DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Why We Need a Firearms Ban

I'll try to answer your question. Criminals will always carry guns. Children will always be killed by said criminals. That can't be stopped. But don't you think less children being killed is a good thing? You see, the article was about a man who was legal to carry with no permit required. No training required. Obviously he didn't understand how to take a clear shot without killing an innocent child. Trying to use the excuse that children will be killed anyway doesn't excuse law abiding citizens walking around with zero training adding to the body count.

Very true. That's why it seems a little absurd when people scream "ban firearms!" but never utter a word about the obvious. Even more absurd when people (not saying you) jump to some strange conclusion that those opposed to a firearms ban are in favor of dead children.

As per usual it seems any common sense middle ground gets rejected by both extremes. Good times.

meanwhile...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/20/us-arms-sales-weapons-biden-election-pledge

US has increased arms sales abroad despite Biden election pledge
Report by Quincy Institute says ‘current US arms policy and practice too often fuel war rather than deterring it’

Biden at the Lockheed Martin weapons factory in Troy, Alabama.
Biden at the Lockheed Martin weapons factory in Troy, Alabama. Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
Maya Yang
Thu 20 Oct 2022 13.25 EDT
Despite an election pledge by Joe Biden to not “check [America’s] values at the door” when it comes to arms sales, the US has increased, not decreased, its weapons sales around the world, including to countries with repressive regimes, a new report reveals.

Four men stand behind cardboard boxes with protest messages on them that are at their feet. Another man stands nearby holding a large sign that reads 'Duty free fund Israeli apartheid'.
ACLU asks supreme court to overturn Arkansas’ anti-boycott law against Israel
Read more
According to the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a Washington-based thinktank, most of the sales also involve just four companies: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and General Dynamics. The four were involved in 58% all the major offers made since the Biden administration took office.

“The concentrated lobbying power of these companies – including a “revolving door” from the Pentagon’s arms sales agency and the leveraging of weapons export-related jobs into political influence – has been brought to bear in efforts to expand US weapons exports to as many foreign clients as possible, often by helping to exaggerate threats,” said the report, released on Thursday.

US arms offers did drop sharply in the first year of the Biden administration, from $110.9bn in the last year of the Donald Trump administration to just $36bn. The report suggests the decrease could be partly due to a “less aggressive approach” to arms sales promotion but was more likely the result of market saturation, caused by a large volume of deals concluded during the presidencies of Barack Obama and Trump.

As of October, annual arms offers have increased to $65bn, partly due to increased sales to Europe and Asia – “tied to the Pentagon’s focus on ‘great power competition’ with Russia and China”.

“Current US arms policy and practice too often fuel war rather than deterring it. Roughly two-thirds of current conflicts – 34 out of 46 – involve one or more parties armed by the United States,” the report said.

“Of the US-supplied nations at war, 16 received $50m or more worth of US arms between 2017 and 2021. This contradicts the longstanding argument that US arms routinely promote stability and deter conflict,” it added.

Indonesia ranks first in the top recipient of US arms deals as of September, with $13.9bn in offers, according to the report. Greece and Germany come in next at $10.2bn and $10.1bn. Between Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates - the bottom three recipients – total offers between $3.4bn and $4.7bn have been made from January 2021 to September this year.

Lockheed Martin had the largest share of involvement in major deals. The weapons it produces are the main component of deals worth $25.8bn since February 2021, the report said.

Advertisement
Boeing came in second, with arms deals at $22.65bn, followed by General Dynamics at $7.7bn since February 2021, including a $6bn offer of M-1 tanks to Poland and a share of a $1.7bn worth of heavy armored vehicles to Australia. Raytheon ranked fourth, involved in deals worth $4.7bn.

“The biggest payoffs for major contractors come from sales of combat aircraft, followed by missile defense systems,” the report said.

In 2021, the arms industry employed 766 lobbyists – “far more than one for every member of Congress”, the report found.

“Arms exporters and the US government routinely cite job creation as a reason to sell weapons to foreign clients. But the number of jobs associated with arms sales is greatly exaggerated … Spending on weapons produces 40 percent fewer jobs than spending on infrastructure or green energy, and 100 percent fewer jobs than spending on education,” it said.

The thinktank recommended a number of policy measures including restricting the revolving door between government and industry in attempts to weaken the control that weapons manufacturers have over arms-transfer decision-making.

The report also called on Congress to revise the Arms Export Control Act to require an affirmative congressional vote on major deals, instead of the current system that simply requires a veto-proof majority to block any arms deal.

And it urged the Biden administration to provide greater transparency on the delivery and use of US arms.

I'm sure the war in Ukraine had nothing to do with it. I mean if an article wishes to talk about transparency.

Love your quote at bottom- problem- God/Jesus stated love God with your whole heart and your whole mind and your neighbor as yourself....something close. Who is your neighbor? How many guns/ammo do you own to kill your fellow man/neighbor? The so called Christian Right sees the world as Christians and non-christians, gun advocates and those who would rather love their neighbor. Wonder how many assault rifles/ gun Christ would own if he were living in America today. Who he worry about how much ammo he had or if his assault weapon magazines were big enough. Peace.

Most of my family borders on the fringe right. They are also very dogmatic Christians. I often try to explain the anomalies between the far right and true, biblical Christian (as in what Christ himself did, advocated for, and said in the Gospel), but they want to hear none of it.

And that's sad. Sometimes I think they're reading a different Bible than I am. But no, when checking, they're not.

2 people can read the same book, yet interpret it completely different. This is especially true of a book with no modern references or scenarios.

And especially when it's fiction.

the global community should come together and grant me the power to rewrite the books for the big 3 religions.

i'm a real god, so i won't leave anything to interpretation.

When you hyperfocus on the Christian parts, is there that much room for interpretation? It seems to me that most people's interpretations of Christ from the Gospels are pretty uniform. I suppose that's if you base it on the texts, though, and not the words of demagogues.

Man, somebody woke up on the troll side of the bed this morning.

If you strip it down the the most basic message, it is "Be good to each other". But people often get caught up in the details, which lead to different interpretations depending on perspective.

I tend to conclude that they focus on the parts which suit their own preconceived notions and ignore the rest. It's my opinion that organized religion is the worst thing that has ever happened to Christianity.

Sadly, that speaks to "the evil that men do". What a dichotomy. Jesus says there's strength in numbers, mankind says "hold my beer". Mouthpieces become self-serving leaders, proponents and opponents cherry-pick and push a narrative that is interpreted by these so-called-leaders.

There's no problem with the bible, there's a problem with a bunch of people trying to tell you what it means.

What a different world we would live in if people would just trust their hearts and intuition... and all the windbags would quit telling people what to think.

What you said just made me realize how similar that construct is to political parties. It starts off as a pretty good thing where people come together with common goals of bettering the world and society, and then it morphs into some trying to garner as much influence as possible, directing the masses, and then ostracizing (or worse) anyone who goes against the grain. For whatever reason, I never drew that parallel in my mind before.

The funny thing is I say all this being a Catholic, with a mostly Jesuit based influence (meaning the right kind, superbowldawg! ). It's a double-edged sword, because the Jesuit influence especially inspired and exposed me to the value of charity and actions being much louder than words. A lot of the good things I've done and a lot of the virtues I live by were inspired by that portion of my life. On the other hand, and more in line with your point, the church is chock full of demagogues, and has been throughout history, leading to the aforementioned dynamic I shared with my family. They have become so wrapped up and radicalized - most recently by Milo Yiannapolous - which honestly, blows my mind completely when you think about him in his entirety. The brainwash factor is strong.

It probably comes as no surprise to you, based on all our conversations, that my approach mirrors yours that we should all have our faiths and beliefs, but not hold each other accountable by our own faith standards, which so many people struggle with.

There is a big difference between you and many religious followers however. By reading your post above it's obvious you have the ability to separate the what from the chaff. You see both the good and the bad. As such you take the good and leave the bad. Sadly that's not such a common occurrence.

While I'm sure our religious views probably don't mirror each others, I think your last sentence is correct in how we agree. I'll take it one step further. Christ said those that accept him as their Lord and savior would be saved. Not that his teachings should be inflicted on the masses. That eliminates choosing to accept it. That's having it forced upon you. And the fact people think that their religious beliefs should be inflicted on the country defies what the constitution says concerning freedom of religion.

Subjects with basic privileges vs citizens with rights. 2nd Amendment- key parts- the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Did founders- who owned flintlocks and crude shotguns- did they see into the future- Uzis, AR-15s, individual weapons capable of killing dozens or hundred or more in a minute/or two. That's what they'd want or envision when they penned those words. JMHO, it is a resounding NO.
And the first part, a well regulated militia- now we have any jackass out with his AR-15 helping police crime scenes. They are just protecting the good people. Right. Funny how the fundamentalist religious have lots of high powered guns and ammo so they can kill the needing when the big ending comes. Humanity, ain't we great.
We need better gun laws- bans on assault rifles, Uzis type handguns, and large quantity magazines would be a good start.

Anyone should have a shotgun or bolt rifle for hunting or home protection or low capacity hand guns....just not MILITARY type weapons.
Peace.

Good for you.

Why does everything have to be ban or not ban?

You can ride a bicycle on a roadway, assuming you follow the basic road rules. But you need a training and a license to drive a car on the road, and you need even more training and special license to drive a large truck. (Should need extra training for some of these guys in the dually's )

Why can't firearms be treated in a similar way?

Because government mandates lead to de facto bans.

Yes, because our government and our people cannot compromise anymore. Too busy trying to always be right and in control, and not any interest in finding middle ground that the majority can agree on.

Average lifespan of a democracy is 200 years, we've almost made it to 250. It's only a matter of time.

Not sure why we should be compromising with the government. They are there to serve us in a limited capacity, not rule us and get fat off the public good.

Because as you can see by the response people have abandoned common sense for conspiracy theories and extremism and feel it's a threat from Big Brother.

It's not Government compromise with the people, its government cannot compromise, and the people cannot compromise. Both sets are constantly fighting for absolutes.

But I am sure you understood that.

And some people believe that the government is only there to take care of us and look out for our well being.

MD has required "good and substantial reason" for a permit to carry for decades. It has been used to ban people from being able to bear arms by using an arbitrary standard "we can't define it but we know it when we see it". The only people that have been able to show G&S seems to be merchants that carry money. If the business money is stolen they can't tax it so it is important. They've shoveled the idea that "no one wants a permit anyways, except for a deranged few". Since the June ruling MD has been force to issue and has issued over 35,000 permits and it hasn't started to slow down yet.

It was a de facto ban on a fundamental right using "common sense" reasoning.

You seem to think because you live in a permissive state that government capriciousness should be acceptable.

You keep promoting people have the right to carry a gun with no requirement to have any training. Because as much as you say you want them to get training, you know a lot of people won't if it isn't mandated. Hopefully, if you have children, one of them won't fall victim to your folly.

No, I don't think "the government is only there to take care of us and look out for our well being". But having some minimum standard of responsibility is helpful for those who believe in that sort of thing.

You've again spun what I said. Go back and read what i wrote. The state used the idea you have to show good cause to keep people from obtaining a license. I did not mention a training requirement. They wanted that too, after you proved a ambiguous and capricious standard of "good and substantial reason".

I was speaking about exactly what you have said regarding this subject in the past. Then you claimed I was spinning your words about wanting people to get firearms training. You plainly stated that you wanted them to but didn't want it to be mandatory. Don't try to walk it back now.

This argument over guns will never be settled... But it's already been settled simply by the number of existing guns. You will never put that genie back in the bottle. So all this arguing is useless.

I was discussing other arbitrary requirements and you spin it back to training. But yes, mandatory training requirements are a barrier to exercise. NY State is trying 16 hours classroom and 2 hours range time every three years. They aren't doing it for safety, they aren't doing it out of "common sense" or to ensure people have the "basic skills needed". They are doing it to be so burdensome as to cause people to just not, especially coupled with their desire to turn every public place into a "sensitive" place to disallow carry unless the owner expressly posts a sign saying it is ok.

Barriers. Common sense is just a way to not have to explain the 20,000 guns laws currently on the books aren't stopping people from killing people and more won't help.

And it was nice to see you pull out the old "for the children" trope.

Lol. Fact checker says…..you get three Pinocchio’s for repeating the 20,000 gun laws on the books figure. Congrats!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...c0-6f23-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_blog.html


By any reasonable measure, this is suspicious figure. Its origin is murky, and it is inconceivable that the same number of gun laws would exist now as some five decades ago.

Moreover, even experts who favor the NRA’s agenda have their doubts about the figure or its relevance. It may well be the case that there are “thousands” of laws, but what does that mean? What does counting statutes, or local regulations, say about the quality or effectiveness of those laws?

We don’t play gotcha here at The Fact Checker, so we accept that LaPierre misspoke when he said 9,000 federal laws rather than 20,000 laws across the nation. But that slip of the tongue actually points out the fuzzy nature of the claim.

This 20,000 figure appears to be an ancient guesstimate that has hardened over the decades into a constantly repeated, never-questioned talking point.

So the number 20,000 is wrong but they don't know what the right number is? Does 1000 suit you better? 7634? The point being we continue to be told we need more laws to save lives and the laws we were sold to do that don't seem to work. Couple that with politicians selling these laws have little idea what they actually encompass. For instance and assault weapon can be define because it has a folding stock and a bayonet lug. Those scary scary bayonet lugs. Or the ever popular barrel shroud being the "shoulder thing that pops up".**

I'm all for stopping violence, but when we have people who are continually charged as "felon in possession" and the continue to be out and about hurting people it makes no sense when I'm told the "shoulder thing that pops up" is killing children.

But hey, continue the "oh I gotcha" nonsense. It continues to change minds everywhere.

**Edit to add I take the WP fact checking anything about guns, especially when they can mention the NRA with a HUGE grain of salt. They are not known for being neutral in this.

I don't know that the number 20,000 gun laws is wrong. In fact, this link says over 300,000 gun laws. https://gunlawsuits.org/gun-laws/federal-gun-laws/

The difference is what one counts as a gun law. Federal laws, state laws, and local laws. Add in hunting laws. Use of gun laws, etc.

However, not 1 single law says shooting someone for no reason is legal.

I don’t think it’s a matter of more laws like you suggest. It’s a matter of effective laws. If a law is ineffective, fix it. Change it so it’s more effective. But doing nothing is the GOPer way. That’s what we get. So be it.

I've not suggested enacting more laws. Anti gun laws are ineffective. Put criminals in jail, keep them there, especially violent criminals.

I guess we should just ignore dead children. God knows they don't count. Here's the funny thing about this. Most people such as yourself believe in states rights. Yet when states exercise those rights you complain about them when you don't like them and praise them when you do like them. What you do is point out the most egregious state laws and pretend there aren't states that have common sense gun laws. The story in this thread was about a 10 year old girl who was shot and killed by "accident" by a man who didn't know how to take a safe shot. Oh I forgot, I was supposed to ignore that part.

You try to act as though some minimum threshold for people who plan to carry a gun isn't common sense. That society shouldn't expect that minimum threshold be demanded. To me that is dangerous and of course a prime example was this 10 year old girl being killed that I'm not supposed to talk about. Good job.

I know, you suggested we don’t need more gun laws I get it. Many gun laws are ineffective because it’s too easy to get one. Fix that issue. And only 50% of all homicides in the US are solved.. The Jan 6th violent criminals are only getting 1-7 years. Pfft. Fix those issues GOPer’s. What’s the plan? Oh wait, they don’t have one or their plan is to do nothing at all on gun violence and lower taxes on the rich as usual.

Do you think state mandated training means someone cannot miss? Do you believe this specific incident changes if the person had sat through 16 hours of classroom training? Do you think a simple 25 round qualification standing on a range means you are now a tier 1 operator and shoot target seeking boolits?


A defensive shooting environment is chaotic and dynamic. There are no guarantees in that environment. None. The best you can hope for is to hedge the chances to your favor by being prepared. I don't know what training this person did or did not have but there is no training that gives you a 100% chance of success in this.

I do not blather on about states rights. I am concerned about individual rights, but since you seem to be stuck there.

The 2A restricts the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The 2A is an individual right (The People) not a collective right (The State). This means people have the right. There is a long list of SCOTUS decisions on this, I have mentioned them before. The right is for individuals and the restriction is incorporated against the states as well, by 14A. Again, this is the rulings from SCOTUS. The current state of affairs is such that the right does include arms in common use or that have a military benefit, the right allows individuals to keep and bear arms and the right can only be restricted using text, history and tradition as a basis as long as the underlying conduct is constitutional. You can't carry with the intent to murder.

I have pointed out egregious laws because they exist. You pretend that states will not use any means they can to keep people exercising their rights. You keep pretending they just have the public good in their hearts. You live in a permissive state. There are many states that would outright ban if they could. Stop pretending like that is not the case. But it doesn't effect you personally so it is ok. MA, NY, NJ, HI, MD, DC, CT, RI all have various methods of trying to use "common sense" to restrict rights. None of them meet the muster of text, history and tradition.