Author Topic: A discussion about gun ownership  (Read 42010 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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 #40 on: October 12, 2015, 11:22:28 AM »

Correct.  It's a group effort and you are part of the group.

You still believe that? You really need to read this:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lysander-spooner/no-treason-the-constitution-of-no-authority/

I will not say your vote doesn't count. I will say that (except in the case of small town elections) your vote is significantly insignificant.
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #41 on: October 12, 2015, 01:48:54 PM »
Mr TheQ: why is it that anytime someone who is a part of this forum posts something you don't like or doesn't march lockstep with your opinion, you and others call them a troll? This is an open forum, where issues are discussed, opinions voiced, and facts exchanged. A healthy debate is both necessary to solving issues and integral to the concept of free speech, another constitutionally guaranteed right. If you don't agree with someone's stated case or their opinion, then state your own. But resorting to name calling like "troll" just emphasizes the shallowness of your own opinion.

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #42 on: October 12, 2015, 02:17:34 PM »
Mr ultra: when we discuss the role of government and our place in electing said representatives, I think you have it backwards. The representatives we send to Washington and the various state capitols are chosen by us, THE PEOPLE. WE are the ones who should take responsibility for the results, good or bad. If you want to point a finger at who is electing and re-electing this crew, look in the mirror. WE do, and no one else. If you want constructive change, get involved and work for it.
       A fundamental facet of this process is that our elected officials are there to represent their constituents, ALL OF THEM. That means they should give equal representation to you, to me, and even the people who disagree with our enthusiasm for firearms. Democracy means compromise, it means that we all don't get our way. It means our right to carry arms has to be balanced with other freedoms and rights. It means that none of us exist in a bubble. It means that when we consider a candidate, we consider both their qualifications and their ability to represent multiple interests that affect us all. Firearms rights are important to me. But so is public safety, education, the environment, the economy, and a host of other concerns. I vote for the candidate who can best address all of those concerns and have a positive impact on our lives. All of our lives, not just the people in this group.
         For you to insist that a candidate vote your way and your way only is just another form of tyranny. It means that you place your own selfish desires above that of your fellow citizens. One term for that is fascism. It's hardly a recipe for a successful democracy.

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #43 on: October 12, 2015, 02:54:37 PM »
And now for the statistical part of the discussion, something that was mentioned earlier in this thread. These are statistics compiled by the CDC for 2013, the latest year they've completed. (CDC Faststats)

Accidental deaths: 192,945
Accidental deaths per 100,000: 60.2
Deaths by poisoning: 48,545
Per 100K: 15.4
Deaths by motor vehicle: 33,804
Per 100K: 10.7
Deaths by firearm: 33,636
Per 100K: 10.6
Homicides by firearm(part of the 33k): 11,208
Per 100K: 3.5

The trend data supports the premise that in 2015, firearms deaths will surpass motor vehicle deaths.

One more statistic: the US is home to 5% of the world's population. It is also home to 35-50% of the world's civilian owned guns. The actual number is hard to nail down since the government is not allowed to maintain accurate firearms records.

Someone asked earlier that if other forms of death have higher numbers, why don't we address those? First, this is a forum about guns. That's why we're discussing this. Second, we do address other forms of danger. We require poisons to be clearly marked and stored in appropriate containers. We have all kinds of methods to properly transport hazardous material. We require the training and licensing of pilots, mechanics, dispatchers, flight attendants, etc so that civil aviation is incredibly safe (It wasn't always). We require training and licensing for truck drivers, plumbers, electricians, doctors, nurses, lab workers, nuclear power plant specialists, and on and on. Why? Because collectively we decided that the public safety was a higher priority than someone being "inconvenienced". It seems to work.

Look at motor vehicles. There are hundreds of millions of cars in this country, driven hours every day by people of all shapes, ages, and abilities. Yet the death count is pretty low. Why? Because we recognized the need for public safety. Cars have safety requirement. We require drivers to be trained and licensed. Recognizing that age affects driving ability for both teens and elders, we have differing requirements for both groups. As the vehicle increases in complexity or lethality (semis and motorcycles) we require additional training and licensing. And it all works.

So why can't we apply all this to firearms safety? Why can't we require mandatory safety and proficiency training prior to owning and operating? Why can't we require further training and licensing as the complexity and lethality go up? Why can't we track firearms sales to defeat gun traffickers and criminals? Remember, this is a complex problem and the solutions can't be captured in a sound bite. Complete change won't happen overnight. But doing nothing won't change a thing. Adding more guns won't make us safer. We, the gun owners are at the heart of the problem. We need to be part of the solution.

For those of you worried about tyranny, picture this: Yes, if the government has a list of people who underwent firearms training, they know who you are. They also know that not only are there 100 million plus gun owners out there, THEY HAVE BEEN PROPERLY TRAINED IN FIREARMS. That sends a powerful message to any potential tyrant.

Is that enough answer for you, Mr Tuctom?

Offline LD

  • Legal Musings
  • *
  • Posts: 144
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #44 on: October 12, 2015, 04:06:11 PM »
Mr TheQ: why is it that anytime someone who is a part of this forum posts something you don't like or doesn't march lockstep with your opinion, you and others call them a troll? This is an open forum, where issues are discussed, opinions voiced, and facts exchanged. A healthy debate is both necessary to solving issues and integral to the concept of free speech, another constitutionally guaranteed right. If you don't agree with someone's stated case or their opinion, then state your own. But resorting to name calling like "troll" just emphasizes the shallowness of your own opinion.

But the fact is you ARE a troll.

Not even you believe that crap you are posting.

You keep harping on this & that being the fault of the "Gun Owners", and the ONLY solution to the problems you bring up is to have NO gun owners.
Background checks don't stop guns from being stolen or lost, background checks don't stop accidental shootings or suicides.
We already have universal background checks for hand guns here in MI and it hasn't stopped a single theft of a gun yet that you can document.

Training? We train our Police & they shoot innocent people, they have AD's and scare little kids by open carrying.
Training hasn't stopped any thefts or suicides that you can document.

Registration? How does knowing who owned a gun before it was stolen stop the thief from selling it on the black market?
If these new regulations you want imposed aren't "restrictions", what are they?
How will these new restrictions on who may own and how & when they may use or carry reduce crime when the criminals don't seem to care that it it already against the law to shoot or even threaten to shoot people?

What solution do you suggest other then to totally eliminate ALL guns in the world to stop "Gun Violence" ?

And how do you intend to eliminate all the guns and how will you verify that it has been done?
 

Offline thamm

  • Legal Musings
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #45 on: October 12, 2015, 04:34:08 PM »
And now for the statistical part of the discussion, something that was mentioned earlier in this thread. These are statistics compiled by the CDC for 2013, the latest year they've completed. (CDC Faststats)

Accidental deaths: 192,945
Accidental deaths per 100,000: 60.2
Deaths by poisoning: 48,545
Per 100K: 15.4
Deaths by motor vehicle: 33,804
Per 100K: 10.7
Deaths by firearm: 33,636
Per 100K: 10.6
Homicides by firearm(part of the 33k): 11,208
Per 100K: 3.5

The trend data supports the premise that in 2015, firearms deaths will surpass motor vehicle deaths.

One more statistic: the US is home to 5% of the world's population. It is also home to 35-50% of the world's civilian owned guns. The actual number is hard to nail down since the government is not allowed to maintain accurate firearms records.

Suicides 21,175 or 6.7/100k
Unintentional death  505 or 0.2/100k.
ETA
2,596,993 total deaths in 2013
« Last Edit: October 12, 2015, 04:57:55 PM by thamm »

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #46 on: October 12, 2015, 06:07:04 PM »
Suicides 6.7/100k

Japan has a suicide rate of between 26/100K and 30/100K, depending on the year.  If only Japan would ban guns from civilian ownership!

Offline jabeady

  • Posts: 9
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #47 on: October 12, 2015, 06:49:17 PM »
I will not say your vote doesn't count. I will say that (except in the case of small town elections) your vote is significantly insignificant.
I repeat:  If you don't get off your butt, then it's not bad enough for you to be bothered to do something about it.

Oh crap!

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 #48 on: October 12, 2015, 07:46:46 PM »

I repeat:  If you don't get off your butt, then it's not bad enough for you to be bothered to do something about it.

Oh crap!

Hi n00b. Obviously you are new and have no idea what I have or haven't done to secure our rights -- so I'll just say: welcome!
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline jabeady

  • Posts: 9
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #49 on: October 12, 2015, 07:53:33 PM »
Whatever you've done, you're apparently unhappy with the results.

Oh crap!

Offline part deux

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 683
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #50 on: October 12, 2015, 09:15:31 PM »
Suicides 21,175 or 6.7/100k
Unintentional death  505 or 0.2/100k.
ETA
2,596,993 total deaths in 2013
Damn those pesky facts.

Offline autosurgeon

  • MOC Treasurer
  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Ryan
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #51 on: October 12, 2015, 10:27:41 PM »
Two things that irritate me. Sanctimonious people that use MR. User name unnecessarily. And people that say Oh crap at the end of every post.



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 freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #52 on: October 13, 2015, 01:43:31 AM »
Mr auto surgeon. Sorry my verbiage irritates you. I'm just being polite to people I don't know very well.

It sounds like you have a problem, not me.

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #53 on: October 13, 2015, 01:56:25 AM »
Mr LD: Since you don't know me personally, don't know my experience or history with firearms, don't know my motives, I suggest you take your label of "troll" and stick it in your ear. I do believe the information I am posting. I am passionate about both gun rights AND gun safety, and I firmly believe that the path we are on is not a good one. I have never suggested that "no gun owners" is a solution to anything. What I am saying is that the guns that end up in the hands of crazies, criminals, and idiots aren't coming from liberal gun haters. They don't own guns. Those guns are coming from us, the gun owners and dealers. The sooner we quit living in denial, the sooner we can effect change that actually works. It won't happen overnight. But if we use our heads and work together, we can create a gun culture in this country that is also safer.

Since you don't like my ideas, come up with some of your own! Stop calling people names and come up with solutions that stop gun trafficking, accidental shootings, and the rest of the gun issues we have. Saying no is not a solution. If we don't police ourselves and fix these problems someone will do it for us. We might not like the results.

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #54 on: October 13, 2015, 01:59:43 AM »
Mr gryphon: the issue of suicides in Japan is one of societal pressures and values. It has nothing to do with guns. This is a forum about gun issues in the United States. That's why I used stats from the US. I'm not sure what your point is. Can you explain a bit further, please?

Offline jabeady

  • Posts: 9
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #55 on: October 13, 2015, 02:43:41 AM »
Two things that irritate me. Sanctimonious people that use MR. User name unnecessarily. And people that say Oh crap at the end of every post.



Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Oh crap!

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #56 on: October 13, 2015, 02:53:09 AM »
Yes.  Suicides happen because of pressure (societal, health, family, employment).  The fact that guns are used sometimes is immaterial.  That's why I pointed out Japan, but I just as easily could have pointed to South Korea or Hungary or a number of other countries with restricted gun ownership and high suicide rates.  Yet that stat is toted out as evidence of evil "gun deaths" in the US.

You say you want to stop crazies from getting guns and committing murder.  I listed most of the recent handgun murders in the US.  That's what makes the news and causes liberals to wet their pants and call for more anti-gun legislation.

None of those were the result of shady FFLs or careless gun owners or stolen guns (except for one where the guy murdered the gun-owner and stole the guns out of a safe), which is what you keep whining about.

So you tell me, what law would you pass to stop all of these mass murders?

The Umpqua CC shooter Christopher Harper-Mercer legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.

The Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.

The Isla Vista shooter Eliot Rodgers legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.

The Colorado theater shooter James Holmes legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.

The Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.

The Ft. Hood shooter Ivan Lopez legally purchased his guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.

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

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.

The Minneapolis shooter Andrew John Engeldinger legally purchased his guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.

The Las Vegas shooters Jerad and Amanda Miller legally purchased their guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.

The Tucson shooter Jared Loughner legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.

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

There's more cases just like these where the shooter legally bought his guns from an FFL and had a background check performed.

How are you going to stop an FFL from selling guns illegally?  99.99% of them don't, but there are a few that will and work with groups such as the Hell's Angels MC and others.  Some are gunsmiths and modify weapons for full-auto.  How are you going to stop them?

Stop telling me my mom has to take a training course approved by you to own a gun.  What are you proposing that would prevent people like Christopher Harper-Mercer, Dylann Roof, Eliot Rodgers, James Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho, Ivan Lopez, Nidal Malik Hasan, Aaron Alexis, Andrew John Engeldinger, Jerad and Amanda Miller, and Jared Loughner from obtaining a gun?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 03:08:43 AM by gryphon »

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #57 on: October 13, 2015, 03:01:23 AM »
Oh crap!

People with wildly different views are welcome here, even if they are obviously trolling, as long as they are engaging with dialogue.  On the other hand, people who are simply an ass for the sake of being disruptive might find themselves on the wrong side of the ban hammer.

Offline jabeady

  • Posts: 9
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #58 on: October 13, 2015, 03:29:57 AM »
You and others may find my Sig line objectionable.  Shrug.  This is the only forum where that's happened.  Use of the honorific "Mr" is also objectionable (see above).

Meanwhile, the charge of being a troll is slung around willy-nilly at the first hint of dissent, without reprimand for the accuser.

This is a radically different form of "Welcome."

Oh crap!

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #59 on: October 13, 2015, 03:46:31 AM »
You and others may find my Sig line objectionable.  Shrug.  This is the only forum where that's happened.
Perhaps the forums you normally participate in have low expectations of its users.  Tell me, what purpose does writing "crap" in every post serve?  Other than to make others think you were raised by wolves, of course.

Quote
the charge of being a troll is slung around willy-nilly at the first hint of dissent, without reprimand for the accuser.
The first hint of dissent?  I think not.  If someone thinks they are unfairly being accused of being a troll, they are welcome--even encouraged--to disabuse others of that notion at their earliest convenience.