mnealtx 0 #26 January 18, 2011 QuoteFor guns, there is no such test. The simple act of owning or carrying a gun does not impact other people the same way that driving a car or flying a plane does. QuoteI am all for a requirement to own and use a gun, the user must have taken and passed gun handling, gun safety programs. Along with recurrent training to maintain that rating. CHL holders do that, as do hunters - your point appears to be invalid. You don't have a problem if we apply that to voting, do you?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 806 #27 January 18, 2011 I'm still waiting for the outcry over fast food. My God man, have you seen the heart disease death rates in this country? We clearly have a fast food problem. No more McDonalds I say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #28 January 18, 2011 QuoteI said it years ago - if there were no guns, then there could be no gun crime.....it's an extreme idealism, but it it also a true statement. No, it's an juvenile tactic used for nothing more than demonizing an inanimate object or the opposite side of the debate. Now - if you want to talk about the people committing the crime instead of the tool they happened to use, let's have the argument. QuoteI no longer advocate that, but if this country thinks that it does NOT have a gun problem, then the battle is already lost.....what's the solution? I give up. Unless you've got video of a gun just jumping out of the drawer and shooting the place up, then that's correct, there's not a 'gun problem' - there's a violent crime problem. QuoteWhen you see laws being loosened up even more after some nut opens fire in a crowd, I can only assume that the lawmakers have no idea what the solution is either.... Laws being loosened up? What, convicted violent felons can buy guns now? What's the issue?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #29 January 18, 2011 Incidents like this always seem to get people up in arms about the second amendment (like the pun?). Sadly, the event is only barely related. This guy made preparations to do something. He bought a gun and magazines. It was not illegal and nobody here has proposed reasonable safeguards that would have stopped him. He could have just as easily built a suicide vest. And all the arguments here would be moot. More suicide vests would not have stopped him. There are no licensing plans for suicide vests or all their possible components. Once someone has decided to commit violence, the tools available are not terribly important. 9/11 was accomplished with box cutters and education. Should we ban / license them? I think everyone should be involved enough to raise a flag when they think someone is going to commit an act of violence. But once the act is accomplished, using it as a basis to take away the rights of law abiding citizens is reprehensible in the extreme.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 January 18, 2011 QuoteIncidents like this always seem to get people up in arms about the second amendment (like the pun?). Sadly, the event is only barely related. This guy made preparations to do something. He bought a gun and magazines. It was not illegal and nobody here has proposed reasonable safeguards that would have stopped him. He could have just as easily built a suicide vest. And all the arguments here would be moot. More suicide vests would not have stopped him. There are no licensing plans for suicide vests or all their possible components. Once someone has decided to commit violence, the tools available are not terribly important. 9/11 was accomplished with box cutters and education. Should we ban / license them? I think everyone should be involved enough to raise a flag when they think someone is going to commit an act of violence. But once the act is accomplished, using it as a basis to take away the rights of law abiding citizens is reprehensible in the extreme. Well said - and I think that, in a way, it's similar to the '9/11 truthers'. They (the anti-gun crowd) can't accept that there's no real way to PREVENT someone from committing a crime, so they concentrate on the means used.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #31 January 18, 2011 Quoteyes, but to drive, you have to prove that you are competent to drive, you have to be educated in driving and then tested in driving....albeit minimal. Al lot of people argue for ongoing testing for drivers, like pilots to keep people's skills up. Not completely true - if you only operate a vehicle on private land, you do not have to have a liscense to drive it.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #32 January 18, 2011 >No, the guy still had the mental capacity to avoid that outcome. Agreed - but he said it was a close thing. Which is an example of having more guns at the scene - even if those people had good "mental capacity" - may have hurt as much as it helped. More guns period is not a panacea; more guns and more training might be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #33 January 18, 2011 QuoteQuoteIf someone wants to cause trouble by misusing a gun/alcohol/drugs/child molestation/rape, the only effective remedy is more...... that is about the lamest argument I have ever seen. It could only possibly work if everyone were FORCED to carry a gun and were willing to use it in such time of an emergency. I doubt that 10% of the population meets that standard (my guess) Just sayin. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196 ________________________________ "1981 to 1988 is 7 years"-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years,Kallend) The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #34 January 18, 2011 QuoteMore guns period is not a panacea; more guns and more training might be. Good stuff. Let's see who is going to argue with that and what argument they'll make.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #35 January 18, 2011 QuoteHe could have just as easily built a suicide vest. No. He couldn't. It actually takes a modicum of skill to do that. It takes NO skill whatsoever to buy a gun and bullets. It takes no skill to use the gun at close range either. None. A suicide vest is orders of magnitude harder to construct than simply buying a gun and pulling a trigger.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #36 January 18, 2011 QuoteQuoteMore guns period is not a panacea; more guns and more training might be. Good stuff. Let's see who is going to argue with that and what argument they'll make. Every situation is different While I am not making an argument against his point it should be pointed out that one can train for every and all situtations And even those that try to because of their professions will admit it is impossible The point I am will make is I would see very few if any civilan CCW holders having been trained to use a firearm in crowed situation such as the one that started these threads Bill mention one that damed near hurt an inocent Well the point is they didnt One has to know their own limitaions and be able to evalutate their skills against the risk in any situation Not an easy thing to do If you doubt yourself leave it in the holster"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #37 January 18, 2011 QuoteAnd yes, those measures do work; DWI deaths have dropped significantly over the past 30 years as laws have gotten tougher. And yet the DWI (and other alcohol-related) death rate is still high. We could probably cut that down even more by keeping a database of anyone who has a history of alcohol problems (any alcohol-related arrests/convictions, medical treatments or "I'm so drunk" posts on dropzone.com could automatically put them in this category), and making it illegal for these people to purchase/own or operate vehicles. And maybe require all vehicles to have breathalyzer ignitions that won't start if any alcohol is present. Yes, I'm just being obnoxious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #38 January 18, 2011 >And maybe require all vehicles to have breathalyzer ignitions that won't start if >any alcohol is present. Yeah, you could do that. But we've significantly cut down on DWI deaths without doing anything close to that. The trick is choosing good laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #39 January 18, 2011 QuoteBut we've significantly cut down on DWI deaths . . . Yeah, the rate is similar to the firearm homicide rate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 806 #40 January 18, 2011 Right. Those violent laws are working so good now the prison population is declining too. What? It isn't? huh We must need more laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #41 January 18, 2011 >Those violent laws are working so good now the prison population is declining too. ?? So you figure if you pass more laws you arrest FEWER people? I think you have a bit of a logic problem there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 806 #42 January 18, 2011 My point was that your post was silly. "choosing good laws" isn't working on ANY crimes now, my comment regarding declining prison population was intended as tongue in cheek BV. 'Choosing good laws" hasn't, isn't, won't work to prevent those that are intent on committing crimes. Period. Should they choose a gun, a car, drugs, baseball bats, whiffle balls, or sporks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #43 January 18, 2011 >"choosing good laws" isn't working on ANY crimes now . . . ?? Violent crimes are down and have been dropping for quite some time. Are you claiming that the laws we're using aren't working? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 806 #44 January 18, 2011 Then what 'good laws' are contributing to the continued and serious increase in prison population. I still don't see gun rights as 'violent crime' either, so we're comparing apples to hand grenades. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 January 18, 2011 Quote>"choosing good laws" isn't working on ANY crimes now . . . ?? Violent crimes are down and have been dropping for quite some time. Are you claiming that the laws we're using aren't working? Are you claiming that it is due to the passage of a law? In that case, why were there ever any gun crimes in DC, Chicago, NYC, etc...?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #46 January 18, 2011 Quote>"choosing good laws" isn't working on ANY crimes now . . . ?? Violent crimes are down and have been dropping for quite some time. Are you claiming that the laws we're using aren't working? And all of that decline while gun ownership and CCW licences increases every year"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #47 January 18, 2011 Quote Quote >"choosing good laws" isn't working on ANY crimes now . . . ?? Violent crimes are down and have been dropping for quite some time. Are you claiming that the laws we're using aren't working? And all of that decline while gun ownership and CCW licences increases every year You can't have CCW increasing as crime goes down - That - that - That is just ludicris There can NOT be a correlation.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #48 January 18, 2011 OK ...now I'm just confused. Do we ban guns, physicists, or cat ownership?!? We gotta do something! (this post was intended only as a humorous diversion. No inferred sub-reference to any real person intended ) http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Police-seize-guns-after-Los-Alamos-standoff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #49 January 18, 2011 Quote?? Violent crimes are down and have been dropping for quite some time. Are you claiming that the laws we're using aren't working? What new laws do you think are responsible for that decline, which were not in place when crime was rising? How about all those concealed handgun carry laws that have spread across the country over the last 20 years? The fact is, crime goes up and down, independent of whatever laws are passed. The number of laws always increases over time, while crime charts go up and down like roller coasters. There is no correlation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #50 January 18, 2011 QuoteQuote?? Violent crimes are down and have been dropping for quite some time. Are you claiming that the laws we're using aren't working? What new laws do you think are responsible for that decline, which were not in place when crime was rising? How about all those concealed handgun carry laws that have spread across the country over the last 20 years? The fact is, crime goes up and down, independent of whatever laws are passed. The number of laws always increases over time, while crime charts go up and down like roller coasters. There is no correlation. The largest correlations I've seen link crime to population demographics. Pretty compelling."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
