Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:And, of course, the calm, rational response is . . . ?

Ban guns.

Please point to where I have called for a full ban on guns. I can show where I've said that I don't want to remove all guns.

If you are being calm and rational when you mischaracterise my argument, then it must be deliberate, right?

I didn't say you said that.

No, you just ignore what we are saying so you can suggest that all the 'left' propose is to ban guns. So. You can paint us as unfeeling monsters who want you poor law abiding citizens to be defenceless in the face of rampant crime and a totalitarian state, or whatever it is you think we are after.

We just had a gruesome local shooting that made national (if not international?) attention Christmas Eve. Some nut-job set a house on fire then sat in wait for firefighters and police to arrive and he gunned them down!
He was an ex-con and could not possess guns but he had three of them nonetheless. Again guys, I am FOR effective gun control and some restrictions but the Connecticut shooting and this one happened where the gun laws actually worked yet these people ended up getting them anyway and that is a problem you simply can not ignore. We have too many guns that are too easy to get a hold of, just like marijuana. That's also illegal but you can buy it with ease. Whatever you come up with on your control ideas, you need to realize you simply can't wish guns away, we have a right to bear arms and we have them readily available to anyone with a few dollars. Disarming the law abiding public is not going to fly, restrictions, tougher laws, whatever, some things will work and should be enacted (in my opinion) but taking guns away is not an option and never will be.

You have too many guns in large part because of the lack of control. A lot of legal guns around means that criminals have access to them through theft or other means. In the medium-long term, gun control would reduce the ability of criminals to get hold of guns.

No, it will never stop these kinds of events, but I repeat we are not calling for a total ban. However, here's the thing. Your country has tried other means, and it's not really working. You had an assault weapons ban for 10 years, and during it the crime rate, murder rate and gun death rate fell. So did the rate of mass murders. You've had it lifted for 8 years, in which time while the crime rate and murder rate have fallen slightly, the gun death rate has not reduced and the number of mass murders has gone up.

We are not 'wishing guns away', we are not talking about 'disarming the public' (as there are non-assault weapons, single-shot handguns etc that would not be covered by the kind of ban we are talking about), and while it won't be an instant miracle, it is something that is worth at least considering instead of dismissing out of hand.

Now, Tom, you've continually opposed my position (based in part on lying about what that position is, but hey, after three times correcting you I figure it's time to call it what it is), but what is it you think should be done instead? What can the USA do about the levels of fatal gun violence that would be effective and acceptable to you?

Please point out how I have lied about anyone's position? Did I say "Danivon said this". If you wish to include yourself in a statement where I said something about how "some" want to eliminate guns, then please feel free to include yourself but that's not what I said. Making anything illegal is not going to make that item go away and will instead make that item available only to those who break the law. Marijuana is illegal, how's that going???
You simply can not compare laws in effect in other countries with the USA, we have a crapload of guns out there very easy to get a hold of, that was never the case in the countries that people try to compare us to. So what if such bans worked in the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan or anywhere else. They never had such a gun culture and never had such a huge "inventory" of readily available black market guns. THAT is the issue, something needs to be done, something WILL be done no doubt, but whatever that is is going to be frowned upon by the gun control crowd as not going far enough and they will once again point to how it worked in East Crapistan so it's of course the right answer for the USA.

Myself, I have no problem with banning assault weapons of all kinds, banning large magazines, MYSELF, I have no problem with banning handguns.... but I also know this is not going to work and do not fool myself into thinking this is the answer. Twofold problem here ...it's a right and the availability aint going away, we have to allow law abiding citizens the right to protect themselves. There is no good answer, never will be, to think there is is a dream (or better yet a nightmare that we have to live with so what way to work within this bad situation?)

GMTom wrote:Please point out how I have lied about anyone's position? Did I say "Danivon said this". If you wish to include yourself in a statement where I said something about how "some" want to eliminate guns, then please feel free to include yourself but that's not what I said.

Well, you consider me a liberal, right? Here's what you've said (that it's not specifically naming me does not mean you also avoid implicitly including me when talking about people on here):

GMTom wrote:still I have heard nothing but problems with guns by our anti-gun crowd here. Not a single suggestion to fix the root problem, simply doing away with guns only. Ignorance will get you only so far. The constitution needs to change? ...good luck with that, so why not TRY to actually fix the PROBLEM?

link

GMTom wrote: Why is it some here have absolutely no problem with taking away one freedom (the right to bear arms) but would not accept other freedoms to be infringed?

link

GMTom wrote:then surely you want to do away with freedom of religion and the right to assemble, the rights of free speech?

link (that was in direct response to a post by me)

GMTom wrote:I happen to be all for tougher laws and restrictions so I am probably more like you and Ricky here but you guys seem to be pushing for radical elimination of guns and incredibly tough laws,

link (also in direct response to me, which means the 'you' is equivalent to 'danivon')

All of those examples come after I had written

And I should remind you that contrary to popular myth, guns are not banned in the UK. Last time I visited my uncle and aunt's house, my uncle came in from his shooting practice with his .22 rifle. He's going to have to get rid of it and buy another rifle because the stock is too long for him (he's a short and slight fella), and has been trying out various models to get a good fit. All completely legal. And he keeps his gun in the house (and if there was a break in, would be allowed to use it in self defence).

I don't want to take his gun away either.

GMTom wrote:Making anything illegal is not going to make that item go away and will instead make that item available only to those who break the law. Marijuana is illegal, how's that going???

No, you need effective policing as well. Of course a drug is not the same as weapons.

GMTom wrote:You simply can not compare laws in effect in other countries with the USA, we have a crapload of guns out there very easy to get a hold of, that was never the case in the countries that people try to compare us to. So what if such bans worked in the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan or anywhere else. They never had such a gun culture and never had such a huge "inventory" of readily available black market guns.

We did have a gun culture, and so did Australia. Canada still has a gun culture - there's a very big hunting scene in the Great White North.

What happened, however, is that when we saw what happens when easy access to guns mixes with a crazy person, we changed as a society to make it harder. You guys don't want to. It's not that you can't, it's that you are too self-obsessed to want to do it for yourselves.

GMTom wrote:THAT is the issue, something needs to be done, something WILL be done no doubt, but whatever that is is going to be frowned upon by the gun control crowd as not going far enough and they will once again point to how it worked in East Crapistan so it's of course the right answer for the USA.

"East Crapistan"? Your lack of respect is noted. Why should I continue to listen to you?

GMTom wrote:Myself, I have no problem with banning assault weapons of all kinds, banning large magazines, MYSELF, I have no problem with banning handguns.... but I also know this is not going to work and do not fool myself into thinking this is the answer.

So, you support a ban on assault weapons, but you also oppose one. I think the problem is your own schizophrenia on the issue. It makes it very hard for you to put a case when you don't have one. Or you have two mutually exclusive ones. I can understand why that leads you to attack other people's cases, even if it's not actually based on what they are saying.

GMTom wrote:Twofold problem here ...it's a right and the availability aint going away, we have to allow law abiding citizens the right to protect themselves. There is no good answer, never will be, to think there is is a dream (or better yet a nightmare that we have to live with so what way to work within this bad situation?)

And your solution is that there are no solutions? Fine. Don't bother working to fix something that kills tens of thousands of Americans a year, because it's too hard to bother. Personally, I think it is that kind of attitude that condemns your country to years more of this kind of thing. You spend more energy arguing against anything (on the basis that you fear it may not work), than you would on making it work.

As far as I can tell Tom is willing to support a ban on assault weapons and ammunition clips. That's great. As to whether these methods will will work, no one knows for sure. But they are relatively modest restrictions on gun ownership, there are plausible arguments to think they might reduce mass shootings and perhaps even impact overall gun violence, so why not try them? Here is a somewhat older analysis of gun violence and possible steps that can be taken to reduce it, but I still think it is interesting. https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/fireviol.txt
Here is a very recent study by researchers at Johns Hopkins.http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-a ... 2_CGPR.pdf

freeman2 wrote:As far as I can tell Tom is willing to support a ban on assault weapons and ammunition clips. That's great.

Except every time he points this out, he then characterizes those who have that position as wanting to impose radical changes and 'ban guns' leaving everyone defenceless, and points out that while he would support it such a ban, it "won't work".

He castigates us for not tackling what he calls the root problem, but I can't see any suggestions at all from him (other than ambivalent support for gun control), despite having been invited to supply any.

Gun control is not the only answer, and since this thread started (which was not with the Newtown killings, but Belcher's murder-suicide), we have also been looking at the issue of mental health. One single measure won't solve a large complicated problem, but many measures combined can be used as a broad approach. That one individual component won't solve the issue alone does not mean it should be rejected as part of an overall programme. That something is hard to do doesn't mean you should not try.

I don't disagree with what you say Danivon, but I think you have a better chance of convincing Tom of some gun control than DF or Brad. I think the schizophrenia that you note with Tom comes from the fact that gun control is associated with being a liberal cause and Tom is certainly not liberal. Better to have someone torn with regard to gun control than someone in complete opposition

freeman2 wrote:I don't disagree with what you say Danivon, but I think you have a better chance of convincing Tom of some gun control than DF or Brad. I think the schizophrenia that you note with Tom comes from the fact that gun control is associated with being a liberal cause and Tom is certainly not liberal. Better to have someone torn with regard to gun control than someone in complete opposition

Gun control would do what? What level of gun control would have prevented Sandy Hook?

What level of gun control would have prevented the murder of those firemen in Rochester? http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/353782 ... n-New-York

He should have never been released from prison. Bludgeoned his grandmother to death with a hammer?

Still, by law he was not permitted to have a gun . . .

So, what level of gun control is going to stop murder and/or mass shootings?

Is gun violence on the rise?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/26/c ... -20-years/

Doctor Fate wrote:Is gun violence on the rise?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/26/c ... -20-years/

I've seen that graph before. What does it tell you?

1) That in the period after the assault weapon ban came in, deaths from guns went down dramatically, while deaths from other causes declined but not by as much

2) That gun deaths have risen slightly since the low point of the late 1990s - especially when you add 'other guns' to 'handguns'. At the same time, the total of other homicides has been flat. Declining in the case of blunt weapons.

3) That violence using guns may be falling, but deaths from them are not - which tells a story.

freeman2 wrote:I don't disagree with what you say Danivon, but I think you have a better chance of convincing Tom of some gun control than DF or Brad. I think the schizophrenia that you note with Tom comes from the fact that gun control is associated with being a liberal cause and Tom is certainly not liberal. Better to have someone torn with regard to gun control than someone in complete opposition

I would love to see the supreme court rule on the 2nd Amendment and whether citizens could have weapons. Oh wait. they did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Or; I would love to see the Amendment be "amended".

The words matter. Don't interpret, legally change.

What our society needs to do is:
Promote gun safety (especially for parents)
Make gun licensing mandatory and re-occurring
Make proficiency testing mandatory
Make mandatory placement into mental hospital for mentally dangerous
Make all violent video games purchasable by a 21 year old or older

Anybody want to add to this?

and what if you remove the gang bangers and drug dealers? These guys are going to kill each other guns or not (and yes they will find a way to be armed heavily regardless of what restrictions are placed upon them)

My problem is I happen to fall into a very special category that may not be all that small. A general conservative who favors some gun controls. The problem is we are not spoken about as the only people that are discussed are those from the polar opposites of the spectrum. Yes, I am conservative generally but do I have some liberal leanings? absolutely! Do we have some liberals who have some conservative leanings? absolutely (a guy who sits near me at work is a big Lib but also happens to be a gun nut). My problem is I see both sides of the spectrum as do most people, I understand the reasons to try and curb this nonsense but I also see the rights and the reasons to be well armed in our society. I did say the root problem needs to be addressed, that root is our culture and fighting that culture is not easy and also faces problems regarding other rights. We have freedom of speech but if you want to reduce the problem, a longer term partial solution is addressing all violence on TV and in Movies and Songs. You simply need to decide what is more important... the gun control crowd wants to limit freedom of bearing arms but good lord, don't touch the freedom of speech issues! Some here think it's crazy that someone said freedom to bear arms was worth some deaths and every freedom comes at a cost no doubt, but why can those people not then accept restricting free speech? why is that a no-no? Another way to cure this is a dose of tough love, rewarding low income people to have families by giving more welfare payments per child only makes this issue worse, but again, we can't talk about that, it's just not nice ...so do away with guns???? We have several sides to this issue for sure.

Brad a limitation on assault weapons is not the same as a total ban on handgun possession (as was true in Heller), so I am not sure why you are equating the two. An assault weapons ban and a clip limitation would not substantially affect a person's ability to protect themselves in their homes, so I think it very likely to pass Constitutional muster. The real question is whether it is good policy to do so. Put another way, if the Supreme Court is not going to uphold a ban on owning assault weapons then you have nothing to worry about. If they won't, then you you need to show why it would not be good policy to do so.
It's interesting how pro-gun supporters so readily buy into non-gun control solutions but are absolutely convinced that gun control will not work...
And Tom please look at that John Hopkins study carefully--I think you will see there is some evidence that we can reduce the number of guns that get into the hands of criminals-one of the main problems is licensed shops willing to make illegal sales. Note the high homicide rate for young adults. We know that our brains are not fully developed until we are in our mid 20s and until then we have less impulse control. Raising the age to buy guns is a no-brainer and there are steps to make it harder for guns to get to people who are high-risk

So here is my list of steps to take:

(1) ban assault weapons
(2) Limit ammunition clips to 10 bullets
(3) Eliminate exception on background checks for sales at gun shows
(4) Ban on sale of guns to anyone convicted of a felony, misdemeanor crime of violence, drug conviction, or anyone who has had a restraining order against them.
(5) Gun training and safety classes mandatory for all households with guns
(6) Raise age to buy guns to age 25
(7) Make it a felony for a gun dealer to sell guns without a background check
(8) Require any psychiatrist or psychologist to notify the Department of Justice if they are treating a patient who they believe is potentially violent or who has made threats of violence.
(9) Have the Department of Justice keep track of all persons who are disqualified and make list available to licensed gun dealers for background checks
(10) Provide funding to police departments for undercover sting operations to deter the sale of firearms to those not authorized to have them
(11) Buy-back program for assault weapons and gun clips (this was edited after Brad's response)

I agree with 3-10 w/ a caveat of the age being 21. If you can drink, drive and join the military, you should get ALL the rights of citizenship.

My point with Heller is to have the Supreme Court decide or have Congress write the Amendment to the Constitution's 2nd Amendment. Until then, no restriction on ANY ownership unless probable cause. There is NO legitimate reason that I, a law abiding citizen w/o legal problems, qualified weapons trained, w/o mental defect; cannot own whatever weapon I want. Please do not be snide and mention Nuclear weapons, etc... We are talking assault weapons here.

What legal reason are you giving me for the infringement of my 2nd Amendment rights? Please infringe those who violate the law. Leave the law abiding alone.