Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcordell
All they've done is villify gunowners and then push for more and more restrictions.
|
The vilification is not exclusive to one side. Gun owners are just as guilty of doing the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcordell
Both sides need to meet in the middle. But so-far that hasn't happened. The NRA seems to be offering feelers, but they are feelers that come from strength. Unlike situation for British and Australian gunowners in 96 who had no strength. No organization and no voice.
|
That's the first reason why gun owners in America need to stop acting as though gun control laws here will inevitably lead to complete bans on firearms, as happened in both of those countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcordell
All I can tell you is that the system is broken (I'm not sure it was ever working) and I have absolutely no idea how to improve it. Some of them are dangerous and most of them are just wrecks. And that is how it is in the United States.
In the past year it's been the mental cases who have been using the firearms to create the carnage. We need to also look at that situation as well.
|
Personally, I subscribe to the view that the issue is less one of mental illness and more of how the media glorifies these shootings. The vast majority of mentally ill people, including those prone to violent behavior, do not feel the urge to engage in mass shootings. The media, however, treats these events as a surefire way to gain eternal infamy and a place in the history books. The desire for fame (or, failing that, infamy) in our culture is, in my opinion, one of the most important reasons that these shootings take place. Mental illness and gun availability facilitate these crimes, but cannot be considered the causes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcordell
Dialogue? Sure. I'm okay with that. But I want us to be able to participate in the dialogue and negotiations. Not just have things thrown onto us like the old school European nobility did to the peasants. That won't fly.
|
I agree with you that we deserve to be able to negotiate from a position of strength, but in my opinion, the fact that there are so many gun owners is by itself a strength. Dialogue and negotiations cannot take place when both sides take part in the sort of demonizing each other that I am seeing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcordell
So I am sending the NRA fifty dollars becasue the NRA ensures that we are able to talk and negotiate from a position of strength. Not weakness.
|
The NRA also does not seem to be encouraging gun owners to keep cool heads. That has never been their tactic. They are more likely to get their constituents up in arms about bans and the "slippery slope".
Quote:
Originally Posted by commando552
First of I just want to say that I am not trying to stir up anything here, am genuinely curious. How would the American gun owners on here feel about being required to have a firearms licence before buying firearms or ammunition? By this I don't mean like a license in the UK which is quite involved to get, I mean something like an hour or two classroom instruction on basic gun safety along with a background check. If you were required to show a license then the sale could be tracked if required, and would flag up instanced of criminals or the mentally ill trying to buy firearms or ammunition. If you need a license to drive a car, then it is my feeling is that there should be something along the same lines for you to be able to buy a gun which is potentially mush more of a danger to other people. I'm assuming that there has already been much discussion about stuff like this, just curious what the opinions on it were.
|
As an American gun owner, I think that your proposal is entirely reasonable. As Predator pointed out, the system you have suggested already exists for conceal-carry in many states. Also, what exactly is wrong with licenses like those issued in the U.K.? The system that the Brits had before the Hungerford massacre in 1987 seems to have been a reasonable one to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by predator20
I don't tell people this, but one of my older brothers is diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. (Lanza may not have been schizo, but you have got to be seriously fucked up to shoot and kill kids like that.) He doesn't live with me, so I don't have to be watchful unless he's around. But I never turn my back on him, even if he is on his meds. While he's never been violent towards any family members, but when he's off his meds he believes people are going to kill him, particularly our father. It happened to him in his late teens, early twenties like most others. He was in a care center for about seven years, now he's out on his own with his girlfriend. He was never bad enough to be put into a hospital.
|
I am sympathetic to you, but I hope you would never compare your brother to someone like Lanza? As I told JCordell, the vast, vast majority of people with mental illnesses are not mass murderers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by predator20
body armor? I thought they were just tactical vest. Even with body armor it's still going to hurt like a bitch, unless you're the North Hollywood guys. With Aurora I don't believe someone there with a CCL would have made a difference. It was a dark and packed theater. The chances of a clear shot would have been nill. Newtown, maybe.
|
I heard body armor, but it might have been negligent reporting. Holmes was wearing body armor, though, wasn't he? Also, my point still stands: Armed citizens carrying concealed handguns will be outgunned by somebody carrying an AR-15. So unless we advocate for schools to have armory rooms full of AR-15s and Kevlar vests, I don't think that the "more guns, less crime" argument is one that we should use in situations like this. It's just embarrassing for me to hear it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by predator20
|
And? I don't support a new AWB (and I was quite relieved when the last one expired). You're preaching to the choir.
I do, however, want pro-gunners to stop claiming that AR-15s are not significantly more dangerous than hunting rifles and acknowledge that maybe they should require a somewhat higher level of regulation. I say this as somebody who owns both an AK and an AR-15 carbine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by predator20
The thing about criminals (this is the way I think anyway). They don't want to pay retail for a gun, like a law abiding citizen would. Especially if they have to dump it later on. So they either steal them or buy one that they know to be stolen. Or have their girlfriend do a straw purchase for a Hi-Point.
|
You act as though straw purchases are something that we can't do anything about. You also talk about illegal guns as if they magically appear out of thin air (or from the same international arms trade which arms terrorists and insurgencies around the world). The vast, VAST majority of the illegal weapons used in the United States start out as legally-purchased firearms from gun stores. Illegal
acquisition and illegal
source are two very different things; as long as most illegally-acquired weapons come from a legal source, it is dishonest to act as though gun control has no ability to reduce illegal acquisition of firearms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur
We should always promote the right to bear arms everywhere and change the way anti gun advocates think with educations.
|
Did you seriously just say "educations", plural? *SIGH* I know people make typos, but the difficulty you seem to have with reading and writing (demonstrated repeatedly over the years) keeps triggering my cringe reflex. The absolute last thing I would want is for somebody like you to be considered representative of American gun owners. I think you would be better off not acting as though you have superior powers of logic and analysis; you are essentially degrading gun controllers as intellectually wanting.