Author Topic: A discussion about gun ownership  (Read 42007 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
A discussion about gun ownership
« on: October 07, 2015, 07:19:27 PM »
Here's an excellent discussion from one of US about some ways we can make our gun culture smarter.

Thoughts, anyone?


Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2015, 10:34:32 PM »
What do I think?

I think that the Umpqua CC shooter Christopher Harper-Mercer legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.

I think that the Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.

I think that the Isla Vista shooter Eliot Rodgers legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.

I think that the Colorado theater shooter James Holmes legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.

I think that the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.

I think that the Ft. Hood shooter Ivan Lopez legally purchased his guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.

I think that the other Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.

I think that the Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had background checks--state and federal--performed. He also had a security clearance.

I think that the Minneapolis shooter Andrew John Engeldinger legally purchased his guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.

I think that the Las Vegas shooters Jerad and Amanda Miller legally purchased their guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.

I think that the Tucson shooter Jared Loughner legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.

I think that the Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza used legally purchased guns, he just murdered the owner first and then stole them.

Should I go on?  How many you want?  Who did I forget?  Oh, yeah, the Columbine shooting.  The guns were a straw purchase, but the ATF declined to even prosecute the straw buyer.

So why is this idiot on youtube saying that non-FFL sales are causing mass shooting problems?

Offline Theraven536

  • Posts: 33
  • First Name (Displayed): Ken
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2015, 10:58:00 PM »
Because they are robots, that can not think for themselves. They just regurgitate what they have been brainwa...  I mean programmed to say.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2015, 07:30:55 AM »
Mr Gryphon: I am always amused by people like yourself who, when presented with a viewpoint they don't agree with, resort quickly to name calling. In this case you chose to call a Navy veteran, former police officer, and concerned gun owner (like myself) an idiot. That sort of juvenile behavior hardly adds to what should be a  sober discussion about gun violence in our country and how best to solve it.

Other than that, your post makes exactly the point that this video and I and others have been pointing out all along: the firearms ownership process in this country is a joke. You're right: many of these mass shooters did purchase their guns legally. THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM! Until we revamp the process by which we allow deadly weapons to change hands, or enter the populace in the first place, we are doomed to failure. We will continue to have shooting after shooting, crime after crime, all because no one wants to change. That mindset is ridiculous.

It's not about outlawing guns, or taking them away, or drastically restricting ownership. It's about fundamentally changing the way we approach firearms, the "way we do business". Under the guise of stopping some mythical tyranny, we lower the bar on gun ownership so far that any living, breathing idiot or crazy person can obtain a deadly weapon legally. As long as your name is not on some computer list, you can walk into a store and buy all sorts of firearms. There is no demonstration of mental competency, there is no demonstration of proficiency or even basic safety knowledge, nothing. Just bring money and a clean record. And so the carnage continues.

And guess what: the shooters aren't those liberal gun haters! They're US! They're the gun enthusiasts in the country who own weapons. Yet, almost every week one of US snaps and goes on a shooting rampage. Every year over 220,000 guns are lost or stolen (BofJ statistics), from US, the gun owners. WE are the people selling guns to people who shouldn't have them. We decry the spread of gun violence and crime in America, yet we are the very people living in denial about our role in the whole system.

It's been said many times that guns don't kill people, people kill people. That's absolutely right. As long as humans are fragile, crazy, emotional, passionate, occasionally irrational beings, we will have gun violence. So, if you want to find someone to blame for this phenomenon of gun-related death and crime, look in the mirror. Those guns going into the hands of crazies or criminals are coming from US, the gun owners. If you are a RESPONSIBLE gun owner, you can see the need for effective change. 

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2015, 07:39:54 AM »
Mr the raven536: I doubt you know the speaker in this video personally. So, to say that he is brainwashed or programmed is a ridiculous statement. The speaker in the video, like myself and many others, is not programmed or brainwashed. We are intelligent, caring human beings who are experienced in the use of firearms. We also care deeply about our society and our fellow citizens and are alarmed and disgusted by the mass shootings we see week after week. We have a viewpoint that the gun culture in this country is flawed and needs to change. And it needs to change from within. We, the gun owners, are the ones who know this culture best. We know what will work and not work when it comes to curbing gun violence. We have a vested interest in making sure that any change is effective, not just a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't cure the problem. We need to take a proactive role. As it's been said, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". If we don't take an active role in changing the gun culture to a safer, more responsible one, that change will come from outside gun owners in ways we won't like.

Offline part deux

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 683
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2015, 07:58:40 AM »
Mr Gryphon: I am always amused by people like yourself who, when presented with a viewpoint they don't agree with, resort quickly to name calling. In this case you chose to call a Navy veteran, former police officer, and concerned gun owner (like myself) an idiot. That sort of juvenile behavior hardly adds to what should be a  sober discussion about gun violence in our country and how best to solve it.
If it quacks like a duck...  It must be troll time.

Yes, he's a frickin idiot who is drinking the liberal media koolaid.

WE MUST DO SOMETHING.

35,000 people die in car accidents

More people are killed in swimming pools than are murdered by firearms.

So, is it that people die, or the gun that's an issue?

Offline Theraven536

  • Posts: 33
  • First Name (Displayed): Ken
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2015, 10:08:41 AM »
Mr the raven536: I doubt you know the speaker in this video personally. So, to say that he is brainwashed or programmed is a ridiculous statement. The speaker in the video, like myself and many others, is not programmed or brainwashed. We are intelligent, caring human beings who are experienced in the use of firearms. We also care deeply about our society and our fellow citizens and are alarmed and disgusted by the mass shootings we see week after week. We have a viewpoint that the gun culture in this country is flawed and needs to change. And it needs to change from within. We, the gun owners, are the ones who know this culture best. We know what will work and not work when it comes to curbing gun violence. We have a vested interest in making sure that any change is effective, not just a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't cure the problem. We need to take a proactive role. As it's been said, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". If we don't take an active role in changing the gun culture to a safer, more responsible one, that change will come from outside gun owners in ways we won't like.
That is the beauty of America. You have the right to your opinion, just like I do. It's not my fault your opinion is wrong.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2015, 10:48:43 AM »
you chose to call a Navy veteran, former police officer, and concerned gun owner (like myself) an idiot.

The guy is an idiot because he thinks that non-FFL sales are causing mass shooting problems.

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2015, 04:06:38 PM »
Ahh, Mr partdeux: I like the way you opened with name calling (troll). It exhibits a level of maturity that goes so well with open carrying a deadly weapon.
I've watched the video several times and I see no evidence that Mr Carman is a "frickin idiot who is drinking the liberal media koolaid'. If you do a little research you would find that Mr Carman is a Navy veteran, a former law enforcement officer, and a solid Republican.

Yes, we must do something. By statistics posted on this forum and others, there are over 300 million firearms in this country, and 15 million MORE enter our society each year. Bureau of Justice statistics indicate that over 220,000 firearms are lost or stolen each year, coming from either gun owners like us or corrupt firearms dealers. Mass shootings continue unabated. Gun crime continues unabated. The ATF continues to be underfunded and undermanned. At what point do we quit living in denial and admit that A: as a country these trends are in the wrong direction, and B: as gun owners we are part of the problem. The guns aren't being lost by or stolen from liberal gun haters. The man in this video, a gun owner like us, is a concerned citizen and suggests a few simple ways we can improve the situation. On this forum, as is typical of other forums, he is not met with gratitude or even a friendly "I see your point." He is met with derision, with anger, with juvenile name calling from people like yourself.

That's the problem with the gun discussion we can't seem to have in this country. It is selfish and even arrogant to think the your ideas, your way of thinking, is the only way things can be. Democracy and our country are based on compromise, on basing our decisions on every citizens' needs and desires, not just the ones who agree with you.

As far as car accidents or swimming pools, this is neither an auto accident nor a swimming pool forum. This is a forum about firearms and firearm policy. So this is why we discuss those issues. Recognizing that driving a car is fraught with danger, we have rules governing driving and cars: safety minimums, licensing requirements at all levels of vehicles (CDL, motorcycle), learner's permits, tracking of titles and registration, loss of license with alcohol abuse. We have building and safety codes because we have experience with the danger of swimming pools. Why is it so hard to consider that some rules of gun ownership might improve the situation?

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2015, 04:10:03 PM »
Mr gryphon: I didn't get that from the video. I think he was talking more comprehensibly about gun safety and gun ownership and suggested universal background checks as PART of an overall change in gun ownership rules. This is a complex problem. It will require a multi-faceted solution. But to throw our hands up and do nothing is the wrong course of action. He's not an idiot. He's an intelligent, concerned firearms owner. To label him that incorrectly only demeans YOU.

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2015, 04:13:39 PM »
Mr theraven536: Opinions are easy to spout. The key is to back them up with facts. You think my opinion is wrong? Fine. Prove it. Prove it with evidence, with unbiased facts from independent sources, with numbers we all can research. Otherwise, your opinion holds about as much weight as my granddaughter's belief in Santa Claus.

Offline TucTom

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 565
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #11 on: October 08, 2015, 04:56:14 PM »
Are we really going to get into a discussion with someone who wouldn't even answer questions in a previous thread? We already know your tactics freediver. You asked for thoughts and then don't even care what someone else thinks because it is not in agreement with YOUR thoughts.

Offline Ultra

  • More Than You Bargained For
  • Posts: 72
  • Ultranewschannel.tumblr.com
    • Autopuzzles
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #12 on: October 08, 2015, 09:42:11 PM »
Freediver trusts his government more than he trusts his fellow man:

Quote
Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?


http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html

Ultranewschannel.Tumblr.Com

Offline TheQ

  • Website Content Manager
  • MOC Lifetime Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4263
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
  • First Name (Displayed): Phillip
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2015, 10:24:43 PM »

If you do a little research you would find that Mr Carman is a Navy veteran, a former law enforcement officer, and a solid Republican.


Sounds like a pretty big statist. You're in libertarian country here.
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline autosurgeon

  • MOC Treasurer
  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Ryan
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2015, 10:53:54 PM »
Solid Republican is not a positive position....

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Offline linux203

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 706
  • First Name (Displayed): Daniel
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #15 on: October 08, 2015, 11:31:27 PM »
When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. Luke 11:21

Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."  Luke 22:36

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #16 on: October 08, 2015, 11:41:46 PM »
Mr gryphon: I didn't get that from the video.

The very first thing out of his uninformed pie-hole was "folks, we got a problem" because anyone can buy his Ruger from him without going through an FFL and a NICS check.

So I listed some (perhaps most) of the high-profile shootings that involved handguns (the Navy Yard shooter was the exception but I included him because he went through checks anyway).  They all went through the NICS system, just what he wants to happen.

NY Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) wants universal background checks to stop these killings, although I've already shown you that all these people went through UBCs and it didn't do a single thing.  Hillary Clinton wants UBCs, too.

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D) said "We proposed sensible measures such as a ban on illegal trafficking and straw purchases.”  Wait, what?  Banning things that are already banned?  Not only is he an idiot, but so are the people that keep voting him into office.  (He was AG for 20 years).

These liberals/progressives/Democrats are idiots.  This is just the latest example.  That's what this youtuber (and being a cop, Navy vet, and Republican mean nothing) wants to do, "something."  Never mind it won't fix the problem he sees, we have to do "something."

Okay, so you tell me what law would have stopped the list of shootings I posted above?

Quote
to throw our hands up and do nothing is the wrong course of action.

To run around waving our hands in the air crying "we must do something" is both foolish and counterproductive.   

Quote
He's not an idiot.

I disagree.

Quote
He's an intelligent, concerned firearms owner.

He may be a concerned firearms owner, but he's far from intelligent.

There are 317 million people in the US.  There are over 367 million guns in the US.  There are few people each year who murder others like this with guns.  On the other hand, there are 800,000 law enforcement people in the US if you count the feds.  Only 1/400 the population.  They go through strict scrutiny and psychological testing.  They are trained, some better than others.  They are given wide latitude and legal benefits not afforded to the average citizen.  Yet each year, each month, week, and day more and more cops are being fired or even sent to prison for crimes ranging from murder and rape of underage children to selling drugs, assault and battery, and citizen abuse.  The percentage of cops--who remember go through all this testing and training to weed out the bad ones--who are bad are HIGHER than the percentage of average citizens who commit these crimes you are trying to stop.

If we can't even stop our law enforcement from committing criminal acts, what makes you think we can stop the average citizen from committing criminal acts?  It's the price of living in a free society.

There is only one solution: the total banning, confiscation, and elimination of guns in the US.  And even that won't work, but everyone from the CSGV to MDA is quick to point out that no one wants to do that anyway.

So stop running around waving your arms in the air saying "we have to do something."  You tell me what law we could have passed that would have stopped the attacks I listed above.  Until you do, you are simply looking for your car keys not where you dropped them, but by the lamp post because the light is better there.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 01:28:55 AM by gryphon »

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2015, 12:28:47 AM »
If you want I can go on some more about how this guy is an idiot.  He says the the founders created the Second Amendment to arm the militia, and the militia is what today we call the National Guard.

Wrong on both counts.  The 2A was written so the government could NOT take the means of self-protection--guns--away from citizens, to defend primarily from a rogue federal government.  Read the founders' contemporaneous writings.  They are very clear on this.  Second of all, the National Guard is not the same thing as the militia.  The National Guard is a government force.  The militia is a citizen force that can be assembled and disbanded as required to repel aggression.  In the 1700's the militia, which had been established for 140 years already, fought against the government.

Also each of the provisions in the Bill of Rights is an individual right, all twenty-seven of them.  To say that 26 are individual rights but 1 is not, that it is a collective right of the militia, is both ludicrous and dishonest.  SCOTUS agrees.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 12:36:09 AM by gryphon »

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #18 on: October 09, 2015, 12:44:29 AM »
Suppose the Second Amendment said “A well educated electorate being necessary for self governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.” Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read? — Robert Levy, Georgetown University Professor

"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."  Who has a right to keep and eat food, The People or A Well Balanced Breakfast? — CitizensHaveRights

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #19 on: October 09, 2015, 01:48:49 AM »
As far as car accidents or swimming pools, this is neither an auto accident nor a swimming pool forum. This is a forum about firearms and firearm policy. So this is why we discuss those issues.
The guy in your video is the one that brought up driver licenses, etc. as a way to legitimize mandated training and periodic firearms qualification like drivers have to do and like he had to do as a cop.  The problem with that is that would be an undue burden and unconstitutional.  Would you deny a grandmother the ability to legally own or carry a gun because she's not had extensive training and is not proficient on a firearms course like he is?  Plenty of grandmas have used guns to save their own lives.  Would this jerk and you prefer they be dead today?  Firearms and self-defense are constitutionally protected.  Driving a car is not.

How about this.  How about we demand people be able to pass a proficiency exam before they are allowed to vote?  We can't have uninformed, unintelligent voters making such important decisions that affect not only the entire United States, but the world.  The ballot box is much more dangerous than a gun.