. I'm sure there are dirty cops, agents, whatever who look the other way or actively bring the stuff in but I'd like to see your evidence of the gov't doing it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
And I know this is starting to sound repetitive, but it doesn't seem to be getting throught he fog...but it's far less platitudinous than hearing that law-abiding folks can't get their guns. IF YOU MAKE IT HARDER FOR GUNS TO GET ON THE MARKET IN GENERAL, THEN BY DEFINITION AND DEFAULT, IT IS HARDER FOR A CRIMINAL TO GET ONE.

And no one, not once, said that gun control measures are supposed to change how criminals behave. The punishments and EXAMPLES of punishment are supposed to do that. Gun control is just supposed to make it harder for them to get a gun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

What would you do to make it harder for criminals? Simply having a waiting period doesn't prevent someone from getting a gun, it just makes them wait a little longer. Also, I believe it is already a law that certain covicted criminals cannot own guns but correct me if I'm wrong. Regardless, this doesn't do anything toward preventing illegal gun purchasing (I think everyone here would support cracking down on people who do this).

--------------------------------------------------------------------
And as for the idea that a criminal will have another tool or device. I have two assertions: 1) a good deal of would-be criminals w/o access to guns will NOT go through with the crime (harder to rob a 7-11 with a baseball bat), and 2) a criminal with a shovel, baseball bat, golf club, hell, even a water pick is *DRAMATICALLY* less dangerous than one with a gun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

As for point one, take a look at the statistics. 37.5 % of the homicides are currently commited with a weapon other than a firearm. I would suggest that criminals tend to perform criminal acts regardless of the available weapon but if you have evidence that shows, if they can't get access to a gun, they won't use a knife, I'd be more than happy to take a look.

As for point two, I don't won't my skull in the path of a swinging bat or golf club (although I DO agree that the water pick is probably less dangerous ). I suppose it depends on what your defintion of dangerous is. They all can be used as deadly weapons (even the water pick I suppose, as too much water consumption can lead to death . I've taken some form of martial art since I was about 6 and I would say that I could, if I wanted, use my hands and feet as deadly weapons. I'd love to see someone try to licence their hands.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
So isn't it worth it to try to make the criminals less dangerous?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I think we're trying to argue that stricter gun control laws doesn't necessarily mean that criminals are less dangerous

--------------------------------------------------------------------
And why do you care if the gun makers actually have some financial responsibility for the actions of their clients? If we can impact gun makers and their means of distribution by hitting them in the wallets, how is that a bad thing? I realize that controlling distribution might make it harder for you, whom I assume to be a law-abiding citizen, to get a gun. BUT, if in turn that same device made it harder for even 1% of all criminals to get a gun, isn't that worth it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose you could also hold a defense attorney responsible if a client he/she successfully defended performs a criminal act. I think a better plan would be to hold the perp. responsible.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, unless you think that everything is fine the way it is, and that you'd much rather let more people die at the hands of criminals with guns instead of inconveniencing you a little. That's what it sounds like, so PLEASE tell me I'm wrong in that assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Please site where it was mentioned, OR EVEN SUGGESTED, that we'd rather see more people die. I cannot find that claim in the above posts. No one minds being a little inconvenienced...we're saying that the the inconvenience will not deter the criminals.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
And frankly, there's no point in arguing with stricter gun laws by saying they won't work. W/o TRYING them, you can't say with any certainty. If they do work, BRILLIANT. If not, ok, go back to where it was and repeal the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

They have been tried in many places. England has very strict gun laws but the homicide rate it higher there than before. As far as trying, then repealing, watch CSPAN when they show congress. Not exactly the model for speed, efficiency or effectiveness.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
OH - I have one other question for all of the pro-gun extremists who defend their rights to own guns with such vehemence (which, I should add, NO ONE has said to threaten, so don't even THINK about mentioning it) - what is so special about owning a gun? I mean, beyond the typical 'target practice' excuse, I don't get it. Sure, going on a proper shoot is great, but most gun owners aren't in the habit of dove-hunting in Argentina. So what is it? Safety? Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that most of those who claim they feel safer in a time of crisis won't actually be able to effectively use it (nervous, lack of self-control, etc)? I'm serious in my inquiry, I'm not trying to ruffle too many feathers...I really do want to know.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, we're not pro-gun nuts or extremists. But as far as gun ownership goes, I assume you are not from the south. Many people here do go hunting(although I suppose most stay a little closer to home than Argentina). I've grown up around guns my entire life. When the term gun is mentioned, my mind pictures hunting rifles (not hand guns or assault rifles) and crisp early mornings in the woods with family. I think that is pretty special. Also, hunters tend to be very conscious about gun safety. Guns are locked up, ammo kept separately, and children educated about how guns are to be used.

I hope this answered some of your questions.

 

BK: fair responses to all of my points. I am all for stronger punishments. I really do think that judiciary bodies need to be considerably stronger / more forceful in their punishments. In fact, in the case of these VA area snipers, I think cruel and unusual punishments are definetly in order.

I realize that there have been a good number of gun laws to try to curb crime, but my question is this: don't you suspect that the NRA (one of, if not the most powerful lobby group in the country), and a few others have tried their level best to make a good number of these laws useless / ineffective? After all, I think Dave mentioned that there are 22 THOUSAND gun laws. Cmon. Even if that means differing laws for different municipals, etc. - you have to wonder how many of those laws are actually doing their jobs.

As for my comments about owning a gun: actually, I've been clay-pigeon shooting and found it to be TONS of fun. I guess my real beef is with handguns, because I've never been able to view them as useful for anything other than killing / injuring.

With respect to distribution, I honestly feel that tightening the noose around gun companies IS going to make it harder for criminals to get guns. It's just TOO easy right now, and the channels of movement are too loosely controlled.

What would I do to deter criminals? Honestly, I would reduce the number of gun shops and make those very tightly controlled. It is TOO easy to buy a gun. And all of these so called background checks...I myself have been made offers to buy them w/o any restrictions (ie buy them on the spot) from places thought reputable.

There's no easy solution, and I know there are always going to be people on complete polar opposites (me vs. Arlie, for instance), but there has to be some middle ground people are willing to compromise on in order to improve safety.

--Dan

PS: Dave - I think you had, in the past, mentioned that Michael Moore falsified facts in Bowling for Columbine. I just recently saw this movie, and I'm curious as to what was misrepresented.

 

As far as the Michael Moore movie:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Also, you can search google for "the truth about bowling for columbine".

 

Dan

"I guess my real beef is with handguns, because I've never been able to view them as useful for anything other than killing / injuring."

Well, I can't view them for any other reason either. That is OK with me. I own lots of guns and I firmly believe every one of them is intented to kill living things.

"OH - I have one other question for all of the pro-gun extremists who defend their rights to own guns with such vehemence (which, I should add, NO ONE has said to threaten, so don't even THINK about mentioning it) - what is so special about owning a gun? I mean, beyond the typical 'target practice' excuse, I don't get it. Sure, going on a proper shoot is great, but most gun owners aren't in the habit of dove-hunting in Argentina. So what is it? Safety? Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that most of those who claim they feel safer in a time of crisis won't actually be able to effectively use it (nervous, lack of self-control, etc)? I'm serious in my inquiry, I'm not trying to ruffle too many feathers...I really do want to know."

The ability to defend yourself is what is special. One of my friends is alive today because of his ability to own a handgun. The criminal that tried to murder him walked into his establishment with the intent of theft and murder. He opened fired on my friend and was rewarded with death. He also triggered the silent alarm. The police took a little over 2 minutes to get there. I commend the police, 2 minutes is very fast, but in a firefight 2 minutes is a lifetime. In a firefight unarmed, 2 minutes is a death sentence.


It just seems to me that no matter how many gun laws you make the criminals will still get the guns. They are criminals, they don't care about thwarting the laws.

Label me an extremist, but if the day comes that I cannot posses a gun, then that will be the day I check my citizenship at the border.