Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: freediver on October 26, 2015, 10:18:27 AM
-
Here's a current example of something we, the gun owners, might want to think about addressing:
http://news.yahoo.com/south-carolina-police-stumble-upon-massive-cache-7-132518632.html
-
What's to address? The police arrested him and he will go to trial and be convicted. From what I read he wasn't selling them, just stockpiling them. If you have specific info about others like this then I recommend that you contact the local police and let them address the issue.
-
He got around background checks through the gun theft loophole...
-
address what?
There are no legal limits to the number of legally owned firearms?
If those firearms are not legally owned, then he broke existing laws and will face the consequences.
If you feel this is a problem, please articulate your position and provide a clear solution.
-
I know! I know!
Let's mandate that everyone who owns a gun must keep it in a government approved safe. It must never leave the safe unless government approval is secured in advance.
What do I win?
/sarc
-
You know the funny thing, is I have read about this story in 3 different news outlets and they never talk about ammo. This guy had 7000+ guns, but didn't have vast amounts of ammo? Seems weird.
The guy seems like the underpants gnomes from South Park.
Step 1 - steal underpants
Step 2
Step 3 - Profits
He seems to have forgotten the step where you either need to use or sell the stolen goods to make profits.
-
http://youtu.be/tO5sxLapAts
-
I want to agree with the above responses.
freediver, what is it you see that "we" as gun owners should do?
-
I want to agree with the above responses.
freediver, what is it you see that "we" as gun owners should do?
Just look at his ramblings in the other thread that he started: Total registration, mandatory safe storage, universal background checks, liability insurance, etc, etc.
-
I want to agree with the above responses.
freediver, what is it you see that "we" as gun owners should do?
Isn't the answer obvious? From freediver's past posts he think "we" gun owners should support calls for more gun control!
-
Isn't the answer obvious? From freediver's past posts he think "we" gun owners should support calls for more gun control!
Oh yeah thats right. From the very first post too, no pretending by freediver (except to be pro gun).
-
Ladies and gentlemen: Many of our discussions on this forum have revolved around the current firearms regulatory system and whether it needs revamping. So let's review for a minute.
The situation here is that we have a convicted felon with a lengthy record who managed to get his hands on a firearm (system failure #1). Not only did he managed to get his hand on one firearm, he managed to get his hands on 7-10,000 firearms (system failures #2-10,000). Initial estimates are that 99% of the weapons and other goods are stolen (system failure #3). It was only by sheer luck that the authorities stumbled across this cache of weapons (system failure #4).
In other threads writers have pointed out that most of the mass shooters in this country obtained their weapons legally (system failure #5).
Now, we can dwell on semantics and euphemisms such as gun regulation, gun control, or any other words we would like to use. No matter how you describe it, we have a problem with gun ownership and usage in this country. We have firearms deaths that outnumber traffic deaths. Many portions of our cities continue to be dangerous to both cops and ordinary citizens because there is an unchecked flow of firearms into the hands of criminals. Guns continue to flow south across the border in exchange for drugs. The mental health system is uncoupled from the firearms background check system. Nearly 224,000 guns are lost or stolen every year. Gun owners continue to sell guns privately to straw buyers or other persons who shouldn't have guns. We have people who buy and carry firearms with no training or no real understanding of how these things work. They are a public safety hazard by their ignorance. Call it what you want. But our gun environment in this country is messed up, and is not getting better.
Yes, on other threads I've mentioned some solutions: mandatory firearms training and licensing, liability for gun owners for proper locked storage, holding law enforcement officers accountable, tracking gun serial numbers to combat gun trafficking and criminal acts, fully funding the ATF to do their job. I don't claim to have all the answers. Certainly there are other solutions out there. If you don't like my ideas, come up with some of your own. But existing in denial and saying no to any and all solutions is not the way forward.
Here's my biggest concern:change from without. Guns don't flow from liberal gun haters to criminals and crazies. They come from us, the gun owners. This is our "sport", our passion, our section of society. We are the ones responsible for policing ourselves. As in every other situation, if we don't police ourselves, then that policing will come from outside the community. Given the rampant dysfunction of the GOP these days there is a better than average chance that the Dems will win the White House. Public opinion continues to swell against firearms and the media isn't helping. So, we can either take the lead and make changes from within that actually work, or we can dig in our heels and allow change to happen from without. We might not like that result.
-
TLDR blah blah more gun control. It kind of gets old, dude.
-
Bloomberg's groups would be more to your liking.
Your solution to a felon committing a felony is to make more laws restricting honest law abiding citizens.
This is getting old.
-
Mr. Freediver,
As was previously pointed out to you, nearly 2/3 off all firearm deaths are intentionally SELF-INFLICTED. I don't believe that more background checks, mandatory training, and mandatory gun storage laws will prevent people from killing themselves.
-
Freediver, thank you for pointing out that criminals will engage in criminal behavior. We address the problem of wanton disregard of the law by removing the person from society. Rehabilitation has failed.
We don't address the complete disregard of the legal system of a few by subjecting law-abiding citizens to undue burden.
-
I don't see any problem. I'm having a hard time with that characterization.
Criminal got caught. Laws worked. Claiming there is a problem where there isn't.....
Crying wolf!
Isn't that nursery rhyme intend to teach young children the consequences of believing in those who tell stories with ulterior motives?
It sure is, Aesop.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
-
Mr thamm: Firearms deaths run about 33K a year. Of those, homicides make up roughly 1/3, accidental shootings 1/3, suicides 1/3. Just keeping the numbers straight.
Mr linux203: undue burden? That your fellow citizens ask you to demonstrate your competency before they entrust you with a deadly weapon? Please! I would think that you would be comfortable earning the trust of your fellow citizens. If doing a few simple things places undue burden, I hate to think how life's other challenges might stress you out. If you are that easily derailed, perhaps you shouldn't be packing a gun.
Mr ultra: criminal was caught by pure blind luck. As I said in my lengthy post that Mr TheQ found too long to read, we have a fundamental system failure. Several, actually. As far as Aesop, if you remember the whole story, you'll remember that in the end the wolf did show up and assault the whole flock. Spoiler alert: we're not the wolf or the boy.
Go Mets!
-
Mr thamm: Firearms deaths run about 33K a year. Of those, homicides make up roughly 1/3, accidental shootings 1/3, suicides 1/3. Just keeping the numbers straight.
False. Table 18 from the CDC statistics you cited previously.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm)
Total firearm deaths 33,636
Suicides 21,175 = 62.95%
Homicides 11,208 = 33.32%
Unintentional 505 = 1.50%
Legal Intervention/War 467 = 1.39%
Undetermined 281 = 0.84%
-
If it was blind luck, that merely speaks to shoddy police work. Shocking, isn't it? Yet still, the criminal is caught.
Imagine that.
Passing more laws that are subjected to enforcement by shoddy police is creating more problems while solving none. There isn't a problem here. Hence, your "solutions" are the problem.
Your inability to perceive that you are spamming this forum with these views speaks to your inability to perceive what is and isn't a problem. Partners in the same dance.
-
I'm not sure what the problem is. Would you mind clarifying?
-
False. Table 18 from the CDC statistics you cited previously.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm)
Total firearm deaths 33,636
Suicides 21,175 = 62.95%
Homicides 11,208 = 33.32%
Unintentional 505 = 1.50%
Legal Intervention/War 467 = 1.39%
Undetermined 281 = 0.84%
Factual data is irrelevant
Doesn't support the dogma.
-
Freediver, I normally avoid your threads, as well as pretty much any other thread that turns into an argument, because that's not how I like to spend my free time online - for example, I basically blocked out all that SERP nonsense from awhile back for the same reason. But I'd like to ask you a couple honest questions, if you don't mind:
You're a MOC Member. Have you ever open carried before? As in, openly carried a holstered handgun, in public? On how many occasions? If not, do you at least support OC? If so, how do you demonstrate your support, aside from obviously having paid the membership fee to MOC? From what I gather, your political position doesn't seem to be one that would smile on that method of carry, but if you have OC'd anyway or at least support it, cool. Thank you for doing that.
However, assuming you don't support OC (which, though I don't want to stereotype your politics, seems more likely), then from everything else you've said I have to conclude that you are diametrically opposed to everything this organization stands for. Now, from the little bit I've seen, you present your arguments well - having analyzed your arguments I still believe you're absolutely wrong, but you've at least argued well and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree with you and just settling it all at the ballot box. But you're barking up the wrong tree. It's fine if you and MOC don't agree on anything (and thanks for the membership money, I guess?), and continued civil discourse is great. But do you or do you not support at least some of the goals - or even just the singular goal of advancing open carry - of this organization? I'm very curious to know.
-
Mr part deux: Sorry, I did get one line wrong. But dead from a firearm is dead, whether it is a suicide or accidental shooting. But that's unproductive hairsplitting when we are talking about bigger pictures. We are talking about the regulatory environment in this country and how it is not working. We are talking about how best to move forward.
-
Mr part deux: Sorry, I did get one line wrong. But dead from a firearm is dead, whether it is a suicide or accidental shooting. But that's unproductive hairsplitting when we are talking about bigger pictures. We are talking about the regulatory environment in this country and how it is not working. We are talking about how best to move forward.
There's a big difference between 505 unintentional deaths and ~11k unintentional deaths. There's also a pretty considerable difference between ~11k intentional suicides and 21,175 intentional suicides. If you want to reduce the number of people who are "dead from a firearm," it looks like the greatest potential for improvement lies with intentional suicide. Perhaps we should look into somehow making people not want to stop living. Maybe we could just outlaw suicide and have a huge reduction in so-called "gun violence" overnight.
Since dead is dead, whether the use of a firearm was involved or by other means, maybe we should "[talk] about the bigger picture" rather than focusing the minority of deaths involving a firearm.
It seems to me that understanding where we are would be a good first step in deciding how to move forward. To dismiss presentation of information critical to that understanding as "unproductive hairsplitting" makes me wonder just what you're trying to produce. Whatever it is, it's obviously not dependent on facts.
-
we have a problem with gun ownership and usage in this country.
No, I would say you have a problem with gun ownership.
I have a problem with criminals.
-
Mr linux203: undue burden? That your fellow citizens ask you to demonstrate your competency before they entrust you with a deadly weapon? Please! I would think that you would be comfortable earning the trust of your fellow citizens. If doing a few simple things places undue burden, I hate to think how life's other challenges might stress you out. If you are that easily derailed, perhaps you shouldn't be packing a gun.
Where did competency come into the equation? How is a criminal stealing a firearm incompetence on the part of a lawful gun owner? I call B.S.
Based on your previous threads, you advocate for storage requirements. Legislating safe requirements (which are easily defeated) puts undue burden on citizens. Does everyone have the finances and architectural requirements to support a 400lbs safe? Can they even get it into an apartment? That becomes an undue burden.
You also advocate registration. Should a person who can't register a firearm during a Sheriff's working hours be denied the right to own a firearm? Registration becomes an undue burden.
Does everyone have the ability to pay $115 every five years for a CPL. A license to exercise a right? That becomes an undue burden.
My comment was a generalization of the abilities of all law-abiding citizens, not my own. You questioned my right to carry a firearm based on my views of the gun community as a whole? I consider that a personal attack based on desperation.
-
Mr part deux: Sorry, I did get one line wrong. But dead from a firearm is dead, whether it is a suicide or accidental shooting. But that's unproductive hairsplitting when we are talking about bigger pictures. We are talking about the regulatory environment in this country and how it is not working. We are talking about how best to move forward.
Dead from a car accident is still dead, how's that mandatory training working our there
How many children are killed by swimming pools every year? They are still dead, and we don't background check pool owners.
Here's a really good one, how many people are killed due to medical MISTAKES each and every year? The number of people killed by medical MISTAKES is staggering.
Dead is still dead.
Oh, but wait, it's not that they are dead, they died from a bullet that's important.
-
On the topic of suicide: if a person wishes to no longer live who are any of us to force them to continue living? Sure, we can try to convince them otherwise, if we become aware -- but isn't the choice ultimately theirs?
I'd wager ppl that choose a gun do so for the (hopefully) quick, (hopefully) painless, and (hopefully) assured success.
I say let's go further: let's allow people who have been counseled on their chose enlist professional help in carrying out their plans -- this seems the most humane.
It gives the person control over their life/death decision and allows them an assured painless way out.
You're never going to eliminate suicides. Attempted suicides are often a cry for help. People who use a gun aren't interested in "attempting" suicide -- they are interested in succeeding.
Take away the gun and I promise you they'll find another way: cliffs, tall buildings, kitchen knives, airplanes, trains, semis.
-
Q,
Suicide is illegal :SMH:
-
Actually, suicide is not illegal, at least in Michigan.
-
Mr Scandiacus: Yes I have open-carried in times past, when I was living in Utah and Arizona. In more rural settings where police response was further away, I felt it a good idea to OC. I was also either still in the military or an active Federal Flight Deck Officer, which meant I was trained and current in tactical shooting. I moved to Michigan a bit less than two years ago and I've been trying to educate myself to both OC and CPL requirements. My intent is to gain a CPL after the first of the year.
I don't open carry in Michigan for several reasons:
1. I live in suburban west Michigan in a very safe town where police response is maybe 5-10 minutes away (the police station is right down the street). I don't feel the NEED to OC because it would muddy the situation if something started. I feel comfortable in my hand to hand skills dealing with 99% of everyday situations. My handgun travels with me when I head up north for both two-legged and four legged critters.
2. Since dropping out of the FFDO program and retiring from the military, my tactical shooting skills are not what they were. I don't feel entirely comfortable with my shooting skills in a tactical situation.
3. Carrying a weapon openly also opens you up to having that weapon grabbed and used, against you or someone else. Since I'm not going to walk around on constant tactical alert, I prefer to carry concealed in the future.
I am a firm believer in the RIGHT to OC. Where I differ from the party line of the Michigan OC organization is that with that right comes a somber level of responsibility that I rarely see demonstrated among gun owners. Here's what I mean (this has been in other threads as well:
1. A firearm by definition is a deadly weapon. It exists for one purpose: to kill something or someone. When a gun comes out of a holster, someone is about to die. It is not to be used for discussion, for intimidation, for keeping religious freaks away from you at the gas station (someone's previous post). Toting a gun, openly or concealed, is a far more serious business than many gun owners want to admit to themselves. If you open carry, you need to be prepared to take a life.
2. Tactical shooting skills are completely different from spending a couple of hours on the range. You need to consider legal requirements, fields of fire, innocent bystanders, background of the target, movement, multiple bad guys. As police and military have demonstrated, it's easy to put bullets everywhere BUT in the bad guy. If you think you will be suddenly transformed into James Bonds or a Navy Seal, you're deluding yourself. These skills take training and practice. A lot of it.
3. I believe that the bar to gun ownership is set far to low. There are almost no requirements to owning a gun. If you are of legal age, have a clean record in the computer, and have money, you can buy a gun. Almost any sort of gun. As a fellow gun owner and citizen, that's not good enough for me.
I could go on, but my shuttle bus is leaving. I'll try and discuss further. Isn't that what gun forums are for?
-
If you are of legal age, have a clean record in the computer, and have money, you can buy a gun.
That sounds exactly like a citizen exercising ones right. Either admit you are lobbying for a constitutional amendment or accept that it is an acknowledged, legal right and quit bemoaning it. Otherwise, everything you say is tainted with a foundation built on a lie and everyone here knows it with the possible exception of yourself.
-
Mr ultra: I have yet to see a post from you that is grounded in reality. You know nothing about me. My opinions are built on years of experience, education, training, study of this and other issues, and a lot of thought. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean everything I say is "tainted". We disagree on a topic being discussed in this forum. If you want me to change my opinions, then convince me with fact-based, reasoned arguments. I have an open mind and am willing to learn more. Please leave the name-calling and the other melodramatics to juveniles where it belongs. If that's all you can bring to the conversation, that tells me you have nothing to say.
I don't have a problem with someone exercising their right to bear arms. I firmly believe in it. What I don't believe in is continuing to allow idiots, criminals, and the mentally ill to get their hands on guns. I believe that we, the gun owners, should step up to our responsibility and find a way to balance 2nd Amendment rights with our fellow citizens' right to public safety and pursuit of happiness. There are ways it can be done. If we continue to say NO to any regulatory changes, we're not standing for freedom and against tyranny. We're being selfish and myopic and only trying to get our way. That, too, is a form of tyranny, when you force everyone to live only by your rules.
-
You need to consider legal requirements, fields of fire, innocent bystanders, background of the target, movement, multiple bad guys. As police and military have demonstrated, it's easy to put bullets everywhere BUT in the bad guy. If you think you will be suddenly transformed into James Bonds or a Navy Seal, you're deluding yourself. These skills take training and practice. A lot of it.
I believe that the bar to gun ownership is set far to low. There are almost no requirements to owning a gun. If you are of legal age, have a clean record in the computer, and have money, you can buy a gun. Almost any sort of gun. As a fellow gun owner and citizen, that's not good enough for me.
Yet each year millions of people, often elderly people, manage to use a firearm to protect themselves, to save their own lives with firearms, without all this mandated training you want. Seems to me that's a Good Thing.
-
What right to public safety are you talking about? There is no such right.
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
-
Mr gryphon: millions of people do NOT defend themselves each year, and it would be impossible to say if most of them are elderly. That is a melodramatic argument that has no basis in reality. An NRA friend of mine researched the FBI statistics, and what he came up with is 60-70,000 possible incidents a year where someone defended themselves with a firearm. The numbers are hard to pin down because no law enforcement agency, including the FBI, tracks crime numbers with an eye towards firearm defense.
But the "millions" number is a complete lie. It is a number perpetrated by various gun lobbyist groups based on a flawed study done back in the early 90s by Kleck and Getz. The study and its methodology has been thoroughly discounted by numerous sources. As I said to mr ultra, let's all bring facts to the discussion.
Mr auto surgeon: while the right to public safety was not written into the bill of rights, it does exist in every civilized society. Maslow's hierarchy of basic human needs list safety just above physiological needs. In other words, after we satisfy the needs of food, water, air, heat or cooling, and disease prevention, safety comes next. We need to feel safe in our surroundings, safe from attack, safe to pursue that happiness that is written into the Declaration of Independence. Safe to walk our streets, attend our schools and churches, safe to go out of our house without having to pack heat wherever we go. That's the point of being civilized. That we can rise above a barbarian state and offer ourselves safety and comfort.
Despite mr ultra's contention, I am not deluded enough to think the world is all peace, love, and customized vans. Far from it. The world is a nasty place. In FFDO school we talked about the psychology of survival. The world is made up of three groups; sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. The sheep are the general populace; keep your head down and hope nothing bad happens. The wolves are the thugs, the criminals, the crazies who wish to do us harm. The sheepdogs are those people who decide to step up and protect the sheep. They figure prominently in the military and law enforcement. They rise to the challenge of keeping their fellow citizens safe. They learn, they train, they practice, they adapt.
So, you want to be that sheepdog who protects the flock? Step up to the challenge. It isn't enough to go to a store, buy a gun, strap it to your hip and proclaim yourself the guardian of Liberty. That's not enough. If that's all you do, you will fail. If you want to be that good guy with a gun, then you need to raise that bar. Train yourself and others. Learn to shoot in a tactical situation, not just plink at paper targets. Work to change gun regulations so that guns don't make it into the hands of infants, criminals, idiots, or the insane. Be part of the solution.
Because if you just sit on your hands and say no to everything, you are just part of the problem.
-
The only problem here is know it alls like yourself who wanna legislate away rights all due to trusting your government more than you trust your fellow man.
You and your views, Freediver, are the problem. The only problem. I don't wanna give up my rights to appease you or others who claim to think like you and I don't think anyone should have to give up their rights either.
Freediver = problem. Problem = Freediver.
Any questions? See above ^
-
Mr gryphon: millions of people do NOT defend themselves each year
But the "millions" number is a complete lie. It is a number perpetrated by various gun lobbyist groups based on a flawed study done back in the early 90s by Kleck and Getz.
Actually you can look at the U.S. Department of Justice National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. Their report showed the numbers were actually higher than Kleck and Gertz (not Getz) cited. But even if all the numbers were too high, those numbers are still orders of magnitude higher than homicides committed with firearms. And Kleck was over 20 years ago. The DoJ report was almost 20 years ago. There are many more guns now and WAY many more people carrying guns now than in the mid-90's.
In the mid-90's only, what, 1 or 1.5 million people had carry licenses. Now there are over 11 million, ten times as many. In seven states you don't even need a license to CC. In 30 you don't need one to OC. With ten times as many people licensed to carry, and with tens of millions of more firearms today than in the mid-90's (actually about 150 million more), do you think the self-defense encounters are going down or up?
And by the way, the Kleck and Gertz study was not flawed. Their criticism has been formally answered. Three times over three different years. But even if you ignore that, which you will, the number of SD firearms uses by innocent citizens today dwarfs what it was 20 years ago.
I can't imagine what it must be like to be you, to read all the stories in the Free Press and LSJ and other Michigan papers where people, often women, have defended their lives with guns by shooting their attackers, and you wishing they had been murdered by the criminal because they had no business carrying a gun because they didn't take some arbitrary training that you want mandated. It must suck to be you.
-
The world is made up of three groups; sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs.
That's bovine excrement popularized by LTC Dave Grossman and perpetrated by simple-minded people like you. You will probably take that as a pejorative, but I meant it as an honest adjective.
Honestly, did you have to have someone tell you that there are only three types of people to give you some framework for categorizing people's attitudes for self-defense? Were you actually stupid enough to believe it? This is nothing more than a false dilemma (false dichotomy) variant.
-
Maslow... Ah yes well this is cute.
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
-
An NRA friend of mine researched the FBI statistics, and what he came up with is 60-70,000 possible incidents a year where someone defended themselves with a firearm.
Please cite these FBI statistics. I say you are lying.
-
Maslow's hierarchy of basic human needs list safety just above physiological needs.
That means it was at the bottom. Actually second from the bottom. Psychological needs was at the very bottom. You want to be safe? Carry a gun. The constitution doesn't guarantee your safety or happiness, only your right to pursue happiness. The law doesn't guarantee your safety.
“There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered.” Bowers v. DeVito
Actually the wording is 'Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." For some reason you want to trample on other people's liberty. Stop it.
-
1. A firearm by definition is a deadly weapon. It exists for one purpose: to kill something or someone.
this quite frankly is ALL I need to hear.
For someone that claims to have taken the oath twice, you sure have a misguided view of the 2nd amendment.
Plain language was clearly written for a reason...
shall not be infringed
-
I am not a sheep, a wolf, or a sheepdog. I don't carry to protect the sheep -- I carry to protect myself and my pack.
-
Q, freediver isn't smart enough to understand that.
-
Mr gryphon: I see that, as usual, you decide that name-calling is preferable to reasoned-arguments. I am not stupid, brainwashed, naive, mis-guided, nor am I some sort of "problem" as mr ultra states. I am an intelligent gun owner with years of training and experience who sees things differently than you do. If you would like to change my mind, offer a fact-based well reasoned argument. Name-calling is for children.
If I can track down the source of my friend's FBI statistics, I will post it here. It's evident that there are a lot of numbers being thrown about, most of which are inaccurate. Like the "millions of times a year" number. It is physically impossible with our crime numbers to have a number that high.
As far as the "sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves" analogy, it is not BS. I learned about this in a class taught by law enforcement professionals with years of experience. I'll take their word over yours any day of the week. The theory matches up with my own life experience; that most people are sheep and it's up to those of us who choose to be sheepdogs to take on the wolves. What I've been saying is that being that "good guy with a gun" is not that easy. It requires training, it requires practice, it requires a level of commitment that I don't see among most gun owners.
-
So where do I fit in to your 3 types? I carry to protect myself. I'm not a wolf, as I'm a law abiding citizen causing no harm to others. I'm not a sheep because I'm providing my own protection. I'm not a sheepdog because owning a gun doesn't mean that I took an oath to protect those that can't or won't protect themselves.
-
"I am an intelligent gun owner"
No. No you are not. To be an intelligent gun owner is to understand the second amendment. You, clearly, do not.
This is why you are the problem. This is why you get unflattering labels justly applied to you and your "thinking."
If you really think I'm wrong about this or my proclamations about democracy, start a thread with a poll asking if you and your views are a problem and let the voters decide. Democracy. Let's vote as to whether you are "an intelligent gun owner who sees a need for common sense gun control" or if "your views on gun control are the problem."
Put up the poll. Use the phrases I quoted in the poll options. Let's let the voters decide who's right. Let's put your love of democracy to the test....
-
forget the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. There are only 10 types of people; those who understand binary and those that don't.
As for Freediver, you aren't going to change our minds, we aren't going to change yours.
-
Mr gryphon: I see that, as usual, you decide that name-calling is preferable to reasoned-arguments.
Apparently you need to take a reading comprehension class. Even a third grader can see that every single post I have made to you is a reasoned argument. I posted with facts from a U.S. Department of Justice National Survey. I posted with facts about firearms carry today vs. ten years ago. I posted with facts countering your faulty argument, or at least I can point you to the lengthy rebuttal of your precious criticism of Kleck (but it doesn't matter, read the U.S. DoJ). I am not stupid, brainwashed, naive, mis-guided, nor am I some sort of "problem" as mr ultra states.
Yes, you are. You exhibit little thought and nigh zero reasoned process. I am an intelligent gun owner with years of training and experience who sees things differently than you do. If you would like to change my mind
I don't care if I change your mind or not. I do care to counter your lies and misperceptions. Whether you agree with them or not is immaterial. I'm pretty sure you are a lost cause because you already have shown a pattern of refusing to look at valid data. So go ahead and try to get your gun-control agenda passed in Michigan and the US. I will be against you. Nothing, I repeat nothing that you have proposed is acceptable to me. I think gun laws are too strict. You think they are too lax. We are at an impasse. offer a fact-based well reasoned argument.
You could try reading with comprehension for a change. I have. Repeatedly. You, on the other hand, have come with hand-wringing crying that "we have got to something." No, we don't. If I can track down the source of my friend's FBI statistics, I will post it here.
If they are actual FBI statistics you can post them here, and you should be able to track them down in less than one hour. Ten minutes, tops. But take as long as you need. You will fail.As far as the "sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves" analogy, it is not BS. I learned about this in a class taught by law enforcement professionals with years of experience.
LOL! Yeah, no sh*t. Newsflash--they're wrong. Have you never had an original thought yourself? Have you never had someone try to teach you something and you say, "Hey, that's not right." I'm an engineer. I live on facts. I went though some "professional instruction" in university, particularly sociology. I told a few profs they were wrong. Notice this was more than once. I backed it up. I'll take their word over yours any day of the week.
You will? LOL! Not only are you a flippin' moron, but your opinion as well as that of LTC Grossman and your instructors can get you in legal trouble fast.
-
In FFDO school we talked about the psychology of survival. The world is made up of three groups; sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. The sheep are the general populace; keep your head down and hope nothing bad happens. The wolves are the thugs, the criminals, the crazies who wish to do us harm. The sheepdogs are those people who decide to step up and protect the sheep. They figure prominently in the military and law enforcement. They rise to the challenge of keeping their fellow citizens safe. They learn, they train, they practice, they adapt.
You know what the ironic part of this statement is? It's the fact that as an FFDO, the government DOESN'T WANT YOU to be the sheepdog.
Unless things have changed, the only time you're actually going to do anything is if the cockpit gets breached. Some asshole could be wasting every single passenger in the damn cabin, but you still have to stay put.
Which brings me to...
2. Since dropping out of the FFDO program and retiring from the military, my tactical shooting skills are not what they were. I don't feel entirely comfortable with my shooting skills in a tactical situation.
Tactical shooting as an FFDO? That's hilarious. The cockpit entrance provides a fatal funnel if someone were to breach it.
What branch of the military were you in? What was your MOS/AFSC/NEC/Designator/? For the aviation side of things, who did you fly for, what airframes were you rated for, total time?
-
So where do I fit in to your 3 types? I carry to protect myself. I'm not a wolf, as I'm a law abiding citizen causing no harm to others. I'm not a sheep because I'm providing my own protection. I'm not a sheepdog because owning a gun doesn't mean that I took an oath to protect those that can't or won't protect themselves.
This
-
Jason, you are asking questions that require specific / actual answers. I have yet to see freediver answer questions asked, just return questions or the standard statements as answers.
Oh, I noticed freediver wrote in regards to sheepdogs "They figure prominently in the military and law enforcement." In my experiences I can not agree with that statement. I do agree there are some with the want to keep others safe, but NOT prominently!
-
"I heard it from a cop, so it must be true."
The brainwashing is strong in this one...
-
Well, gentlemen , I see we have wandered far afield from any serious discussion on gun regulation and improving our country. Since you seem to be more intent on lining up to hurl stones at me than actually discussing anything, I'll bow out and let you go back to whatever else you do. Me, I'll be chasing fish with a speargun in the Sea of Cortez.
mr jgillmanjr: I was a fighter pilot in the Air Force. In the Air National Guard I was a ground Forward Air Controller for 10 years. Our role was to go forward with the Army lead units and call in airstrikes for Close Air Support. I was attached to both armor and infantry units.
As far as your comments on the FFDO program, if you've never been through it, I doubt you can speak competently as to its training regimen. So say whatever you want. I was in it. I know how we trained.
Best of luck, gentlemen. You've reaffirmed my observations of the sad state of gun ownership in this country. I'm sure we'll speak again.
-
I'm sure we'll speak again.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Freediver, perhaps you shouldn't be packing a gun.
-
mr jgillmanjr: I was a fighter pilot in the Air Force. In the Air National Guard I was a ground Forward Air Controller for 10 years. Our role was to go forward with the Army lead units and call in airstrikes for Close Air Support. I was attached to both armor and infantry units.
And still didn't answer the question.
-
"that "good guy with a gun" is not that easy. It requires training, it requires practice, it requires a level of commitment that I don't see among most gun owners."
Then make it easier to access for all citizens across the board. You threw your lot in with those who would go much, much further than you do. Now the NRA spends even more money trying to fight gungrabbers rather than actually creating more affordable, accessible courses that focus on judgmental use of force and scenario based, force on force training.
I recently attended a custom-made course where I was put through video based training (VirTra), force-on-force training (with UTM simunition guns and real actors), all allowing me to decide for myself in various situations whether force was needed or not, as well as how to comport myself should I be actually assaulted.
It is not cheap at all. It cost me nearly $4000. $1800 for the course alone. Another $1000 for a plane ticket. $200 for gas, $100 for car rental, $200 for the hotel stay. Additional costs factored in for food and emergencies.
Not to mention expenses for prior courses in the past that allowed me to use my prior training experience to get the most out of this custom course.
Most people don't have this kind of money, let alone time off.
Let us train alongside police officers for firearms skills. Or simply back off and let the NRA get back to an actual firearm safety focus.
Your call.
-
Mr CharleyVCU: Excellent points all. I was lucky enough to go through the types of training you mentioned on the government nickel. I just had to keep my hair cut short and show up for drill weekends. A small price to pay for the quality of training I received.
I would love to see the NRA get out of the political game and back to what their original charter was: gun safety and education. In current times they are mainly a political front for the gun manufacturing industry. They (and other gun groups like this) should take the lead on the points you mentioned: have us train alongside the military or law enforcement. Run us through the tactical courses, take our skills up several notches, and add those well-trained "good guys with guns" to make our streets safer.
And for those of you worried about government tyranny, there's a great side benefit to all this training: the government knows that not only are its citizens armed, but they can handle those weapons very well. Win-win.
-
oh goodie, FD created another account.
There are lots and lots of local training options that don't cost several thousand dollars. But, since you spent the money, you're very highly trained and the only one capable of self defense.
-
I am NOT freediver. Let's make that clear.
I was led to these forums through discussion on TruthAboutGuns.
I did not see very many, if any, local options for force-on-force judgmental training. I had to go out of state for that, which is absolutely ridiculous. If I did miss some local options I will gladly eat crow.
In an ideal world, every single range should have some sort of live-action judgmental use of force class, with staff or local acting groups filling the part of roleplayers.
What people like freediver or at least his newly found gungrabber allies never seem to grasp is the fact that quality training can be expensive and can be used to price working class people out of their rights. When they blather on about accessibility for voting when it comes to voter ID ("disenfranchises the poor due to cost and time spent to try and get one") but don't even think about it for the 2nd Amendment their hypocrisy really shows through.
-
This is the course I took
http://www.shootdontshoot911.com/
A simple google search popped up a couple of other courses including this one
http://www.mtacusa.com/airsoft_vs_simunitions.html
how would you like that crow prepared?
-
Mr CharleyVCU: you and I are on the same page when it comes to training. I see no point in banning weapons or "grabbing" them. I firmly believe in 2nd Amendment rights. I think our citizens have not only the right to carry, but a responsibility to use their talents and training to make our streets safer.
Where I differ with many on this forum is what constitutes a "good guy with a gun". As you pointed out, being that effective "good guy" requires training, it requires practice, it requires a commitment that most gun owners aren't willing to make. Carrying a loaded firearm in public, whether it is OC or concealed, brings with it a somber responsibility to "get it right", to be able to put bullets in the bad guy and only the bad guy. I would like to see more gun owners acknowledge the complexity of a shooting situation and make the commitment to train up to it.
-
Shadows and echo's
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
-
Carrying a loaded firearm in public, whether it is OC or concealed, brings with it a somber responsibility to "get it right", to be able to put bullets in the bad guy and only the bad guy. I would like to see more gun owners acknowledge the complexity of a shooting situation and make the commitment to train up to it.
Do police agencies 'train up' as you suggest?
And yet, there are many more incidents like "Two NYPD officers shoot at man, put one bullet in him, two in innocent little old ladies, and 30+ bullets Lord Knows Where" and "Columbus officer shoots at dog, hits 4 year old girl" than there are incidents in which lawfully armed private citizens shoot the wrong person.
So, why do you want to hold all of us responsible for "fixing" something that almost never happens in real life? Do you hate gun owners that much?
-
I would like to see police agencies "train up" to a higher level of firearms proficiency. In this era of rampant budget cuts, I doubt that would happen.
Yes, I do want to hold US responsible for fixing the problems we face. WE are the gun owners, we are the ones in the sport or the passion (however you want to label it), we are the ones who know best how to fix it. We should own our sport, take responsibility for it, and raise the bar for gun ownership so that many of these problems go away. We should police ourselves, not let others outside the sport do it for us.
-
....... Carrying a loaded firearm in public, whether it is OC or concealed, brings with it a somber responsibility to "get it right", to be able to put bullets in the bad guy and only the bad guy...........
If you are in the Paris theater and the bad guy is systematically murdering innocents one by one and he has innocents behind him in your line of fire do you take the shot and potentially hit an innocent or do you hold your fire while more people are murdered??
Not a good choice to have. No one knows how they will respond in a high pressure situation until it happens but I believe I would take the shot.
-
If crime and murders are at a 30-year low, shouldn’t the gun control crowd be happy?
Why aren’t they touting that existing gun laws have led to these historic low violent crime rates?
Why aren’t FBI crime stats not the main headline for gun controllers? “See see, the gun laws we advocated lead to a lower crime rate!”
Doesn’t this expose their real objectives like a flashlight on roaches?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/11/daniel-zimmerman/question-of-the-day-will-gun-control-advocates-ever-be-satisfied/
-
Mr citizenshaverights: the reasons that crimes and murders are at a 30 year low are many; economics, demographic shifts, changes in crminal law, etc. Crime is a very complex problem and I doubt you can reduce it to a simple cause and effect formula.
Since you state that current gun laws led to lower crime rates, can you please back that up with statistics?
Thanks.
-
Mr citizenshaverights: the reasons that crimes and murders are at a 30 year low are many; economics, demographic shifts, changes in crminal law, etc. Crime is a very complex problem and I doubt you can reduce it to a simple cause and effect formula.
Since you state that current gun laws led to lower crime rates, can you please back that up with statistics?
Thanks.
@partdeux - I'll concede - although I don't think I can give the literal answer as to how I want the crow prepared.
@freediver - the thing is though, gungrabbers keep saying that looser gun laws have led to more gun crimes - and yet overall the trends have not played out this way. Sure, it's a complex thing - but the response of "current gun laws leading to lower crime rates" is more of a retort against those who try and simplify it in the opposite direction.
"Where I differ with many on this forum is what constitutes a "good guy with a gun". - per freediver
You mention training as some sort of difference - have you offered, well, anything else?
-
Mr charleyVCU: I have offered other suggestions as far as training and licensing and recurrency requirements. As you might imagine, these have not been met with much enthusiasm on these forums. I have expounded on those ideas in several threads and I won't repeat them here for the sake of brevity.
In my mind here are the basics: Before you buy a firearm you are required to attend and pass a firearms training course; legalities, safety, shooting techniques, proper handling and storage. You are issued a firearms license and can go shopping. If you want to carry out in the world, OC or concealed, we're going to up the training requirement. To ensure that you can be that good guy with a gun, we'll run you through, at very low cost, a tactical shooting course that involves both range and classroom work. Simulators that include training scenarios would be excellent. If you pass, you're blessed to go forth and carry and help protect your fellow citizens. Since these skills are perishable, you'd need to follow up every year or so to keep your carry qualification.
Now, let the firestorm of dissent begin! Most of the contributors to this forum can't be bothered to actually step up and learn some skills, then practice them. Hiding behind some ancient verbiage in the 2nd Amendment to justify someone's lackadaisicalness doesn't cut it with me.
-
If you pass, you're blessed to go forth and carry and help protect your fellow citizens.
Again, I am NOT carrying to come to the aid of others. I carry to protect MYSELF. I have no idea where you got the idea that all OC/CCers are wanna-be police officers.
-
I'd put my skills against Freediver any day of the week.
-
Tham is correct. We aren't cops we don't carry to protect others. We carry to protect ourselves. That's why I have a problem with Lt. Col. Grossman's assertion that you are either a sheep or sheepdog. I am neither.
-
Now, let the firestorm of dissent begin! Most of the contributors to this forum can't be bothered to actually step up and learn some skills, then practice them. Hiding behind some ancient verbiage in the 2nd Amendment to justify someone's lackadaisicalness doesn't cut it with me.
Then I suggest you may be better off somewhere else. Perhaps a local MDA knitting session.
FYI, not only do I train, I'm also a trainer. One who advocates for the elimination of the requirement for my job.
-
Mr bigt8261: Since you are a trainer, you know better than anyone just how unskilled the average human is when it comes to tactical shooting skills. It's just not something we're automatically good at. So, if we want to be that "good guy with a gun", whether in self-defense or in defense of others, we have to train up to it. We can't just "hope" that we'll be good at it. We won't be. It takes training, it takes practice, it takes muscle memory, and most of all, it takes a mental attitude where you're prepared to KILL someone.
If you want to run a marathon, ride the Tour de France, walk the Appalachian Trail, be a chess master, cook like a blue-ribbon chef, or speak Portuguese, you don't just "do it". You'll fail. You get instruction, you practice hard, and you become aware of your own limitations. In the case of firearms, we are dealing with potentially taking a life. We need to get it right the first time.
-
I reject your entire premise on two grounds. First, you don't have to be an expert or even somewhat skilled to defend yourself. This is proven dozens or even hundreds of times a year. Second, nothing that you referenced is or should be a precondition for the lawful exercise of one's right. Should people train? Sure. Should we require it? Not even a tiny bit.
I don't need to be able to run a marathon in order to go for a simple jog through my neighborhood.
-
^^^Schooled^^^
-
you don't have to be an expert or even somewhat skilled to defend yourself. This is proven dozens or even hundreds of times a year.
Actually thousands, or tens of thousands. If you include incidents where no shots are fired, the figure is about 3.1 million according to the DoJ (wide margin of error ranging from 1.4 on the low end to 4.something on the high end). The lowest estimates I have seen are 760,000 per year.
EDIT: to be fair, even the notorious anti-gun rights researcher David Hemenway states there are only 80,000 defensive gun uses per year.
-
Actually thousands, or tens of thousands. If you include incidents where no shots are fired, the figure is about 3.1 million according to the DoJ (wide margin of error ranging from 1.4 on the low end to 4.something on the high end). The lowest estimates I have seen are 760,000 per year.
Great point.
Ugh, sorry sir, we can't allow you to kick your assailant. Our records show you only have an orange belt.
-
If you want to run a marathon, ride the Tour de France, walk the Appalachian Trail, be a chess master, cook like a blue-ribbon chef, or speak Portuguese, you don't just "do it". You'll fail. You get instruction, you practice hard, and you become aware of your own limitations. In the case of firearms, we are dealing with potentially taking a life. We need to get it right the first time.
More awesome straw man arguments.
Have you ever read the bill of rights?
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is clear written language.
-
Mr part deux: obviously you and I draw different meanings from the phrase "shall not be infringed".
-
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
-
Fudds who have a small vocabulary usually have trouble with phrases like shall not be infringed.
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
-
Mr autosurgeon: And morons who don't understand vocabulary can't get the subtleties of the English language.
My point is that we have differing opinions. You can be open-minded and accept that other people may not see things exactly as you do and accept that. Or you can be close-minded and wallow in ignorance.
Your call.
-
Wtf freediver I thought you left again.
How about you following your own advice "You can be open-minded and accept that other people may not see things exactly as you do and accept that."
-
And morons who don't understand vocabulary can't get the subtleties of the English language.
Yeah, that's what we've been trying to tell you. http://www.truthrevolt.org/videos/bill-whittle-your-second-amendment
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOwy9OWfnAM
-
Mr autosurgeon: And morons who don't understand vocabulary can't get the subtleties of the English language.
My point is that we have differing opinions. You can be open-minded and accept that other people may not see things exactly as you do and accept that. Or you can be close-minded and wallow in ignorance.
Your call.
Nice personal attack... Mods???
Shall not be infringed is clear as it could possibly be. You might try reading the federalist papers. Here's a summary by JPFO
SECOND: The language of the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from “infringing” on this right of the people. There is nothing ambiguous about “shall not be infringed.” (See Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2d ed.1983, p. 941.) The language of the Second Amendment is about as clear as the First Amendment’s prohibiting Congress from infringing the right to freedom of speech, press, and religious expression. There is no logical reason to read the Second Amendment as a weak statement, while treating the First Amendment as a strong protector of rights.
A. The Second Amendment protects a fundamental right and should be read broadly because it implements the right of self-defense. Self-defense is the ultimate right of all individuals to preserve life. The rights to a free press, free speech, assembly, and religion are extremely important — but none of them matters very much if you can’t defend your own life against aggression. None of them matters very much when an evil government is fully armed and its citizens are disarmed.
B. Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the U.S. Constitution refer to Congress’s powers concerning the state militias. Clause 15 empowers Congress to “call forth” the state militias into national service for specific purposes. Clause 16 empowers Congress to organize, arm and discipline the state militias, and to govern the militias while they are in national service. The Second Amendment confines Congress’s power by guaranteeing that the Congress cannot “govern” the militias right out of existence and thereby disarm “the people.”
http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm
-
Mr Tuctom: I try to be open minded and listen to differing opinions. As I told Mr part deux, he and I have differing opinions on "shall not be infringed". We agree to disagree. He's not changing his mind, I'm not changing mine. This forum is a place to display and comment on those differing opinions.
Mr bigT8261: I understand Bill Whittle's article completely; there's no lack of understanding vocabulary on my part. I see and read things differently and have stated so on this forum many times.
Mr part deux: You're right, it is a personal attack. I was responding directly to his comment about Fudds, as well as numerous other personal attacks I've received on this forum (Mr Tuctom, mr Utra, Mr theQ, Mr gryphon, etc, etc). Ladies and gentlemen, should we stick to discussing the issues or are you going to continue attacking anyone who disagrees with you? I guess that would count as shooting the messenger.
The JPFO is a pro-gun organization and therefore biased in writing opinions on what the Constitution really means. If you want to have a balanced, even nuanced discussion, try offering up some differing opinions so that readers can hear both sides of the argument and draw their own conclusions. This idea in MOC that everyone has to believe the same thing or be damned is just another form of tyranny.
-
he and I have differing opinions on "shall not be infringed".
If you start placing all sorts of rules, regulations, and restrictions on bearing arms, then you are infringing on one's right to bear arms and are converting it into a privilege.
-
Read the Federalist papers, read the preamble and then tell me that JPFO is biased analysis.
-
For the record I never said any names in any threads regarding FUDDs. If the label fits, wear it.
-
The thing is, freediver, even with all of the safety training you propose, none of it is going to deter someone hellbent on causing mayhem, as recent events in Paris have shown.
You are all for universal background checks which sounds nice in theory, but would require an (unconstitutional) registry in order to work.
And then when you do get universal background checks, what is stopping you or The State from expanding the dragnet so ridiculously large that it will eventually ensnare every US Citizen?
-
We have universal background checks for pistols in Michigan. Fortunately that prevents gun crime and makes us one of the lowest gun crime states in America. Yay Detroit and Flint.
-
Gentlemen, as I've said many times, here and in other threads, the gun issues in our country will not be solved by simple, one-step approaches. The issue is complex and requires a multi-faceted solution. The change will not happen over night. Training requirements, licensing, proper locked storage, mandatory background checks, etc; all need to be part of the solution. My personal opinion is that none of these "infringes" on our right to bear arms. They safeguard that right, because in taking these and other measures, we gradually ensure that guns are in the proper hands. Remember, our top priorities are safety (personal and public) and keeping guns out of the hands of crazies and criminals.
And we, the gun enthusiasts, should be taking the lead on this. This is OUR problem. You can exist in denial and say that you personally aren't part of the problem. But you are. We all are. The current system is broken. Guns flow from the hands of gun owners and corrupt FFLs into the wrong hands by the hundreds of thousands every year. We are causing this, not the liberal gun haters out there who don't actually own guns. We are the ones who should be writing the laws that cure the gun problems in our country. If we don't, public opinion will continue to swell against us, and someone else will write laws that we don't like and that don't work. As someone pointed out, just look at Chicago, Detroit, and Flint.
-
No not "we the gun enthusiasts", YOU the gun controlist. Don't place your blame or shame on me, you can keep it and wallow in it alone.
MOC is leading the way. There is no question we are the very tip of the spear when it comes to advancing gun rights in Michigan. If you have a different agenda, then I again suggest you would be better off somewhere else. MDA likes to list the same ideas you did. Start with them, if you haven't already. You can be one of their 'I'm a gun proud gun owner but...' people.
Oh, and if you haven't noticed, public opinion is swelling in favor of pro-gun. Step outside of your gun control bubble and you will see.
-
And mr TheQ: For the record, you've said plenty of other things that constituted personal attacks. So, if we want to have an adult discussion, we need to drop the personal attacks.
If you disagree with someone, explain why you do. Back it up with FACTS, if you can. Engaging in personal attacks is childish and adds nothing to the conversation. It's the equivalent of Dan Akroyd on SNL saying "Jane, you ignorant slut".
And most of all, agree to disagree. We are all adults here (supposedly). We should act like it and hear each other out, respectfully. A hallmark of our democracy is free speech and the respect for individual opinions. We should keep it that way.
-
Mr bigt8261: again, we see things differently. I'm comfortable in my world view, as you are with yours. I am not wallowing in guilt or shame. I see problems that need fixing. I see some things we can do to fix them. I am a citizen who served this country and cares deeply about its safety. I am voicing those solutions here, on a forum about guns, because this is where we need to talk about such things.
-
And mr TheQ: For the record, you've said plenty of other things that constituted personal attacks. So, if we want to have an adult discussion, we need to drop the personal attacks.
If you disagree with someone, explain why you do. Back it up with FACTS, if you can. Engaging in personal attacks is childish and adds nothing to the conversation. It's the equivalent of Dan Akroyd on SNL saying "Jane, you ignorant slut".
And most of all, agree to disagree. We are all adults here (supposedly). We should act like it and hear each other out, respectfully. A hallmark of our democracy is free speech and the respect for individual opinions. We should keep it that way.
Sigh, we don't have a democracy, we have a constitutional republic.
Free speech is a protection from government, not people. That means you are free to have an opinion, no matter how dumb, and we are free to tell you how dumb it is.
Your gun control is not welcome.
-
I am going to go back to the start of this and ask one simple question. Would someone please define the problem that the news article brought up by freediver is supposed to be. The only issue I see is the lack of law enforcement from following up on different criminal acts and seeing them resolved completely. Since according to a number of reports these guns where stolen items. The trail on how they came to this persons hands IF they are indeed stolen should be of equal if not greater concern than any other item.
That is the issue I see from the article. I maybe be missing something and would care to have others express their view of what the "problem" this article raises is.
Michael
-
The problem is in trust of government over trust in one's fellow man.
The "problem" is people who claim to be for gun rights out of one side of their mouth and then want to take them away out of the other side of their mouth.
The problem is people who can't admit their agenda would require a constitutional amendment.
The problem is with people who can't read for comprehensions sake.
The problem is with people who don't understand governmental structures, their meanings or intents.
As to the solution......
-
And most of all, agree to disagree. We are all adults here (supposedly). We should act like it and hear each other out, respectfully.
Freediver as you have stated here and other times. We agree to disagree, no matter how many times you say the same thing.
We have "respectfully" heard you out but when you keep saying the same thing in every thread it gets tiring. Do you understand why people get on you?
I agree that maybe you should go find people with the same ideas as you and start your campaign there. You aren't going anywhere with your control talk here. There already has been at least one place suggested that you can start with and that is MDA, feel free to join them.
See most people here at MOC joined because of the same ideology not to start discussions for gun control. You unfortunatly joined for the opposite reason.
-
Mr Tuctom: You're right, my motives for joining MOC may not be as "pure" as other members. But if we're going to talk guns and gun policy, where else would we do so than right here in "the heart of the envelope"? If we as gun owners don't start talking about and addressing some of the gun safety issues in our society, then who does the talking? Gun haters, gun control people, people with no knowledge of the topic and no skin in the game.
As far as people getting on me, I enjoy a good spirited debate and I've learned a lot in the process. But what I've seen from this forum so far has not always been that good spirited debate. What I've also seen is a verbal circle jerk where everyone agrees with everyone else and no dissenting opinions are allowed. That is another form of tyranny, shutting down any honest dissent or opposing opinion. Many people here rage against tyranny or being forced to do something they don't like, then exhibit the same kind of behavior. So I'm happy to play devil's advocate because I genuinely believe there are much smarter ways to advance policy and safeguard our sport than to hide behind a document written over 200 hundred years ago, say no to everything, and tell anyone who disagrees with you to F**** off. Or drink bleach, as one member suggested I do.
I'll have to bone up on the MDA. I'm still new to Michigan and I'm still learning all the "local" stuff.
-
Mr m.marino: I think the problem I was talking about was a failure of our regulatory system on a catastrophic level. As someone pointed out, most mass shooters acquired their guns legally (system failure #1). In this case, a convicted felon was easily able to get his hands on firearms (system failure #2). Not only that, but he acquired 7-10,000 firearms (system failure #3-10,000). Most of the firearms he was hoarding were stolen (system failure #4). Law enforcement lucked into the bust only because of other stolen property (system failure #5 - no way to track the flow of weapons). There are more failures involved with this incident but those are the major ones.
We are the supposed gun experts. If the gun regulation system is failing us so spectacularly (not to mention in places like Chicago, Detroit, Flint, DC, and Los Angeles), wouldn't we want to put our heads together and figure out some smart ways to combat gun trafficking and crime that actually work?
I like to be pro-active. I've never been one to sit around and "hope" things will change. If we want things to change, we need to take an active part in that change. Hope is not a strategy.
-
I for one simply do not believe you are who you say you are and know what you say you know. Too much of what you have said runs contrary to those notions. Like your use of the word tyranny. You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who does not know what they are talking about. Go back to MDA.
-
You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who does not know what they are talking about.
This ^
-
freediver (Bill) is a supporter of Americans for Responsible Solutions better known as Gabby Giffords' gun control group.
While I may have been wrong about MDA (who knows, he probably supports them too), I was right about everything else. :troll: :troll: :troll:
-
Mr bigt8261: again, we see things differently. I'm comfortable in my world view, as you are with yours. I am not wallowing in guilt or shame. I see problems that need fixing. I see some things we can do to fix them. I am a citizen who served this country and cares deeply about its safety. I am voicing those solutions here, on a forum about guns, because this is where we need to talk about such things.
Who is this "we" you speak of? You and Linda Brundage?
-
Funny thing about Linda.
She has an Doctorate in Education, and with that training, became a licensed psychologist.
Thus proving the old adage about people with mental health problems becoming mental health practitioners, but rarely becoming medical doctors or psychiatrists because they'd never be admissible into medical school.
-
I'm sorry, gentlemen, the only references I could come up with for MDA were the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the Michigan Dental Association, and the Minnesota Dental Association. The dental associations are self-explanatory. I understand muscular dystrophy.
Can you explain the reference to MDA?
Thanks.
-
MDA = Moms Demand Actions. And I'm tired of you playing the "I didn't know" card.
So you want to exclude the mentally ill from obtaining a firearm.
So tell me how you get to define mentally ill then.
-
I'm sorry, gentlemen, the only references I could come up with for MDA were the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the Michigan Dental Association, and the Minnesota Dental Association. The dental associations are self-explanatory. I understand muscular dystrophy.
Can you explain the reference to MDA?
Thanks.
You either A - really have no idea what you are talking about, or B - are lying. I suppose there is still C - both. Most anti-gunners usually fall into C so I guess we shouldn't leave it out.
To be clear, I don't mean this in a disparaging way. It is based on a large amount of personal experience from dealing with these people both through media and in person. I have NEVER sat across or communicated with a proponent of gun control that actually understood the issue to a workable level.
-
Sorry, didn't know about MDA epithet.
The mentally ill issue is a very tricky one and I confess I don't have a solid answer on that one. It's a matter of balancing patient privacy with the public's right to personal safety. I don't think some sort of mental illness registry is a smart idea either. Perhaps you have an idea or two of how we can do this?
-
Okay interesting reply from freediver. Listing the points as such:
1) legally acquiring guns being used to commit crimes by those with intent. There is no way to stop this unless you are willing to dis arm the entire population and establish a control system that is completely impartial. This is not possible due to human nature. History, both modern and ancient provides massive amounts of evidence of this. So the issue than becomes how teach values of self, community and others that you reduce the incidence of this happening. these issues are not limited to guns nor gun owners and a multi lingual search of the international news shows the weapons range from hand tools, knives, axes, swords, homemade explosives, and poisons. This is not a complete list. the issue at that point is not the gun but the intent of the person who gets it.
2) Considering the amount of "crimes" that are being elevated to felony status and that it has been used by government to deny non violent persons a right to self defense makes this point a dangerous slope at best. I will admit that I favor the social and legal framework of the ancient Greek Patriarch Dracos; who made quite sure that the punishment was much worse than any benefit from a crime. the other issue with this is the blackmarket and modern micro industrial ability that makes the ability to produce weapons of many different types rather easy to do. Again, creating more law without properly enforcing the law that exists is a burden on those who are not criminals, while doing nothing to actually insure a reduction in criminal behavior. please don't try to use the UK or Europe as I live here and I know first hand the amount of creative statistics that is done with crime figures in the UK and many places in Europe.
3) Considering the amount of firearms a person owns to be an issue is another way of stating the state has the right to limit what you as a person has or the right to own it. that is a communist or hard-line Feudal mentality. Are you sure that you can support that? What happens when the worm turns and you are no longer part of special group? History has shown that happen more times than I care to point out.
4) Now here is a point I can agree with. Why where the crimes that these weapons where involved or the very crime of them being stolen NOT fully tracked down and properly closed by the PUBLICLY funded Police or law enforcement? I hope that none of those weapons where classified as having been destroyed but I would bet that some of them had. being former military law enforcement and having worked with law enforcement in different ways during my life, I know there is and issue there. How to deal with it is another matter completely.
5) Tracking firearms is a joke at best. any means that you want to track them can and has been proven to be able to be defeated. Here in the Uk it has gone so far in stupidity that they are wanting to ban kitchen knives and require everyone that wants to have a kitchen knife greater than 2" (50mm) in length of blade be required to go through training every two to three years and still have to go through background checks and the like. The same type of background checks that have allowed over 50 convicted child molesters to vanish off the "required" registry rolls and five of them get caught re-offending. The US system is no better and given what the head of the FBI has stated concerning the current forced immigration into the US; it has no chance of ever being efficient enough to truly be a safety net for the public.
You are stating that all gun owner are to be experts in firearms in order to own a gun. Okay do you intend to demand the same for owners of cars? Cooking knives or cooking equipment per chance? I don't understand this expectation as see it's base. Please without any of the ad hominem type statement, flesh out your reasoning here. I was not an expert when I start handling firearms (10 yrs old) nor do I really consider myself one now even though I know proper safety and have worked with everything from a a .22 up to and including the main gun of a M60A3 MBT. I am currently working on my advance radio permit and will still have much to learn after getting that ticket even though it gives me full privileges in the UK and to a limited extent many other places and the ability to teach as well. I hold a Doctorate and while I know a huge amount in my field (chiropractic with advance studies in sports medicine) and am consulted by professional for their care; there is still much I need to learn and continuing studying that I must do. So please what do you mean by expert and at what level of knowledge do you consider it to be safe or functional.
Being pro-active can be a very good thing and tempered with discernment and respect for the rights and responsibilities of each person can help lead groups towards very positive goals. The other side of that which must be guarded against for it is dangerous at best; is the wanting to do good and ending up violating the very rights and integrity of other persons. It is difficult position to place oneself in. Be careful how you frame the need for pro-active; as you may place yourself by rationalization of a view or ideology in a camp you would normally find utterly repugnant.
I thank you for actually answering this question of mine. I hope you see some information that might help you understand that the issue is not about guns when it comes to death and murder, it is about teaching value of life and respect of self. The solution to that are another discussion and much longer and detailed in nature and not everyone agrees on those either.
Michael
-
SO, should we have a "Universal Mental Illness Background Check"? Or, would that expose all the Libtards for what they really are? ;D
-
Mr m.marino: I am happy to respond to well-reasoned, reality based discussions about gun policy. That's why I joined; to educate myself and to try and find a way forward in dealing with gun issues in the U.S.
I would clarify a couple of things in relation to what you said. First, I'm not suggesting that gun owners be experts just to own a firearm. I'm suggesting that all gun owners be required to take some basic safety and operations training before they operate a firearm, something akin to drivers' training. I have mentioned tactical shooting courses in the course of discussion because, if you want to be that good guy with a gun, you're going to need a better skill set than just shooting targets. Just like an Indy driver needs to know more than the average driver.
Tracking firearms gives law enforcement a tool they have often asked for to track the physical flow of guns into the wrong hands. If they can find the conduit, they can shut it down and penalize the guilty parties. That includes guilty or negligent law enforcement officers. It won't happen overnight but we need to take the long view on a lot of these things.
Regulation for regulations' sake is a bad idea. What I am proposing are ideas that should work. but I don't have all the answers. In these forums my main thrust has been to suggest that we, as gun owners, are best equipped to solve these issues. Rather than say no and hide behind the 2nd amendment verbiage, I think we need to be pro-active and work for solutions that actually make a difference. But that means we need to be open-minded, we need to consider the long view, and we need to be willing to compromise.
-
What I am proposing are ideas that should work.
Michigan has universal background checks for pistols since 1927. 88 years of universal background checks. Let that sink in... what you propose has been proven not to work.
Every time you see a new story about a handgun used by thugs in Detroit and Flint, remember Michigan has UBC for pistols.
-
Mr linux203: You make my point exactly. Michigan has had background checks for decades, yet criminals and crazies sill get their hands on pistols easily. That would tell me that the current system is broken and needs to be fixed. It's not isolated to UBCs, because obviously many gun owners or dealers ignore the law. So, if the system is broken, how do we reform the system so that it actually works? Those are the recommendations I've made in various threads on this forum. Let's just say they were met with scorn.
-
Theft which is how most criminals get guns directly or indirectly is not my problem. It is mine don't steal it. Whatever it is.
Stay informed about MOC events in your area http://miopencarry.org/updates
-
Mr autosurgeon: If you are a citizen of this society, it is your problem. Just as it is mine. If you are a gun owner, as am I, you are part of a group of people who are responsible for these problems. As I've pointed out in past threads, FBI stats indicate that over 223,000 firearms are lost or stolen EVERY YEAR. Many of those end up in the hands of criminals or crazies. Those guns aren't coming from gun haters. They're coming from us, the gun owners. So, either we police ourselves and go after some of these problems, or someone else will do it for us. We might not like their solution.
-
FBI stats indicate that over 223,000 firearms are lost or stolen EVERY YEAR. Many of those end up in the hands of criminals or crazies. Those guns aren't coming from gun haters. They're coming from us, the gun owners. So, either we police ourselves and go after some of these problems, or someone else will do it for us. We might not like their solution.
I'll leave you to your proof. Until then, let's put a few things into perspective. http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/LostAndStolenGuns.pdf
-
Nope not my responsibility when another person decides to take what is mine unlawfully. If you think it is you are a moron who couldn't find your at out of a bucket with a map. Hint look up....
Stealing is unlawful.. But yet people still do it. Murder is unlawful yet people still murder. A felon in possession of a firearm is unlawful yet they still are found with guns.. Criminals don't obey laws so more laws will do nothing useful. Good people don't need laws to behave bad people don't pay a attention to laws put in place already.
This post is a waste of time as everyone in this thread knows this to be true except one uneducated individual who wears rose colored glasses and wants to take responsibility for the bad behavior of others.
Stay informed about MOC events in your area http://miopencarry.org/updates
-
Mr bigT: your article proved my point. If over 223,000 guns are lost or stolen every year, yet few of them come from FFLs, then guess what? That means they're being lost by or stolen from us, THE GUN OWNERS. We need to bear the responsibility for that.
-
Mr bigT: your article proved my point. If over 223,000 guns are lost or stolen every year, yet few of them come from FFLs, then guess what? That means they're being lost by or stolen from us, THE GUN OWNERS. We need to bear the responsibility for that.
We need to bear responsibility for the actions of others.
That's right, a criminal takes action against the property of another and it is YOUR responsibility as an individual, due solely to certain types of property you own. You, as a property owner and citizen exercising your rights must bear the weight of the the theft and lawlessness of others. It is your responsibility to act.
Communist and unable to admit it.
-
Mr bigT: your article proved my point. If over 223,000 guns are lost or stolen every year, yet few of them come from FFLs, then guess what? That means they're being lost by or stolen from us, THE GUN OWNERS. We need to bear the responsibility for that.
I said I would leave you to your proof, yet you have offered none. You keep repeating a number but have yet to cite anything behind it.
If a gun is stolen from an FFL, that likely means it is NOT owned by one of "us" gun owners. Combating stolen TVs from Best Buy is very different than combating stolen TVs from one's home.
Next, let's just stipulate your problem is as you say it is. What is your solution? Thus far I do not see that you have offered one. My solution is that I'm out educating current and new gun owners about safe storage of firearms. In every one of my classes we talk about keeping firearms out of the hands of unauthorized individuals. There are many solutions in the marketplace today and that market for these solutions is booming as we buy more and better products. However, you seem to suggest that this is not enough, so what do you suggest we do differently?
-
Mr ultra: wow, I've never been called a communist before. Thanks for a good laugh. Given the fact that I spent 26 years in the USAF, much of it at the height of the Cold War, I seriously doubt I'm a communist. What I am is a concerned citizen who sees some problems with gun violence in our society and wants to work for effective solutions.
You might want to go back and re-read Karl Marx' works. You don't seem to have a clear understanding of what communism truly is. Since it was a completely failed system under both the Soviets and the PRC, I don't see it catching fire in these United States.
And yes, your gun (deadly weapon), your responsibility. Step up and be a man.
-
What you are is a communist trying to take rights from individuals for the supposed good of a collective and military service has nothing to do with it.
-
What you are is a communist trying to take rights from individuals for the supposed good of a collective and military service has nothing to do with it.
Let's please stick to the firearm related topic at hand.
-
Mr ultra: sorry, that's not what a communist is. Looks like you need to hit the books some more.
-
Mr bigT: let me see if I understand you. What you're suggesting is that we stay on topic and discuss the issues rather than go off topic and devolve into personal discussions and attacks. Am I right? Great idea! You go first.
-
I devoted an entirely new thread for just such an opportunity for you. In that thread, just as in every other one, you have yet to respond in any meaningful way to any challenge to the junk you are putting forward. If your ideas are so strong, then support them. Win us over with the facts. Do more than just spout your stream of consciousness gun control thoughts. Back it up, defend it, support it, or admit when you can't.
You can play a victim and deflect, or you can engage in the conversation you supposedly came here to have. Will you deflect again?
-
The "problem like this" is the topic, is it not?
Yet "the problem" wasn't defined by the OP.
What, exactly, is the topic of this thread? Let the OP declare it in plain language and I'll be glad to stick to it. I believe I stated as much in my first post in this thread:
I don't see any problem. I'm having a hard time with that characterization.
Criminal got caught. Laws worked. Claiming there is a problem where there isn't.....
Crying wolf!
Isn't that nursery rhyme intend to teach young children the consequences of believing in those who tell stories with ulterior motives?
It sure is, Aesop.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
As I see it, "the problem," in plain language, are people who wish to take away the rights of others. Taking rights from individuals for the benefit of a collective is what communism is and, frankly, that is the problem I see in this thread and the true topic at hand.
-
I spent 26 years in the USAF
Nidal Hasan spent 21 years in the US Army. What's your point?
-
Nidal Hasan spent 21 years in the US Army. What's your point?
Clearly, he's trying to tell us that he received a "patriotism" merit badge.
-
Mr gryphon: you took the words out of context. My point was that I could hardly be a communist. What's your point? You're another one who's good at slinging BS yet rarely backs up anything you say.
-
Ultra,
I aksed the same and got a response of sort which I responded to and am continuing my response to freedivers. where it goes from here will be interesting.
Mr m.marino: I am happy to respond to well-reasoned, reality based discussions about gun policy. That's why I joined; to educate myself and to try and find a way forward in dealing with gun issues in the U.S.
I would clarify a couple of things in relation to what you said. First, I'm not suggesting that gun owners be experts just to own a firearm. I'm suggesting that all gun owners be required to take some basic safety and operations training before they operate a firearm, something akin to drivers' training. I have mentioned tactical shooting courses in the course of discussion because, if you want to be that good guy with a gun, you're going to need a better skill set than just shooting targets. Just like an Indy driver needs to know more than the average driver.
Okay, I see you opinion and a good bit of the reasoning for it. Might I point out as has been pointed out that when dealing with criminals you are more likely to get shot by an officer shooting at the criminal than by a citizen dealing with a criminal. There are many different points for this and no one exact reason. This is even though officers are supposed to go through much more extensive training in the use of a firearm. I say supposed as I know of more than one case where range time was pencil whipped and where funding cuts meant officers where required to pay for their training rounds which cut into the amount of training time that was done. Lastly you appear to be taking the position that ownership of arms (not just firearms) is a privilege and not a natural right. Now one point I would find acceptable is making arms affordable to the public and requiring practice as a public group (As was done both in the colonies and early States).
Tracking firearms gives law enforcement a tool they have often asked for to track the physical flow of guns into the wrong hands. If they can find the conduit, they can shut it down and penalize the guilty parties. That includes guilty or negligent law enforcement officers. It won't happen overnight but we need to take the long view on a lot of these things.
Tracking how? Serial numbers? Not really effective when weapons can be created from whole material these days besides the hardware store nightmare specials. Most attempts to track hand guns run into those who are willing to make them not traceable. The other issue is you end up with a mountain of data that can create false positives and allow those who learn now to game the system to continue doing what they do. Criminals by their very choice do not respect the rule of law nor the value of society.
Regulation for regulations' sake is a bad idea. What I am proposing are ideas that should work. but I don't have all the answers. In these forums my main thrust has been to suggest that we, as gun owners, are best equipped to solve these issues. Rather than say no and hide behind the 2nd amendment verbiage, I think we need to be pro-active and work for solutions that actually make a difference. But that means we need to be open-minded, we need to consider the long view, and we need to be willing to compromise.
[/quote]
The problem is compromise has happened and the problem has not improved but gotten markedly worse with each infringement of the second amendment that has happened. Better yet let's be pro-active and educational. helping to remove social fear and encourage informed experienced debate. Let us bring back fire arm training into schools starting at middle school and repeat it at high school. with that let us also restore the level of civics to the class room in elementary. also get back to teaching the basic value each person has and really uphold that.
I don't like gun violence but I also know history teaches very well not to trust government and the constitution was created to bind government NOT to give it powers. I would much rather see an educated experienced public that understand the responsibility of citizenship and duty to safe guard them. In doing so each person who chooses to be positive and develop what they are able to do will have that opportunity. Those who choose to commit crime and attacks others might find that road not profitable.
Michael
Reason for edit to make it more readable as I had an issue when I went back and read again.
-
Mr mosnar87: It has nothing to do with patriotism. I was responding to Mr ultra's incredibly stupid comment about being a communist. In other threads I have referenced my service only as background material; that I have a fair amount of weapons TRAINING under my belt. Which is exactly one of the points I've been making in these forums. That to cut out the irresponsible and the idiots, to enable gun owners to be that good guy with a gun, we should step up the training requirements.
Maybe you like merit badges. I could care less.
-
Mr gryphon: you took the words out of context. My point was that I could hardly be a communist.
Why not? Alger Hiss was a Communist and he worked in the federal government, both in the Department of Justice and the State Department, for years.
You're another one who's good at slinging BS yet rarely backs up anything you say.
Sounds like you need to reread my posts.
-
Communists can serve in the military. The two are not mutually exclusive. Communism is an ideology and one of its tenets is the subjugation of the rights of the individual to the rights of the commune, which is exactly what you continue to proscribe here.
-
mr m.marino: You make an excellent point about LEO training, pencil whipping training requirements, and the fact that law enforcement and the military shoot the wrong people all the time. You're making the same points I've been making on these forums. If people who routinely train in tactical shooting scenarios frequently get it wrong, what makes you think that as an untrained citizen you'll get it right? There is only one way you'll be effective as that "good guy with a gun"; training and practice. Lots of practice. If you don't do that, then you're just hoping that you'll come to the rescue. Hope is a lousy strategy. I know training like that is expensive. I was lucky and did almost all of mine on the government nickel. I would like to see our government and/or gun enthusiast groups like the NRA step up and create fairly low cost training programs. Talk to your reps about that one!
I concur that criminals do not respect the laws of society. They'll find workarounds, and this problem will not be answered overnight. What we need to do is choke off the supply of guns to criminals and crazies. Tracking serial numbers so as to track conduits from good hands to bad hands is something law enforcement officials have been asking for for years. We have to start somewhere. Progress will be incremental. But if we start choking off the flow of guns to the wrong hands, illegal gun prices go up. Supply and demand. You'll price the street thugs right out of the gun market. then we'll have a situation like Europe or Japan where criminals use guns only for black on black ops. It's too expensive to get a gun to mug the average citizen. There's not enough payoff. But we can't just say to hell with it and "hope" we don't run into a criminal or a crazy. That starts by making gun owners more aware of their very sober responsibility, that what they own is a deadly weapon with the potential to do an incredible amount of harm, and they should treat that firearm and its ownership with the respect it deserves. We have an epidemic of gun owners who don't do that. The other day I was reading a story of a guy who was using his laser sight to tease the cat. He set the gun down, left the room, and one of his kids shot another kid. That's a fairly normal occurrence in our nation, the kind of base level stupidity that we need to address.
I firmly believe in the right to bear arms. With that right comes a lot of responsibility, responsibility I don't see being exercised very often. Living in a free society with our fellow citizens requires compromise. But I'm not talking about compromising just to do something. It is very evident to me that our current gun regulatory system is broken. Most people agree. So how do we address the issues of gun safety, criminals, crazies, and the merely stupid? We the gun owners are the experts and have the most skin in the game. If we put our heads together, we can come up with smart solutions that balance 2A rights with the need for public safety.
But living in denial and saying no to everything won't work, long-term. Despite what some people believe, public opinion is not turning in our favor. There are large, increasingly well-funded groups out there who would love to ban guns. If we are not pro-active, if we continue to say no to every change, we cede the decision making to people who are anti-gun and we won't like the results.
-
Mr ultra: when I was in the military avowed communists were not allowed to serve, and they certainly weren't allowed to get high level security clearances or carry nukes. Maybe that's changed. But the idea of me being a communist is still laughable.
As far as the definition of communism is concerned, I still don't think you have it right. Communism is a form of self-rule where everyone in the society bands together, contributes the fruits of their labors, and takes only what they need from the communal pot. Communism was probably better defined by a lot of the "hippie" communes that sprung up in the 60s and 70s, where everyone worked and contributed to the common good. It's a hard thing to pull off in such an individualistic society like ours. It certainly wasn't anything that existed in the USSR or PRC.
Every society has rules, compromises, give and take. If you want to live completely free of any restrictions or compromises, you may have to break out the checkbook and buy your own island. Otherwise, to live in any society we subject ourselves to the rules of that society. or leave it.
-
Mr gryphon: I can't speak for Alger Hiss. Plus, he was a secret communist and denied any connection with communism. This was later discovered when he was tried for espionage. I was in the military from 74-2000. Trust me, you weren't allowed to be a communist.
As far as your posts, yes, I've read them. You've been right in there slinging dirt and avoiding answering questions with the rest of them. I'll agree to stick to the issues if you do as well.
-
Firearms deaths run about 33K a year. Of those, homicides make up roughly 1/3, accidental shootings 1/3, suicides 1/3.
False. Table 18 from the CDC statistics you cited previously.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm)
Total firearm deaths 33,636
Suicides 21,175 = 62.95%
Homicides 11,208 = 33.32%
Unintentional 505 = 1.50%
Legal Intervention/War 467 = 1.39%
Undetermined 281 = 0.84%
Well, 1.5% is close to 33%. LOL.
-
Mr gryphon: See, if you actually read my posts you'd see that I already admitted that was an error on my part. The total numbers were good but the breakdown was incorrect.
-
Freediver, I went back and reset the quote section to make it a bit more readable. I did give a solution option at the end and would not mind your opinion on that idea. Japan it may have driven the price of guns up to only high level crime (will have to talk to a few friends who live there in both city and country to get their input). In Europe gun crime exists and at a much higher rate then what is publicly reported. Very often a gun crime will be reported as an altered airsoft weapon or historical replica modified to function with normal rounds. Often those reports are not truthful.
As to opinion turning against gun ownership? Only in the dreams of the owners and backers of the Huffington Post and a very small elite on both the east and west coasts of the US. Numbers for gun ownership and concealed carry permits are rising nationally and interestingly enough women are the biggest sector that is growing. The data is there and confirmed by many semi neutral sources. One point I want to make so as not to confuse or have folks miss understand, I believe that the right to bear arms in self defense or to deter those who would do violence to be natural right. In that it is outside of government or social contract. Now with all right comes the responsibility to use it wisely. That does not mean to curtail ones right for someone else's fear or social agenda. I mean no offense in that statement just stating from what place I hold these views.
-
Mr m.marino: I especially like your idea to teach firearms handling, safety, and marksmanship in our schools. That's akin to the Swiss or Israeli notion that EVERYONE is a citizen soldier, man or woman, young or old, liberal or conservative. It also sends a message to potential tyrants that the civilian populace is well trained. It provides that firearm desensitizing that we talk about. That's a program the NRA and the gun manufacturers should be pushing.
It's like alcohol or sex; you take the mystery out of it, and people make better decisions.
-
mr m.marino: You make an excellent point about LEO training, pencil whipping training requirements, and the fact that law enforcement and the military shoot the wrong people all the time. You're making the same points I've been making on these forums. If people who routinely train in tactical shooting scenarios frequently get it wrong, what makes you think that as an untrained citizen you'll get it right? There is only one way you'll be effective as that "good guy with a gun"; training and practice. Lots of practice. If you don't do that, then you're just hoping that you'll come to the rescue. Hope is a lousy strategy. I know training like that is expensive. I was lucky and did almost all of mine on the government nickel. I would like to see our government and/or gun enthusiast groups like the NRA step up and create fairly low cost training programs. Talk to your reps about that one!
As has already been explained and cited to you, armed citizens shoot far fewer innocent bystanders than supposedly more trained officers. The most likely reason is that citizens arm themselves to protect themselves, where officers have other reasons. There are also a number of papers that have questions the effect of training for permits, specifically stating there is no measurable benefit.
Did you know that the NRA runs a deficit on their training material that they print? That's right, they lose money to facilitate their training program. This organization, that you have become a member of, has also offered numerous free seminars on the best practices and legalities of OC. Hey, but that doesn't stop you from opening your mouth about something you don't understand.
Tracking serial numbers so as to track conduits from good hands to bad hands is something law enforcement officials have been asking for for years. We have to start somewhere. Progress will be incremental. But if we start choking off the flow of guns to the wrong hands, illegal gun prices go up. Supply and demand. You'll price the street thugs right out of the gun market.
Essentially A does not lead to B like you assume. As proof, I again offer Michigan as an example. After decades and decades of registering pistols, our database has yet to be used to solve a single crime. That's right, not one. I also again offer Canada's registry that they just abolished for the same reason as another example.
Choking off supply to criminals would be a good thing, but registration will not get you there and I haven't even brought up the harm registration causes.
That starts by making gun owners more aware of their very sober responsibility, that what they own is a deadly weapon with the potential to do an incredible amount of harm, and they should treat that firearm and its ownership with the respect it deserves. We have an epidemic of gun owners who don't do that. The other day I was reading a story of a guy who was using his laser sight to tease the cat. He set the gun down, left the room, and one of his kids shot another kid. That's a fairly normal occurrence in our nation, the kind of base level stupidity that we need to address.
Such incidents are tragic for sure, but they must be put into perspective. Accidental firearm related deaths for children are at an all time low and only account for 1.4% (http://www.projectchildsafe.org/sites/default/files/2014_InjuryIIR_2015.pdf) of unintentional fatalities in children under 14. Essentially, firearm owners are pretty safe and getting safer.
Our friends over at MGO were given an award for their work with Project Childsafe this year and I have personally taught numerous classes where we've covered properly storing a firearm. What are you doing?
I firmly believe in the right to bear arms. With that right comes a lot of responsibility, responsibility I don't see being exercised very often. Living in a free society with our fellow citizens requires compromise. But I'm not talking about compromising just to do something. It is very evident to me that our current gun regulatory system is broken. Most people agree. So how do we address the issues of gun safety, criminals, crazies, and the merely stupid? We the gun owners are the experts and have the most skin in the game. If we put our heads together, we can come up with smart solutions that balance 2A rights with the need for public safety.
But living in denial and saying no to everything won't work, long-term. Despite what some people believe, public opinion is not turning in our favor. There are large, increasingly well-funded groups out there who would love to ban guns. If we are not pro-active, if we continue to say no to every change, we cede the decision making to people who are anti-gun and we won't like the results.
An armed society and safety are not antithetical to each other. That is your most fundamental error.
What can we do? As I have previously told you, start by enforcing our current laws. The NRA has been screaming this for years. Gun owners agree that criminals who would use a firearm for harm should be taken off the streets, but our government by-and-large won't enforce our existing laws leaving these people free to do more harm.
Will you actually read my responses this time or ignore them again?
-
approximately 35,000 people die in auto accidents. It's been estimated as much as 50% have alcohol involved.
More people die from knife attacks than killed by rifles.
More children die from drowning than die in accidental firearm deaths.
Majority of firearm deaths are suicide.
Are you interested in reducing the number of people that die, or controlling guns?
-
If you don't do that, then you're just hoping that you'll come to the rescue.
Come to the rescue of who, someone else who chooses not to carry a gun for self-defense? We're not cops. We, at least I, don't carry for that purpose. In fact, the government specifically grants certain protections for law enforcement that we are not afforded for that very reason.
I would like to see our government and/or gun enthusiast groups like the NRA step up and create fairly low cost training programs. Talk to your reps about that one!
More government intrusion. The private sector, like most things, covers that very well already. You don't have to fly out to Thunder Ranch and have Clint Smith teach you. Right here in Michigan we have a number of good, qualified private firearms instruction schools that teach basic and advanced home, tactical, and self-defense classes including MDFI and ATHG Tactical. Classes run about $150 per day. That's very reasonable considering you have multiple instructors and trained first aid responders on hand. MDFI even uses a shoot house for one of their classes, and ATHG utilizes vehicles in their training. Several schools also teach force-on-force and weapons retention, including MDFI and another school that I can't recall off the top of my head right now.
Tracking serial numbers so as to track conduits from good hands to bad hands is something law enforcement officials have been asking for for years.
Michigan has registration. So do some other states. How has that assisted in tracking conduits from good hands to bad hands? How has that solved any crimes?
criminals do not respect the laws of society. They'll find workarounds...What we need to do is choke off the supply of guns to criminals and crazies...We have to start somewhere.
"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." – William S. Burroughs
“We sometimes think our duty is to make everyone safe. It’s not to make a society that’s absolutely safe. It’s to preserve liberty.” — Sen. Jim Rice
“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” — Ronald Reagan
-
Mr bigT: your article proved my point. If over 223,000 guns are lost or stolen every year, yet few of them come from FFLs, then guess what? That means they're being lost by or stolen from us, THE GUN OWNERS. We need to bear the responsibility for that.
Nope, my homeowners policy does (after my $500 deductible).
-
What is that old definition of insanity?
Doing the same thing over & over & expecting a different outcome?
Isn't that what calling for more regulation, training, registration, etc. of guns is doing?
Rather then just saying NO to any idea other then more restrictions & infringements why not go at this from a different angle altogether?
How about we honer the second amendment and rescind ALL gun laws.
You can't show how any single gun law has done anything to prevent unlawful gun usage.
UBC's, they don't work. Many states have background checks and the Fed. requires it on all gun purchases through FFL's and it hasn't stopped anything. Being a felon makes you ineligible to own a firearm but, what is a felony in one state is 100% legal in others. Writing a bad check is a felony, how does stopping the writer from owning solve the problem?
We need to ignore the tool.
Then concentrate on what makes people shoot other people.
We all know it is against the law, but a very few of the population do it anyway.
-
Someday we'll actually get a Republican in the state capital :(
-
I bet Mr Freediver thinks killing 3500 UNborn every day is just wonderful.