Author Topic: A discussion about gun ownership  (Read 82517 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CitizensHaveRights

  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Mitch
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #160 on: October 26, 2015, 06:11:12 PM »
Rick Jones is a piece of $#|t, this much is true.

I'm embarrassed to say I voted for that POS, as representative and senator. May have even voted for him as sheriff, can't remember back that far. Now he's acting like he's seen his last election and can do whatever he wants to us.

Also embarrassed to say I voted for Snyder in 2010, but I fixed that last year.
"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?

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 #161 on: October 26, 2015, 11:55:16 PM »

I'm embarrassed to say I voted for that POS, as representative and senator. May have even voted for him as sheriff, can't remember back that far. Now he's acting like he's seen his last election and can do whatever he wants to us.

Also embarrassed to say I voted for Snyder in 2010, but I fixed that last year.

Jones is now term limited as a Senator. He's made remarks to me personally that's he's eyeing Governor.
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline CitizensHaveRights

  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Mitch
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #162 on: October 27, 2015, 06:17:54 AM »
Phat phuck is too old and ugly to run for governor. He should be content with his sheriff's retirement check and his maximum years House/Senate retirement check and ride off into the sunset.

Wait until he gets a load of my "Prick Jones wrote the law to let Vicki Weaver's murderer CC in schools without a license" campaign.
"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?

Offline CharleyVCU1988

  • Posts: 11
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #163 on: November 13, 2015, 08:55:58 PM »
"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. "

So then what exactly are you proposing via universal background checks then?  What sort of (arbitrary) criteria will you add on?

Offline part deux

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 683
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #164 on: November 14, 2015, 07:46:48 PM »
"many of these mass shooters did purchase their guns legally. THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM! /
Please cite your claim

Offline fozzy71

  • Posts: 184
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #165 on: November 15, 2015, 05:34:14 AM »
Please cite your claim

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0

Quote
Criminal histories and documented mental health problems did not prevent at least eight of the gunmen in 14 recent mass shootings from obtaining their weapons, after federal background checks led to approval of the purchases of the guns used.

Offline part deux

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 683
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #166 on: November 15, 2015, 08:45:31 AM »
Fozzy,

It's the ny times, one of the most anti gun rags out there

2 people is NOT a mass shooting

Several on that list lied on their application, which is illegal and a crime that is not prosecuted.

What else ya got?

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #167 on: November 15, 2015, 08:59:41 AM »
The article points out that most of these shooters obtained their weapons legally. They obtained them through a system that is obviously broken. If we want to keep guns out of the wrong hands, we need to change this system.

So the discussion is; how best to change the system? Saying no to everything and hoping it will change itself is not a solution.

Offline CitizensHaveRights

  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Mitch
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #168 on: November 15, 2015, 09:33:17 AM »
If we want to keep guns out of the wrong hands, we need to change this system.

So the discussion is; how best to change the system? Saying no to everything and hoping it will change itself is not a solution.

If we want lavender scented rainbows to shoot out of our asses when we fart, we need to change the entire human metabolic system.

So, the discussion is; how best to change the system? Saying no to everything and hoping it will change itself is not a solution.
"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?

Offline autosurgeon

  • MOC Treasurer
  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Ryan
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #169 on: November 15, 2015, 09:37:54 AM »
Restrictions on objects will never work. There will always be evil people who will find a way to perpetrate evil on the population.

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 MuffDiver

  • Posts: 5
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #170 on: November 15, 2015, 11:29:20 AM »
WHY does deaths related to cars keep coming up? That is such a straw/unrelated argument. Deaths related to guns is bound to be higher....because car ownership as a segment of the population is going down. With the advent of ride sharing, public transport and generations of kids who are increasingly not wanting the hassle or expense of car ownership it makes sense that accidental deaths will go down.

But the question remains, how does that effect the price of tea in China?

You don't look at the simple raw number of instances to make your argument, you look at the per capita rate. As our population continues to climb, mainly do to illegals, gun owner ship rates and sales continue to climb BUT overall violent crime numbers/rates are falling... How is that? Could it be that the regulation we need is more law abiding persons having guns? Let's face it, criminals will ALWAYS have guns, stolen, black market import, straw perchase, homemade ...the best defense against them in arming more good people. As far as mentally ill, that gets more complicated because there are many anti-freedom advocates that want to see the system abused to cast a net over an ever increase list of "mental health/physical health" diagnoses to block ownership. As some someone ewho works in the mental health system and looked over the DSM 5, it seems there is a diagnosis for you if do anything.....

Freediver, I keep seeing you asking for solutions from others time and time again but do not recall one post of you proposing anything that WE should do...just a lot of circular reasoning and avoidance.

What do I think we should do? What can the government do? In a world free of those who simply want to control us....Government should encourage and actively expand gun ownership.

1.) There should be no cost in obtaining a license or permit to exercise a right. (As a side note, I would love to see law suites over this.) Such costs discourage and block those often in most need of protection, the poor.
2.) Tax credits given to those who seek out and get appropriate safety train in to include classroom based "use of force" theory/policy along with skills based range training. This would be for a certain dollar amount, anything over this , the consumer is responsible for. This credit would be "renewable" every 3 years.
3.) Tax credit given for a storage system to safely keep firearms secure yet accessible. This would be up to a certain dollar amount, anything over this, the consumer is responsible for. This credit would be "renewable" every 3 years.
4.) Basic, developmentally appropriate, non-judgmental gun safety would be taught in elementary school, k-3.
5.)"Polution"/zoning ordnances wold be altered/strengthened in order to not force shut down or relocation of existing ranges or prohibition of new ones.
6.) Those in position to enforce laws, cops, should be well versed on law and not use ignorance or "reported complaints" as basis to infringe, harass or punish reasonably exercising a right when no reasonable reason exists.
7.) Make persons who do use the system to harass such open to civil and or criminal penalty and subject to fines or punishment (jail/loss of job)  payable/reponsible by themselves and not a union or municipal "insurance" plan. In other words those who do so are PERSONALLY responsible.

There....you wanted a plan on what we should do to improve the system, that's mine, for now. I'm sure I could add further "common sense" regulations/laws if I give it another 2 minutes of thought... All completely practical and reasonable but wholly unlikely due to pepole in favor of gun control are not in it to save lives, they are in it for control and power and "feeling good".

What would YOUR plan involve?
« Last Edit: November 15, 2015, 04:47:30 PM by MuffDiver »

Offline part deux

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 683
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #171 on: November 15, 2015, 05:15:22 PM »
The article points out that most of these shooters obtained their weapons legally. They obtained them through a system that is obviously broken. If we want to keep guns out of the wrong hands, we need to change this system.

So the discussion is; how best to change the system? Saying no to everything and hoping it will change itself is not a solution.

Did you even bother reading the article?  Most were NOT obtained legally, and maybe in your Bloomberg world, two people is a mass shooting, but not in mine.

Offline CharleyVCU1988

  • Posts: 11
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #172 on: November 15, 2015, 05:59:21 PM »
As far as mentally ill, that gets more complicated because there are many anti-freedom advocates that want to see the system abused to cast a net over an ever increase list of "mental health/physical health" diagnoses to block ownership. As some someone ewho works in the mental health system and looked over the DSM 5, it seems there is a diagnosis for you if do anything.....

Freediver, I keep seeing you asking for solutions from others time and time again but do not recall one post of you proposing anything that WE should do...just a lot of circular reasoning and avoidance.

Amen to that.  Freediver, as he said, I don't see much of anything from you about what should be done outside training requirements as such.

Not to mention the practice of psychiatry has been abused by The State multiple times in the past to silence and disarm political dissidents.

The reluctance is likely on that front because it all boils down to this - who gets to define who is violently mentally ill and who isn't?  In a perfect world, I should be able to put Alex Jones (infowars), Clive Bundy, Ted Nugent, Keith Olbermann, Louis Farrakhan, all in front of a (hopefully) objective psychiatrist and they should come out of that (hypothetical) exam A-OK.  They are certainly political firebrands but none of them are imminent threats to anyone, nor are they future threats to anyone. 

I'm against psych exams because they are WAY too arbitrary, and concentrate power in the hands of a few, btw.  But it's not like the leftwing and gungrabbers seem to care anyways.

Offline CitizensHaveRights

  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Mitch
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #173 on: November 15, 2015, 06:21:39 PM »
They are certainly political firebrands but none of them are imminent threats to anyone, nor are they future threats to anyone. 

Tell that to Elijah Muhammad.

Quote
I'm against psych exams because they are WAY too arbitrary, and concentrate power in the hands of a few, btw.  But it's not like the leftwing and gungrabbers seem to care anyways.

Agreed.
"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?

Offline MuffDiver

  • Posts: 5
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #174 on: November 18, 2015, 08:43:33 PM »
Still haven't seen freediver's ideas for reasonable changes.....

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #175 on: November 18, 2015, 09:14:54 PM »
Sorry Mr Muffdiver: I was in transit for the last two days from Mexico to the US, and off the grid for much of the time prior to that. I wanted to give your post a thoughtful reply rather than blast away. I promise you a fuller response in the next 24 hours.

I do appreciate your concern.

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #176 on: November 20, 2015, 07:27:38 AM »
Mr muffdiver: the cars to gun analysis keeps coming up as an example of trend data and its directions. The overall number of cars in the US continues to go up, not down, yet car deaths decrease. The number of gun deaths continues to rise, which I would consider a negative trend. Mass shootings continue unabated and we are all worried about the transfer of firearms into the hands of criminals. There is no evidence whatsoever, none, that introducing more guns into a society will make it safer or less volatile. If you have an ACTUAL example of this happening I would love to see it. I have asked for this piece of evidence many times on this forum and have been ignored. Not speculation about US crime rates versus guns because there is no clear cause and effect between gun ownership and crime rates. Crimes rates are correlated to birth rates and other demographic factors, economics, social factors such as the general acceptance of guns (more in white families versus black or Hispanic families, for example). So until there is a proven correlation between gun ownership and crime rates, it remains only wishful thinking.

As far as criminals always having guns, I beg to differ. What we are talking about is choking off that supply of guns so that guns become harder to obtain, and thereby more expensive to the criminal. Choking off that supply can be done in multiple ways. Here are the specific proposals you asked for:
1. Fully fund the ATF so that they can do the job we charter them for, which is tracking illegal gun sales and prosecuting corrupts FFLs.
2. Track the registration numbers of all firearms so that we can identify the conduits by which guns pass from legal hands to illegal hands and shut them down.
3. Hold all gun owners responsible for their weapons, to include law enforcement officers. If you fail to secure your weapon properly and it is stolen and used in a crime, you as the owner are on the hook for your inadequate storage.
4. Mandatory firearms training. Basic safety and competency training before you buy a firearm, similar to the CPL requirements in many states. If you want to conceal or open carry, we raise the bar a bit and require that you attend a tactical shooting course to learn the skills you would need to safely engage targets. Despite our best intentions, none of us are natural born shooters. Therre are very specific skills and techniques to learn in order to engage a bad guy in a public venue, either to defend yourself or others. By sheer volume of applicants the cost of these courses would be kept much lower than today's costs.

Looking at your proposals , I think you have some great ideas. The idea is to fundamentally change our gun culture from the ground up while not penalizing gun owners. This should be an investment in people, similar to other educational programs. We WANT people to be skilled marksmen and women. We WANT people to be able to safely and effectively be that good guy with a gun. We WANT to get the criminals, the crazies, and the sheer idiots away from firearms. And best of all, we WANT to send a message to potential tyrants that US citizens are armed, are trained well, and are ready to face down any tyranny.

Hope those answers were what you are looking for.

Offline part deux

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 683
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #177 on: November 20, 2015, 09:10:51 AM »
Mr muffdiver: the cars to gun analysis keeps coming up as an example of trend data and its directions. The overall number of cars in the US continues to go up, not down, yet car deaths decrease. The number of gun deaths continues to rise, which I would consider a negative trend.

Cite your FACTUAL source please.

Even the FBI is reported lower numbers.

Offline bigt8261

  • MOC President
  • MOC Board Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1482
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #178 on: November 20, 2015, 09:17:18 AM »
The number of gun deaths continues to rise, which I would consider a negative trend.

Except for the federal government, specifically the Bureau of Justice Statistics which is a branch of the Attorney General's office, says you are wrong. Like, WAY wrong.

You said "gun deaths continues to rise", but the actuall statistics show a 39% decrease in firearm related homicides (guns are objects, they can't die), and a 69% decrease in non-fatal firearm related crime from 1993-2011. Since then the number of firearms in this country continues to skyrocket and those crime numbers just keep going down.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

It appears to me your anti-gun notions are based on a complete myth.

Offline bigt8261

  • MOC President
  • MOC Board Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1482
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #179 on: November 20, 2015, 09:19:08 AM »
Mass shootings continue unabated

Only when no one can defend themselves. Here are a few examples of what happens when people CAN defend themselves.

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/