Gun Control Debate #6

[human]

The polls are strange when you see the reality of what has happened with voting.

 

[ohreally]

So all of these oldies were there for a free concert? I imagine the oldies vote

I never said that the oldies were there for the concert. I said it was reported that many were there for the free concert. Could of been the young ones for all I know. The oldies could of been there for the other reasons listed in the article. Which gun control was listed as a very low percent.
ETA: The average age was 49, so yeah I can see many in tha age group going for the free concert along with the younger ones because of the singer' performing.

 

[human]

I never said that the oldies were there for the concert. I said it was reported that many were there for the free concert. Could of been the young ones for all I know. The oldies could of been there for the other reasons listed in the article. Which gun control was listed as a very low percent.
ETA: The average age was 49, so yeah I can see many in tha age group going for the free concert along with the younger ones because of the singer' performing.

I was responding to the article which says there were old people there predominantly. I suppose they could be there for a free concert, March, stand around for something free.

 

[ohreally]

I was responding to the article which says there were old people there predominantly. I suppose they could be there for a free concert, March, stand around for something free.

That's not at all what the article says. Two ages are given in the article. 10% were under 18 and the average age was 49. I have no idea where you are getting oldies. I think of oldies as being in thier 80s, maybe that is where I am missing your point.

 

[Ironhorse]

Way too much to cover in detail. But suffice to say the National Guard is not the Militia. The National Guard can be ordered to disobey duly elected state officials. It serves only it's federal overseers and not the people of it's State.

The Militia as it was understood at the time, was more akin to a townships fire brigade [Most places wasn't like Boston, Philadelphia or New York]. The militia like a fire brigade was a loose fitting network of individuals, that upon the out break of a home or business that caught fire grabbed their buckets. And if the town was attacked by marauding invaders took up their arms to defend their homes. The Founders was fully aware of the war they had just fought from an oppressive government. It was for this reason they created the 2nd amendment. So, that the people would have the means to combat such tyranny again, should this new one they created become so subjugating in the future.

There is but only one way to do away with gun violence and that's complete and total confiscation. A buy back program can remove some but not all. There will be many who will not surrender them voluntarily, those will have to be taken by force. No, it don't paint a pretty picture but it's the truth. It might takes some time to reduce the number of guns on the streets but within 25 years most will have been destroyed and gun violence will become much diminished. Gun violence can never be erased entirely, there will always be some illegal gun some place. Nor will it prevent homicide as people bent on killing other human beings will just do it by other means. But those wanting guns out of the hands of civilians will have succeeded for the most part.

The 4th amendment didn't become obsolete because of e-mail. And the 2nd amendment didn't either because of advances in technology. The argument that in 1787 there was only muskets is invalid. Civilian weapons were far superior to the standard issue military weapons of the day and Armies have budgets, [even today, armies don't even arm it's infantry with the best, they get what will do the job].The Founders were no dummies they knew of this, just as they knew of the Kalthoff repeater and rifles of their time. If they truly feared civilians being equally or better armed than the military, they'd not include a 2nd amendment nor the ability to request assistance of civilians by writs called letters of marque. They was rightfully so to fear the government that they had just created and that future generations was in more danger of threat than they.

 

[human]

That's not at all what the article says. Two ages are given in the article. 10% were under 18 and the average age was 49. I have no idea where you are getting oldies. I think of oldies as being in thier 80s, maybe that is where I am missing your point.

I was in the era of the 60’s where we said to not trust anyone over 30. I guess we thought that was old.

1/2 century is old no matter how you slice it. America embraces youth. Plastic surgery, botox, etc. So I think that people think 49 is old.

 

[human]

Way too much to cover in detail. But suffice to say the National Guard is not the Militia. The National Guard can be ordered to disobey duly elected state officials. It serves only it's federal overseers and not the people of it's State.

The Militia as it was understood at the time, was more akin to a townships fire brigade [Most places wasn't like Boston, Philadelphia or New York]. The militia like a fire brigade was a loose fitting network of individuals, that upon the out break of a home or business that caught fire grabbed their buckets. And if the town was attacked by marauding invaders took up their arms to defend their homes. The Founders was fully aware of the war they had just fought from an oppressive government. It was for this reason they created the 2nd amendment. So, that the people would have the means to combat such tyranny again, should this new one they created become so subjugating in the future.

There is but only one way to do away with gun violence and that's complete and total confiscation. A buy back program can remove some but not all. There will be many who will not surrender them voluntarily, those will have to be taken by force. No, it don't paint a pretty picture but it's the truth. It might takes some time to reduce the number of guns on the streets but within 25 years most will have been destroyed and gun violence will become much diminished. Gun violence can never be erased entirely, there will always be some illegal gun some place. Nor will it prevent homicide as people bent on killing other human beings will just do it by other means. But those wanting guns out of the hands of civilians will have succeeded for the most part.

The 4th amendment didn't become obsolete because of e-mail. And the 2nd amendment didn't either because of advances in technology. The argument that in 1787 there was only muskets is invalid. Civilian weapons were far superior to the standard issue military weapons of the day and Armies have budgets, [even today, armies don't even arm it's infantry with the best, they get what will do the job].The Founders were no dummies they knew of this, just as they knew of the Kalthoff repeater and rifles of their time. If they truly feared civilians being equally or better armed than the military, they'd not include a 2nd amendment nor the ability to request assistance of civilians by writs called letters of marque. They was rightfully so to fear the government that they had just created and that future generations was in more danger of threat than they.

So people should be prepared to annihilate those troops they support so much? And if the govt turns against people, they cannot kill huge swaths with the technology they have in weapons today?

 

[Ironhorse]

So people should be prepared to annihilate those troops they support so much? And if the govt turns against people, they cannot kill huge swaths with the technology they have in weapons today?

Only inasmuch if they so seek to murder the people they're supposed to serve. The rest of your question really rest with individual morality. Some in the military will no doubt blindly follow the orders given to them, others will defect refusing to murder their relatives and neighbors. That's a choice we all each have to make independently.

 

[Safeguard]

https://www.policeone.com/gun-legis...d-citizens-the-best-solution-to-gun-violence/

Police Gun Control Survey: Are legally-armed citizens the best solution to gun violence?
s/bbm

'When it comes to reducing gun violence in America, nobody else in the country has anything close to the experience-based perspective from which cops can speak"

"PoliceOne has scored a major scoop in police journalism by conducting a survey of more than 15,000 law enforcers regarding their thoughts on gun control in America.

"These men and women — most of whom actually work the street — have a front row seat to see gun violence in America. They put their lives at risk when they do their jobs, actually coming face-to-face with violent encounters involving firearms.

And when it comes to finding ways to reduce gun violence and large scale shootings, most cops say a federal ban on so-called “assault weapons” isn’t the answer.

More than 91 percent of respondents say it would either have no effect or a negative effect in reducing violent crime. This is an overwhelming response by those whose job it is to actually deal with this issue on the front lines.

Instead, it is interesting to note that many respondents consider armed citizens as a potential asset in reducing the carnage from a mass murder situation; proactive choices dominate over gun and magazine restrictions and bans.

More than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable.

snip:

"More than 81 percent of respondents were in favor of arming teachers and school administrators if they were properly trained and vetted or at least proficient.

Yet, with a few notable exceptions, most teachers and school officials are opposed to this measure. Overcoming this kind of resistance will be a major roadblock to making our schools safer.

 

[bluesneakers]

That survey was done in 2013. I wonder if their attitudes have changed.

 

[human]

Only inasmuch if they so seek to murder the people they're supposed to serve. The rest of your question really rest with individual morality. Some in the military will no doubt blindly follow the orders given to them, others will defect refusing to murder their relatives and neighbors. That's a choice we all each have to make independently.

So how is the govt going to accomplish this tyranny?

 

[human]

That survey was done in 2013. I wonder if their attitudes have changed.

I wonder. Hm.

 

[Safeguard]

That survey was done in 2013. I wonder if their attitudes have changed.

I knew you were going to say that. As it happens, their opinions on the subject have not budged, from what I am hearing, and rightly so imo.
Imagine that? a whole FIVE YEARS has gone by, and a lot of cops still feel the same about gun control? Huh...

Off to link gather...brb.
( here's something to consider while you wait )

Having a chat on another forum, a member there, who is a correctional officer, RECENTLY shared his insights on the issue. To summarize:

"I worked in corrections for decades. Learned a lot about how criminals think by listening, watching, and asking questions.

Criminals like gun control laws. Here’s an example: I/M ‘Ryker’ who came out West, was very angry. He got caught by an armed civilian, he was arguing with the home owner who’s house he broke into and was upset the cop didn’t arrest the home owner for pointing what looked to him to be a machine gun! That civilian actually wanted to shoot him. It wasn’t like that in NYC. The Cops actually rescued I/M Ryker and he was relieved to see them that night because a civilian with a gun is scary as Hell to him.

Criminals love gun control because it disarms their victims…and it doesn’t hamper them at all.

One fascinating thing was with home invaders, rapists and burglars, they feared armed civilians way, way more than they feared police.

Police follow specific rules. Contrary to the crap anti police people say, it’s easy to not get shot by cops. Simply stop. Drop your weapon. Don’t do any sudden moves. Simply say you’re giving up.

An untrained civilian is much more scared. He’s not likely indexing, he likely actually has his finger on the trigger, unlike the cop. He may shoot you by accident. He may shoot reflexively. He might be grinning because he’s wanted to shoot a criminal his whole life and he’s now a mean old vulnerable man with a shotgun and you’re some young punk who had the audacity to break in his house, and no jury in this state is going to convict him, with his clean record and you being in the house, with your criminal record. A home owner is also more insulted and vested. You broke in HIS home. That’s his daughter and wife living there. It’s different than someone like a Cop, just doing his job.

So… as someone who worked a form of law enforcement, I think that gun control laws just help the criminals and so do criminals."

 

[jillycat]

Bump stocks allowed the Las Vegas shooter to achieve a rate of fire close to the rate of fully automatic weapons. In roughly ten minutes he killed 58, wounded 422 and terrorized thousands.

Mass shooters tend to follow what has been done before. Future mass shooters will be trying to buy bump stocks. I don’t want that to be as easy as it was for the Las Vegas shooter. Especially considering that their only legal use is for cheap thrills at the range.

Mass shooters are seldom criminal masterminds. They usually don’t know where to find black market dealers selling illegal weapons. Force them to ask around and they are likely to ask the wrong person and raise the attention of law enforcement.

This is what I meant about looking to one thing as the problem and subsequent bans of 'things' as a way of doing something/anything in reaction to tragedy.

Former ATF Director Brad Buckles parsed the bump stock issue along side the capacity issue, and also discussed the NRA and what I'm calling a "token" ban for the purpose of creating some lobbying smoke and mirrors.

Excerpt re: Vegas shooting (emphasis mine):

"His capacity to kill and injure so many people was a function of two things: bump stocks that facilitated rapid fire and and 60 and 100-round magazines that enabled sustained fire. While all of the focus has been on bump stocks — and they certainly deserve attention — those devices alone would have been close to useless if the shooter had to reload magazines after every 10-round burst.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.1d7866eb6efe

The Vegas shooter also tried to buy 1000 tracer rounds and the dealer was out of them. He did buy over 700 tracer rounds from another person. He also bought 'armor piercing bullets' illegally made by this individual. He also had 50 pounds of explosives in his car.

But, bump stocks seem to be the new vampire panic.

If bump stocks need banning because they meet the definition of "machine gun", ok by me, and the average gun owner won't lose sleep either. But they're only part of the story of Vegas.

Also, the Orlando shooter killed 49 people. The VA Tech shooter killed 32 (with 2 handguns). Without bump stocks. Those are no less heinous statistics.

 

[bluesneakers]

I wonder. Hm.

Where are law enforcement when people are shooting themselves, or toddlers are getting loaded guns out of purses or off of shelves, or when an ex decides to murder the woman who dumped him? I wonder what their ideas for reducing other forms of gun violence are.

Of course cops have no business telling teachers what to do anyway.

 

[bluesneakers]

From 2013:
Teachers On Guns In Schools: 72 Percent Of Educators Say They Would Not Carry A Firearm At Work

According to the online poll, 72.4 percent of teachers would not likely bring a firearm to school, if allowed. Administered by the School Improvement Network in January, the questionnaire surveyed 10,661 educators from all 50 states.

Recently, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan spoke out on behalf of educators, calling such proposals to arm teachers "a marketing opportunity" for the gun industry.

"The vast majority of teachers have spoken pretty loudly and said they're not interested in being armed, so that's a red herring," Duncan told reporters during a meeting at the U.S. Education Department.

 

[bluesneakers]

U.S. Teachers Prioritize Gun Control to Prevent Shootings (2018)

A separate question in the survey found 73% of teachers are opposed to arming teachers. Eighteen percent of teachers say they would be willing to carry a gun in school if their district adopted that policy

 

[Woodland]

Where are law enforcement when people are shooting themselves, or toddlers are getting loaded guns out of purses or off of shelves, or when an ex decides to murder the woman who dumped him? I wonder what their ideas for reducing other forms of gun violence are.

Of course cops have no business telling teachers what to do anyway.

The same thoughts stood out for me as well.

Also missing is who gathered and analyzed this so-called data?

I think the whole thing is bs myself as well as the 5 year follow-up comments.

Jmo.

 

[Safeguard]

"Gun control still 'not the issue' for law enforcement despite police attacks" ~Tue 19 Jul 2016 06.45 EDT
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/19/gun-control-police-open-carry-law

"But America’s law enforcement officials are not reflexively in favor of tougher gun laws. Although police chiefs and major city forces tend to favor more stringent gun laws, elected sheriffs and smaller departments are likely to lean the other way.

“When you are around gun violence all the time and you see this stuff, I think it shapes the way you think about your personal safety when you’re off duty,” Jim Bueermann, a former police chief and the president of the Police Foundation, a research and training group. He said street-level officers are more likely to support gun rights than the police chiefs who oversee them.

“You’ll hear this from street cops: ‘I don’t go anywhere without my gun’,” he said. “Police chiefs tend to take a much more strategic view of crime control than line-level officers do.”

 

[flourish]

From 2013:
Teachers On Guns In Schools: 72 Percent Of Educators Say They Would Not Carry A Firearm At Work

"a marketing opportunity" for the gun industry.


Now our pistols come with built in holders for your chalk and red grading pen, for the organized teacher who likes to multitask! See our matching felt holster, great for both packing heat and erasing chalkboards!