DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Shooting suspect in custody after Charleston church massacre

You are wrong! The NRA has always yelled, "Just enforce the Laws already on the Books!" Which we don't.

I took it as meaning this:

The NRA's absolutism regarding ANY regulations changes enables the freer access to firearms for all... INCLUDING the criminal element.

But DC can speak well-enough for himself.

From what I've seen the NRA takes any attempt at regulating the sale/purchase/ownership of guns directed at stopping illegals from obtaining guns and turns it into... if they pass this, they're coming for yours next.

Which laws don't we enforce?

Ok.

But, if the NRA is fighting for my right, as a non criminal - to have guns that are legal......how is that considered "fighting any attempt to fight criminal gun ownership"?

People use baking soda to make crack, why don't we just ban baking soda then? People get stabbed with knives, why don't we propose a ban on the manufacturing of them? Car accident death tolls are high, let's ban vehicles.

My point is, the left wing so itchy to dive only on the surface of gun regulation than they are to dive deeper into the real issue, the mentally challenged carrying the weapon.

Just remember, a gun doesn't aim or squeeze it's trigger itself. What is in charge of that is the real root of the problem.

Hell, IMO, spending money on helping parents deal and monitor their mentally challenged kid or whatever would be a better course for society than the money spent on trying to go around and take people's weapons away from them.

All JMO.

i've already destroyed this argument in this this thread.

Excellent question.

The laws are enforced.......but only AFTER something happens.

Just as with robberies, or speeding tickets, or ANY law - the law is enforced AFTER an infraction. (obviously)

So, the next question is: How do we prevent the infraction in the first place?


If there's a plausible answer to that question, I'm probably all for it.

I'd love to have innocent victim shootings completely eliminated. Would LOVE it.

It would take a complete culture change though. Is that possible?

As of now, I think not. So, the next step is what?

And on a wider note - a complete culture change in many, many different aspects would completely change our country.

So let me cite—from a federal public defender fact sheet—a few of the existing federal statutes dealing with armed criminals once they have their guns. I’ll give you the prison term first along with the citations in the United States Code (U.S.C.).What do you think?

• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)—for possession of a firearm or ammunition by a felon, fugitive, or drug user… And possession means touching a gun, any gun, handgun, rifle or shotgun. Any firearm that Dianne Feinstein would ban for us, is already an illegal gun for violent criminals.What do you think?

• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(j)—for possession of a stolen firearm.What do you think?

• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(i)—for shipment or transport of a stolen firearm across state lines.What do you think?

• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(b)—for shipping, transporting or receipt of a firearm across state lines with intent to commit a felony.What do you think?

• 5 to 30 years consecutive mandatory minimum sentences—18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A)—for carrying, using, or possessing a firearm in connection with a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking.What do you think?

• The death penalty or up to life imprisonment—18 U.S.C. § 924(j)—for committing murder while possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking.What do you think?

• 15 years mandatory minimum—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—for a “prohibited person” who has three prior convictions for drug offenses or violent felonies.What do you think?

• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(g)—for interstate travel to acquire or transfer a firearm to commit crimes.What do you think?

So, if every possible aspect of acquisition, possession, transport, transfer of a firearm by criminals demands harsh and swift punishment under existing law, what is it that Emanuel, Bloomberg and President Obama really want?What do you think?

To criminalize—then prosecute—everything that we do as law-abiding, peaceable citizens who own and use firearms.


http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/02/wayne-lapierre-not-enforcing-existing-gun-laws-thats-a-crime/

It's not just left wing. More and more people are speaking out. People who have been concerned have always been willing to delve deeper and this goes deeper than just the mentally challenged.

I apparently missed the "destruction of that argument" post. Can you "destroy" that argument for me again?

Probably skipped over it then. At work, I'll go through when I get home and dont have use to the mobile. Curious as to your "destructive" response!

why? you're the one who got schooled on it.

if people wanna use logical fallacies to make their points, then i'm not going to stop them.

it's what? page 34 on this thread, and people still don't get it.

i got nothing left to say, honestly.

Why don't we keep recycling the same stupid cliche arguments that don't make any sense and the next time 8 people get slaughtered we can do it all over again because nothing has changed.


Pretty sure they do want to address that but it's a much bigger, deeper, more complex issue. If your kid is sitting on the floor beating himself with a hammer do you call the psychologist and make him an appointment to get some counseling for his issue or do you TAKE THE HAMMER AWAY FROM HIM FIRST?

If you want much deeper and more comprehensive background checks, longer waiting periods, etc as a measure to ensure that only those who will be responsible can get guns, then that would be a nice start... mandatory training, etc.. all for it.

I honestly think a culture change is essential, but like you said it's hardly likely.

Our culture - many cultures - enjoy violent entertainment. I'm not ready to give up James Bond and I don't know what they could do with it to make it glorify violence less.

That'll never happen.

Ready for the argument that when we were kids we watched a cartoon coyote blast rockets at a cartoon roadrunner and it didn't cause us to be violent?

Dang! I got schooled? On page 34? Couldn't find it. School me again on page 8. Thanks in advance.

I never missed an episode!

That doesn't mean we should force My Little Pony on everyone, which is something that I've already seen complaints about here.

I guess there's a scale or degree that could be adjusted along with some significant education. I'm also sure there are a lot of social issues that combine for this situation, but I don't know if I have the patience to wait for the researchers to explain.

If it's not simple then I'm not for it!

I use pseudoephedrine for my sinuses, usually in combination with Mucinex. (as Mucinex D) It is the only thing that breaks up my sinus congestion, especially in the summer.

When I buy a package, I have to give them my driver's license, because some people use the decongestant for making drugs. It usually takes me between 5-10 minutes to buy a stinkin' package of medication so I can breathe. I have never made illegal drugs, have never been accused or convicted of any such offenses, yet I am treated as a criminal for a stupid package of sinus medication.

So yeah, finding a cheap scapegoat to blame it all on while neglecting the real issue seems logical right?

Just wish people would get their hands dirty and try to help the real problem instead of these dumb, scratch the surface, proposes like banning firearms. I'm not denying what you said about it being big, deeper and more comprehensive issue, but crap, this is what people get paid to do and paid to devise, plan and etc. But no, it's 'hey let's ban guns and see if it magically does anything' I feel most of the time, especially in regards to the left wing.

The pope says the NRA and it's investors that invest in gun makers are not real Christians.

That's all I need to hear on the gun issue.

You're a big Catholic?

Do you follow everything the pope says?

First answer this....Are you a real Christian?

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with taking away weapons from those who don't have the mental ability to use them responsibly.

The problem is, you usually don't know until it's too late. Plus to use your analogy, people see your kid hitting himself with a hammer, so their only solution is to take hammers away from everybody. After that, I think we know what would happen next. People would find their kid is no longer hitting himself with the hammer, so they'd feel the problem was fixed.

If they did actually take him to the psych, they might say something like "Well, he's hitting himself with a hammer because the Movies and Television shows he watched made it seem like a cool thing. I'd recommend to stop watching it" ... But nobody would want to give THAT up. So instead, people would point to the fact that the kid still hasn't hit himself with a hammer the last few weeks and declare everything fine. Then a couple weeks later, when he starts poking himself with a screwdriver, people are either going to start looking to restrict the sale of screwdrivers or justify it saying, "Well at least he's not doing as much damage as he could of with a hammer."

Quite probable... and it would be a mixed-bag of good AND bad, like every other change we've seen since 1776.

Truth: this nation has been in a perpetual state of cultural evolution since its inception. .. but we're still here.

It's not just that the country was founded is such a way as to accommodate change, it's also at the very core of human nature.

Much of the social and political debate in America- despite the particulars of each issue- is between 2 groups of people: those who are proponents of change, and those who are resistant to it. It's important that both have a say, for this reason above all others: although 'change' is basically inevitable, a measured pace of change is preferable to an unchecked headlong plunge into the unknown.

Prime example of this is the current "flag issue" in SC. Whatever the reasons for wanting it lowered (racist symbol, time to move on), there are those who want it kept (heritage, tradition). The details of this particular issue may differ from others such as gay rights, pollution control, and gun regulation, but the same two sides of the human condition are still at work.

Arch: given time, each and every one of these subjects will morph from where we are now. New debates will pop up about issues we can't even foresee. America will continue to change who she is... but those 2 sides will still be representing Man's dual nature. It's the way things have always been... and not just on these shores. Even now, embracers of change in the Middle East are dealing with backlash from fundamentalist resistors who seek a "return" to 7th century way of life. Extreme example, I know... but the same dynamic is at work.


.02

No, what seems logical is trying to fix what you can quickly while you work on the rest...


Glad I'm not part of that left wing. I don't want to ban them or come take them... just open up a reasonable dialogue on ways to keep them out of the hands of criminals and people who will use them with ill intent. No fix is going to be perfect, if there was only 1 gun in this country, there is still a chance an innocent person could get shot with it... there is no perfect solution. But that doesn't mean we should hide behind the same old cliches, like criminals don't obey the law anyway, and the same old analogies about shovels and hammers and cars causing deaths that we have hid behind for as long as I can remember.

If we want progress then gun owners will have to engage that left wing in meaningful dialogue and be open to some compromises.. because it's the gun owners and gun lobby that know best where the loop holes are, it's the gun owners that know best what will work and what won't work.. so I would put a lot of stock in what they say... as long as it isn't one of those tired old cliches and this defeatist attitude that there really is nothing we can do.

And I believe that's a big part of the problem. There's a huge cavern of difference in responsible legislation to help insure people who shouldn't be getting guns don't, and people trying to take away your guns.

But somehow the discussion always ends up back to that.

Jim Jefferies makes a few points.

Yes, I am.

Now your turn.

From what I see, the proposes are just too much to come close to agreeing to or compromising with. There are, however, many that I would agree with, or perhaps not be "upset" if having to agree with. A few taken right from the National Conference of State Legislature's website:

Requires background checks for all gun sales and strengthens the background check system. This would include removing barriers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act so that states may more freely share information about mental health issues involving potential gun purchasers.

Honestly, I am just not sure WHY this, or something like this, hasn't happened yet.

Bans military-style assault weapons and limits magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds.

This is stupid. Both aspects of this. Most of those "military style assault" weapons are used for hunting and ALL civilian models are of course not full-auto. The magazine count/limit has been a worthless discussion since it's been discussed IMO.

Provides states with monetary incentives—$20 million in fiscal year FY 2013 and a proposed $50 million in FY 2014—to share information so that records on criminal history and people prohibited from gun ownership due to mental health reasons are more available.

Yeah, love it. Why hasn't it been done?

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/summary-president-obama-gun-proposals.aspx

More on there, but I won't turn this thread into a gun-control thread anymore than it has (sorry lol.)

jc

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

By cutting off federal funding for research and stymieing data collection and sharing, the National Rifle Association has tried to do to the study of gun violence what climate deniers have done to the science of global warming. No wonder: When it comes to hard numbers, some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments are full of holes.

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements. Update: A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.
ownership vs gun death

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.

• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.
Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?

Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
• About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.
Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
• Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
• 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives did not have a permanent director for 7 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.

Ahhh, good old Mother Jones.

I knew as a union member you'd like it.

so can you provide individual links refuted each and every claim in the article weiner posted?

Meanwhile, 9 people lie dead in SC.

Their extended families are grieving. I can't imagine losing a family member because they attended church, welcomed in a person, only to have that person murder them in cold blood.

The parents and sibling of the killer are being persecuted. My daughter is a physical therapist and she works w/another female who knows the family. They are going through a very tough time.

I read this thread and see all the arguing. No one gives an inch. I wonder if that is part of the problem?

We can talk about gun control, legislation, etc, but until we remove the hate from our hearts and look for solutions rather than casting blame, we will continue to remain an uncivilized and corrupt society.

I started a thread awhile back and it had its many ups and downs. My goal was for people to look for solutions rather than assigning blame. Well, once that intent was made clear, the thread died quickly. A couple of guy actually proposed solutions, but the vast majority of the people abandoned ship.

I believe that the thread went downhill because I tried to get people to own up and say what they could do to make things better rather than just assigning blame. That scattered them. LOL

I sometimes wonder if people truly want solutions. Or, do they instead want to point out the differences, discrepancies, and disparities of the opposing groups in order to maintain the norm.

We label one another. Conservative/Liberal. Black/White. Male/Female. Democrat/Republican. Christan/Atheist. Pro Life/Pro Choice. For Gun Control/Pro Gun. Etc, etc, etc.

I wonder if we'll ever get to a time where we can say that we accept individual differences and we all support the progress of the human race?

no.

because never in recorded history has that ever happened.

we divide. that's what we do.

if not by race or gender, then it's gonna be something else. social class, tax bracket, whose wife has bigger breast, who has the nicer ride.

dividing amongst humans will never stop.

however, we move to break down as many dividing factors as possible,

race and gender has to be the first two.

you keep talking about avoiding assigning blame, but that's a fantasy. in order to come up with a solution, you have to identify the problem, AKA assigning blame.

For example, people have a problem with the New black panther party, because they intimidate and such.

well, they are the problem. you just used the phrase "assigning blame" to make it sound dirtier, but that's exactly what it is: the problem.

So you get rid of the black panther, you get rid of some of the problems
the kkk, some of the problems,
make it harder to get guns, some of the problems,
remove the confederate flag, some of the problems.

Your heart is hard. I'm sorry.

But little brother, you really have no concept of what I am speaking of.

i have the concept. i'm simply saying it's wrong.

Since recorded history humans have divided. religion, race, social standing, geography, and people have placed blame in order for that to continue.

you're describing a utopia of compromise. that's never happened. ever. and it won't.

you break down the racial and gender barrier as much as you can, then you work on others. but it will never go completely away Vers.

You continually stated that said solutions from various posters didn't match your ideal. Maybe you don't have all the answers, Vers?



You're telling an individual who deals with this his whole life he has no concept of solutions to racial situations? How does he not have any concept?