Reply
Tue 21 Aug, 2012 11:52 pm
The Washington Times
By Anthony Gregory
The recent mass shootings at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin
and a movie theater in Colorado have revived the controversy
over “gun control” policy.
It is tempting after such unspeakable crimes to search for answers
that will help prevent a repeat. The media immediately examine
the purported killer’s profile and make sweeping statements about
mental health screening, public health programs, bigotry, the schools
and popular culture. Some correlations might deserve attention,
such as the Wisconsin shooter’s former military status, because
the increased prevalence of traumatized military veterans is
unavoidably a national issue.
Yet, for the most part, senseless acts of mass violence can never
be explained in a way sufficient to stop the next attack.
Consider the five mass shootings in Wisconsin since 2004. Every one
of the shooters had a different profile. The most recent before the
Sikh temple shooting — a man who killed six in 2007 — was a sheriff’s
deputy furious about an ex-girlfriend. What could be done about that?
More fundamentally, killer profiles are useful only to a point
because countless other people fitting the same profile pose no threat.
As for the public discussion about guns, much of it is simply unrealistic.
On the one hand, gun owners and other defenders of the Second Amendment
argue that a sufficiently armed society can prevent such tragedies.
But gun ownership is no panacea. Peacefully attending their house
of worship, the Sikh victims were particularly easy targets. An open society
is always vulnerable. A determined killer always can find ways to
kill unsuspecting victims in public places, and there is no airtight
defense against this sad reality.
Those who point to such killing sprees as evidence that we need
more gun control must confront the facts. Gun laws cannot stop
mass shootings. The Aurora killings occurred in a “gun-free zone.”
Not far away, in April 1999, the Columbine High School shooters
violated numerous gun laws. If anything, knowledge that their
prey are legally disarmed only encourages such killers.
The mere possession of firearms is a peaceful activity.
In the inner cities, many Americans depend on gun ownership
for self-defense because police protection is unreliable at best.
Nationwide, the most dangerous locations are generally
the ones with the toughest gun laws.
Gun laws, like drug laws, cannot be enforced in ways consistent
with civil liberties. Draconian and discriminatory punishments,
random searches and violations of privacy become likely.
There is no way to reconcile the kind of gun control advocated by
the likes of New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg with the rights
of a free society. To get guns off the streets, the New York Police
Department conducted nearly 700,000 stop-and-frisk searches last year,
disproportionately targeting minorities. Weapons were found in
fewer than 1 percent of the cases.
After the Aurora shootings, rapper Ice-T argued that the right
to bear arms was intended as protection not against violent crime,
but “against tyranny to protect yourself from the police.”
The National Rifle Association has said the same thing for years,
with different words.
Indeed, there is a deeper truth here. All the greatest tyrannies
have disarmed their subjects. The Nazis and communists
energetically stripped their victims of weapons. The right to bear arms
is indeed a bulwark against the totalitarian whims of government.
Another point Ice-T made was that “if somebody wants to kill people,
they don’t need a gun to do it.” This also is true. Anyone with a car
can kill a dozen people before being stopped. It takes only a minute
of thought to realize how easy it would be for a determined person
to unleash horror on a mass scale.
[All emfasis was added by David.]
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:Nationwide, the most dangerous locations are generally
the ones with the toughest gun laws
if true this is a very powerful argument. I would like to see the documentation for this claim.
@hawkeye10,
Its true but do you know why?
Its what I call "the gradient effect". Where we have cities with really strict gun laws, we have adjacent suburbs wit open gun sales laws and nearby adjacent states with really generous gun laws
New York City v Upstate (the Northern Kingdom is a fuckin armory and they are pleased to sell guns to your grandmother) and Long Island, or
Connecticut. DC and Virginia and nearby rural Maryland is another. You think that prps are somehow Chained to the cities with strict gun laws? No, they just get in a car and drive a few miles to arm
themselves. Or they buy from illegal dealers who travel the few extra miles
"the failure of gun control" argument is a fuckin joke.
@farmerman,
Not a humorise joke however.
@RABEL222,
I would have thought that the Colorado massacre would have shown the obvious benefits of gun control - if guns were registered - the govt would have known the nutcase was stockpiling them....
...though Farmermans observations regarding a person going 'next door' to get his guns are quite correct. Porous borders don't work.
It's also true that in a country where gun ownership is seen as a right (and almost seems religious in nature), any attempt to regulate guns would normally face a lengthy timeframe before it became effective...except it may never become effective in the US because of the porous state borders.
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:I would have thought that the Colorado massacre would have shown the obvious benefits of gun control - if guns were registered - the govt would have known the nutcase was stockpiling them....
The problem with centralized registration is the gun banners would use it to track down the guns if they ever succeeded in banning them.
Therefore society must do without it.
We have decentralized registration however. That does not provide the government with direct knowledge of what guns a person possesses. But it does allow the government to track the sales history of a gun if they recover it from a crime scene.
The government would not have known that the guy was a nutcase, even if they did know of his gun collection.
(As arsenals go, he didn't really have much of a stockpile.)
@oralloy,
Quote:The problem with centralized registration is the gun banners would use it to track down the guns if they ever succeeded in banning them.
Err..gun 'banners' are
relatively uncommon...I note that when the pro-gun lobby attacks 'gun control' they seem to use the phrase as meaning 'banning of guns'. When most of the sensible world talks about gun control, they talk about any or all of the following : registration, safe keeping of guns, and restricted access to certain types of guns (usually military style)...which is not the banning of guns.
Your premise that 'therefore society must do without' is based on a false belief in the existance of enough people to ban guns.
And if there were enough people to vote for the banning of guns - that is how a democracy works....which again works against your premise that 'society must do without'
Quote:The government would not have known that the guy was a nutcase, even if they did know of his gun collection.
Not necessarily true - you can easily sign a waver on application for a gun that the Weapons Licensing Dept can access your medical history for the purpose of seeing if you have any mental health conditions. And if it wouldn't help in this case...it certainly would help in other cases.
If you implement a 'Genuine Reason' clause for acquiring guns - this is proven in states that have them not to stop you owning guns, but it would certainly raise questions about why someone was stockpiling in so short a period of time, and quite probably also have limited the number of guns he acquired.
There are also 'cooldown provisions' that many States use, meaning you can't get a hold of a weapon immediately.
You do note that none of these types of regulations prevent a person from owning a gun? And that these type of regulations fall under the category of 'gun control'?
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:oralloy wrote:The problem with centralized registration is the gun banners would use it to track down the guns if they ever succeeded in banning them.
Err..gun 'banners' are
relatively uncommon...I note that when the pro-gun lobby attacks 'gun control' they seem to use the phrase as meaning 'banning of guns'. When most of the sensible world talks about gun control, they talk about any or all of the following : registration, safe keeping of guns,
It is more like the gun banners disguise their intentions in the false belief that we will be fooled into thinking that they don't want to ban our guns.
But we aren't fooled. We know they are gun banners.
vikorr wrote:and restricted access to certain types of guns (usually military style)...which is not the banning of guns.
An assault weapon ban counts as a gun ban. They are unconstitutional and are therefore not allowed. What few such bans exist locally in America, will no longer be on the books 10 years from now.
vikorr wrote:Your premise that 'therefore society must do without' is based on a false belief in the existance of enough people to ban guns.
No. It is based on the fact that the NRA says the federal government is not allowed to have centralized gun registration, and on the fact that the NRA has to power to enforce that dictate.
vikorr wrote:And if there were enough people to vote for the banning of guns - that is how a democracy works....which again works against your premise that 'society must do without'
No. The Constitution overrules democracy. If there were enough people to vote for banning guns, we'd still get to have guns, courtesy of the Supreme Court.
vikorr wrote:If you implement a 'Genuine Reason' clause for acquiring guns - this is proven in states that have them not to stop you owning guns, but it would certainly raise questions about why someone was stockpiling in so short a period of time, and quite probably also have limited the number of guns he acquired.
That counts as a gun ban as well. It is unconstitutional, and will never be allowed in America.
vikorr wrote:There are also 'cooldown provisions' that many States use, meaning you can't get a hold of a weapon immediately.
That one at least doesn't count as a ban. But it is still unconstitutional. Not allowed.
vikorr wrote:You do note that none of these types of regulations prevent a person from owning a gun? And that these type of regulations fall under the category of 'gun control'?
Actually, I've noted that two of them count as gun bans: the restrictions on assault weapons, and the genuine reason nonsense.
Neither will be allowed in America.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:The problem with centralized registration is the gun banners would use it to track down the guns if they ever succeeded in banning them.
oralloy wrote:That one at least doesn't count as a ban. But it is still unconstitutional. Not allowed.
Actually, I've noted that two of them count as gun bans: the restrictions on assault weapons, and the genuine reason nonsense.
Neither will be allowed in America.
The Constitution overrules democracy. If there were enough people to vote for banning guns, we'd still get to have guns, courtesy of the Supreme Court.
You do realise your second lot of quotes contradict the first quote? In the first you say 'if they succeed in banning guns they'll use the central register' and the second you say multiple times 'they will never succeed'...so it seems that (at the moment) you have no reasoning against a central register
Quote:That counts as a gun ban as well
Oh dear, now you're arguing over what type of gun you are allowed to own. Well, I guess you should just put a 50 Cal mounted on your rooftop, next to the 120mm cannon (it is after all, just a big gun). One of your neighbours can have his dragon gun pointed your way (the shipboard type) just in case you try to use yours, and the neighbour on the other side can stock up on p90's. Of course why stop at guns - lets allow grenades too...and a little bit of plastic explosive circulating in the system would be cool as well.
Quote:No. The Constitution overrules democracy. If there were enough people to vote for banning guns, we'd still get to have guns, courtesy of the Supreme Court.
How exactly do you think your constitution acquired any amendments at all? The second amendment is it? Democracy built into its system the ability to amend it's constitution. The second amendment can be removed (or amended once more)
Quote:It is more like the gun banners disguise their intentions in the false belief that we will be fooled into thinking that they don't want to ban our guns.
How, paranoid.
Quote:and the genuine reason nonsense.
a subjective opinion.
oralloy wrote:The problem with centralized registration is the gun banners would use it to track down the guns if they ever succeeded in banning them.
Therefore society must do without it.
vikorr wrote:Your premise that 'therefore society must do without' is based on a false belief in the existance of enough people to ban guns.
oralloy wrote:No. It is based on the fact that the NRA says the federal government is not allowed to have centralized gun registration, and on the fact that the NRA has to power to enforce that dictate.
It appears you are not able to follow your own line of reasoning. Either that, or your english isn't particularly strong. The word 'therefore' ties the idea after the word therefore, to the idea before the word therefore.
In other words, you tied the need to not have central gun registration to the possibility that gun banners could use it if they got their way, then changed position completely and said the NRA would never allow it...which two arguments bear no commonality to each other...it is an utterly confused position.
@vikorr,
Quote: But we aren't fooled. We know they are gun banners.
Thats the basic paranoia that the NRA crowd maintains. The fcat that something is Constitutional doesnt mean its correct or morl. e should be striving for a Constitution that is able to exist with the times of today.
WE CANT TRUST EVERYONE TO HAVE A GUN
How do we maintain control to affect the above?
Thats the million dollar question. I submit that, (not in my lifetime) the tide will turn against the uncontrolled ownership and brandishing of guns .
@oralloy,
Quote:
It is more like the gun banners disguise their intentions in the false belief that we will be fooled into thinking that they don't want to ban our guns.
How does oralloy tell who the gun banners are?
It's the people that don't try to ban guns.
@farmerman,
Quote:I submit that, (not in my lifetime) the tide will turn against the uncontrolled ownership and brandishing of guns .
Brandishing a gun is a crime and to buy guns legally you can not be a felon so it is nonsense that you are postings.
@farmerman,
Perhaps when all the states get conceal and carry the gun nuts will kill each other off. That might solve the problem untill they can figure out how to make clubs kill multiple times.
@RABEL222,
Quote:Perhaps when all the states get conceal and carry the gun nuts will kill each other off
Interesting idea given that every study I had seen to date had shown that people with CC licenses as a group are far more law abiding then the general population.
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:You do realise your second lot of quotes contradict the first quote? In the first you say 'if they succeed in banning guns they'll use the central register' and the second you say multiple times 'they will never succeed'...so it seems that (at the moment) you have no reasoning against a central register
Only a fool allows his enemies to take up a position from which they can launch an assault, even if he is safely within impregnable defenses.
The fact that we are strong enough to block a federal gun ban does not alter the fact that we will also block any federal effort at centralized registration.
vikorr wrote:Oh dear, now you're arguing over what type of gun you are allowed to own.
Yes. That is because as an American, I have the right to own certain types of weapons.
vikorr wrote:Well, I guess you should just put a 50 Cal mounted on your rooftop, next to the 120mm cannon (it is after all, just a big gun). One of your neighbours can have his dragon gun pointed your way (the shipboard type) just in case you try to use yours,
The right of individuals to have weapons does not extend to crew-served weapons.
vikorr wrote:Of course why stop at guns - lets allow grenades too...
The Second Amendment protects the right of militiamen to have automatic rifles, grenades and grenade launchers, and bazookas.
Justice Scalia recently mused on the possibility that the Second Amendment protects the right of the general populace to have
stinger missiles.
Note:
vikorr wrote: How exactly do you think your constitution acquired any amendments at all? The second amendment is it? Democracy built into its system the ability to amend it's constitution. The second amendment can be removed (or amended once more)
The NRA will not permit that to happen.
vikorr wrote:oralloy wrote:It is more like the gun banners disguise their intentions in the false belief that we will be fooled into thinking that they don't want to ban our guns.
How, paranoid.
Nah. I've just dealt with gun banners long enough that I am thoroughly familiar with who they really are.
vikorr wrote:oralloy wrote:and the genuine reason nonsense.
a subjective opinion.
No. It is a fact that the genuine reason nonsense both counts as a ban, and violates the Constitution.
vikorr wrote:oralloy wrote:vikorr wrote:oralloy wrote:The problem with centralized registration is the gun banners would use it to track down the guns if they ever succeeded in banning them.
Therefore society must do without it.
Your premise that 'therefore society must do without' is based on a false belief in the existance of enough people to ban guns.
No. It is based on the fact that the NRA says the federal government is not allowed to have centralized gun registration, and on the fact that the NRA has to power to enforce that dictate.
It appears you are not able to follow your own line of reasoning. Either that, or your english isn't particularly strong. The word 'therefore' ties the idea after the word therefore, to the idea before the word therefore.
In other words, you tied the need to not have central gun registration to the possibility that gun banners could use it if they got their way, then changed position completely and said the NRA would never allow it...which two arguments bear no commonality to each other...it is an utterly confused position.
The reason the federal government is not allowed to implement centralized registration is because the NRA says no.
The reason the NRA says no is because such registration can be later used to seize guns after a ban.
@BillRM,
I can buy a 50 cal Barrett with little problem(if I have the do re mi)
@farmerman,
Well I'll be damned...now I know the 2nd ammendment in the US is truly nuts.
Why on earth would anyone want a 50 cal?
By the way Oralloy - your religious inclinations don't make sensible conversation with you possible. You have rather (erratic or at times ) circular reasoning, and it doesn't rest on the fact that you, and society are human...but on some written words that tell you 'right' from wrong. Apparently you aren't able to argue the right of right, but just repeat 'the constitution says so'. Rather similar to a christian using the line 'the bible says so' on an atheist.
Your use of the term 'enemies' in context is just bizarre. As is the paranoia you exhibit, and as is your faith in the NRA coupled with your fear of being overthrown (regarding your view on guns).
By the way - not allowing you to own a 120mm cannon counts as a gun ban (to use your own line of reasoning). I see a difference between restriction and ban, but hey.
@vikorr,
Quote:Why on earth would anyone want a 50 cal?
A fifty cal sniper rifle is a work of art able to hit targets at well over a mile and anyone into long range rifle shooting would likely love to own one.
The last I hear they go for over ten thousands dollars.
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:Why on earth would anyone want a 50 cal?
Hunting and target shooting mostly.
@oralloy,
I prefer to hunt with a compound bow. I personally get more of a thrill out of it than a rifle. If you're lucky, you can get two kills under an hour if the other does in the area aren't spooked.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace