Gun Control

`

drainey wrote:
There is a simple solution then that we can both agree with, reduce current gun laws by applying the method we use that allows citizens to purchase machine guns by what you call simply filling out paperwork, and apply our current machine gun standard to all firearms. That regulates all guns including assault rifles. I'm not wild about applying that to handguns, but I can compromise in the interest of reducing unnecessary murders. I get less murders and you get a simplified gun law.

No, I cannot agree to this. Past compromise is what has eroded our rights this far. Applying the current class III firearm regulations to all firearms is an asinine proposition. By doing so, it would take about 6 months for one to purchase a firearm. This is a common time frame for first time class III applications. I suggest applying the current NICS check that is performed every time an ATF 4473 is processed for the purchase of a gun from an FFL (federal firearms license) to purchasing class III weapons. http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf What more do we need to know about someone wishing to exercise his Constitutional right? I even agree with NICS checks on current class III weapons for private sales, just to be sure. This would accomplish two things. First, those that cringe at the thought of person to person private sales would have their "compromise". Second, this would bring business to FFL holders, who are often small business owners.

Spinks wrote:Why do we need to heavily regulate any kind of firearm? Criminals will be criminals. If a bad guy walks in with a machine gun and commits a crime because he could easily obtain one doesn't mean that he's not going to run into someone willing to defend themselves with a full auto weapon. A Glock 18 is easily concealed and can be quickly reloaded so, it's not beyond reason to believe that an average citizen would have one on him if it was easily obtainable.

I still want to know your thoughts on this.

drainey wrote:
http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.html,http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/
2010 Firearm murders per 100,000 population-Illinois:2.69 Alabama:2.85
2010 Robberies by Firearms per 100,000 population-Illinois:1.85 Alabama:17.27
2010 Aggravated Assaults by Firearms per 100,000 -llinois: 6.22 Alabama 32.33
How does your article demonstrate what happens when only criminals have guns? That it is better when they do?

Chicago instituted a ban on handguns in 1982

* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.[55]

* In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns.[56]

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

My point is that banning a certain class of firearm does not reduce crime.

The Chicago Times article was published at 9:17 AM on Aug 4. That's approximately 12 hours following the first reported incident. Not incidents that took place over a 48 hour or two day period.

Spinks wrote:
This is an argument against new laws. In both examples the bad guys committed several felonies in order to carry out their actions. What difference would more laws on a piece of paper have made?

drainey wrote:
Your argument against laws is that if someone breaks that law once, that then the law is just a piece of paper and makes no difference? You point to a Chicago Tribune article where ten people are wounded across two days in Chicago, IL as an example of why we shouldn't have gun laws. To do all this is to also argue against laws against stealing, robbing and raping. You are not alone in arguing that here either. Either own that belief, qualify it further, or disown it. Because there is no point in talking further about anything involving the law if you are against having them and I am for them. We will just have a difference of opinion.Edit: I was told saying that last part makes me sound like a dick. My apologies. It just seems we have a fundamental disagreement over the purpose of all law, not just gun control and maybe we should just agree to disagree.

I'm against any new laws that regulate firearms. We, as a nation, have given away far too many rights as it is.

I asked earlier if you are more concerned with magazine fed semi-auto rifles or high capacity magazines. Will you kindly address this?

`

drainey wrote:.....Thus far I have been tied up by arguments that gun laws can't work rather than the original question of revisiting gun laws in light of the mass shootings.

Just to clarify for my own edification- It appears to me that four different people have clearly answered the OP-

drainey wrote:Does the Copper Top and the Dark Knight shooting
incident show that gun laws should be tightened to prevent similar
episodes in the future?

with a resounding "No". I believe the confusion might lie in the fact that the answer was couched in the terms of the statement/question-"if the current broken laws did not stop it, why would adding further laws prevent it?"

Since we are posting stats and graphs, I thought I would post this info from the Census Bureau website-
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html
These are the four lowest crime states in the country for 2009. All except Iowa have laws equal to or, in the case of Vermont, less restrictive than either Alabama or Colorado. From this data, it doesn't appear that more restrictive laws necessarily equates to less overall crime.

`

drainey wrote:
What more do we need to know? That one James Eagan Holmes has bought armored leggings, an armored vest, a ballistic helmet and large amounts of ammo. Oh, and an AR15 with a 100 round drum magazine. Six months is plenty of time for a visit by the men in black, and you don't have a Constitutional right to shoot up a theater.

It sounds to me that you want a crystal ball to predict tragic events. Don't we all? How do we differentiate between a demon possessed man and a collector or prepper/survivalist? Hypothetically, what if a situation occurs, such as a stalker, that leads you to believe that the life of you or a family member is in increased danger and you need to increase your abilities to defend yourself? Do you want to wait six months while the threat could be days away or would you want to be able to purchase adequate arms and ammunition to deal with the impending situation? Here's a slogan for you, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away."
The Constitutional right in question is the right to keep and bear arms.

drainey wrote:
I think taking a glock 18 against a machine gun is akin to taking a knife to a gunfight. Also, that the" if someone had a pistol in that theater, it would have made a difference" argument is an intended or unintended diversion from the original topic.

This is a Glock 18:

drainey wrote:
We can cherry pick statistics for a loooooong time and get no further than when we started.

That's exactly why I posted the graph. I don't trust statistics because one can always find a study to support their argument. I just wanted for you to say it first.

Spinks wrote:I'm against any new laws that regulate firearms. We, as a nation, have given away far too many rights as it is..

drainey wrote:
I understand that is your opinion, but "We, as a nation, have given away far too many rights as it is..." doesn't mean anything. It sounds like a slogan.

I'm sorry that you find MY words meaningless. If it sounds so much like a slogan maybe I should leave my current profession and start a marketing agency. Rights were diminished when machine guns, suppressors, and short barreled rifles were given away as a compromise in 1986.

Spinks wrote:I asked earlier if you are more concerned with magazine fed semi-auto rifles or high capacity magazines. Will you kindly address this?

drainey wrote:
I am not that concerned by either. Thus far I have been tied up by arguments that gun laws can't work rather than the original question of revisiting gun laws in light of the mass shootings. I am interested in whatever would have reduced deaths and injuries in mass shootings. Israel has shown it can prevent a determined enemy from hijacking its airlines, by intensely profiling its' passengers on El Al. Also if I have to take a driver's test to get my license, getting access to a deadly weapon could require at least that level of effort. Especially for a concealed firearm.

Ok, let's revisit existing gun laws and figure out how to arm more americans. This should not only reduce injuries or deaths in active shooter situations but also serve as quite a deterrent.
I'm all for profiling criminals. Unfortunately, our country doesn't have the stomach for it due to the politically correct climate of today.
Driving a car is a privilege. Owning a firearm is a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution. Apples and oranges.
If you think that requirements for owning firearms aren't strict enough I will make you a deal. Bring your guns to me. I'll store, maintain, and exercise them free of charge until ownership requirements reach your level of satisfaction. Also, if you have a pistol permit, return it to the Sheriff until the application process becomes more to your liking.

`

drainey wrote:Did I do something to set you off? I have thought about how to reply to this in the right way for nearly three days now. Spinks, why do you have to get personal with this? How would you like it if I went back to the Obamacare discussion and said "If you think that people should take responsibility for their own health care and stop depending on the government, then I will make you a deal. Return the money Medicaid has supplied for the healthcare of your child and depend on private insurance alone. Then you will not be a hypocrite for taking for yourself what you would deny to the very people who help pay for Medicaid." Now, how much of a dick move would that be? And how does it get us anywhere in a debate? How does it do anything but offend and cause strife?

No, you didn't do anything to set me off. I thought that by asking you to voluntarily give up your right to own and carry a firearm would get you to stop and think. Which it did for three days. Although, I think that you may have missed my point by thinking that I was angry at you. In general, people don't really think about the issue until it is brought down to a personal level. If you want people to give certain rights, I say that you should lead by example. It's only fair to do so. Concerning your hypothetical question, for the first seven years of her life we did just that while we tried to get her approved. You probably wouldn't believe how rooted in racism the whole system is. All the while paying taxes that supported others already in the system. So, in my mind, I'm leading by example by paying taxes that fund the system. Lot's not hijack this thread over this.

So, I take it that you don't like my proposal. I must ask, why not?