ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 28th December 2012, 12:19 PM   #41
Polaris
Philosopher
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,608
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
First, I really appreciate what I think is your honest consideration of additional measures to help this problem. Clearly I don't think they go far enough but I think the two approaches are basis for a healthy debate.

Second, I really wish you and others would stop attributing my and others interest in stronger regulations then you suggest, to emotions. You really have no clue what drives others opinions. Suggesting it's an emotional response seems to me to be an intellectually dishonest way of hand waving away something you don't want to address.
Thank you for that. I'm approaching it with an underlying question: how can future shootings like this be prevented while preserving my ability to purchase and responsibly enjoy an AR-15 (not my first choice, but I'll use it as an example since it's common enough).

Regarding emotion, I just call it as I see it - before Dec. 14th was out people were already calling for bans on "assault weapons" (at a point when it was being reported that Lanza had used handguns), saying that people who owned them had blood on their hands, etc. If that's not emotion, I don't know what is. The barrage of "why do you need that"s and general tone of "I would never even touch those so anybody who wants one is a lunatic so they should be banned" made me cringe. For what it's worth, the opposite side makes me cringe as well with some things.

From what I've seen in the multiple threads after Sandy Hook, nobody on my side says there should be nothing done. I think there is room for compromise. But I do think it's accurate that when proposals are made by gun supporters and met by responses that basically say, "no, not good enough, you need to get rid of them", that it's emotion speaking.

ETA: I am addressing it, even though I consider the responses I'm facing to be emotional. I don't think the emotion is unwarranted either. I should mention that personally, I don't think there should be any gun control. Zero. But that's in a perfect world, in which monsters don't shoot up school rooms. I'm just trying to find the best possible solution.
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.

Last edited by Polaris; 28th December 2012 at 12:24 PM.
Polaris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 12:36 PM   #42
Autolite
Graduate Poster
 
Autolite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,710
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Will it result in at least one less gun out there? Will it result in guns that shoot fewer bullets before needing to be reloaded? What, specifically, do you think is wrong with the law that makes it ineffective, and how would you word a better law that reduces the obscene number of guns and reduces the firepower of them?
I think perhaps Polaris' 'useless' comment might have been in reference to the fact that Canada had enacted similar laws with no reduction with respect to the criminal use of firearms. Firearm registration, prohibitions based on cosmetics and magazine capacity limits had zero practical impact because those with criminal intent simply opted not to comply.

However, if the reason for these controls and prohibitions was to induce a false sense of increased public security in the ill-informed or willfully ignorant by placing restrictions on those without criminal intent then we must concede that these laws were indeed most certainly effective...
__________________
"When they come around sweet talkin', don't listen" - Willie Stark
Autolite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 12:48 PM   #43
DavidJames
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 8,461
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
Thank you for that. I'm approaching it with an underlying question: how can future shootings like this be prevented while preserving my ability to purchase and responsibly enjoy an AR-15 (not my first choice, but I'll use it as an example since it's common enough).

Regarding emotion, I just call it as I see it - before Dec. 14th was out people were already calling for bans on "assault weapons" (at a point when it was being reported that Lanza had used handguns), saying that people who owned them had blood on their hands, etc. If that's not emotion, I don't know what is. The barrage of "why do you need that"s and general tone of "I would never even touch those so anybody who wants one is a lunatic so they should be banned" made me cringe. For what it's worth, the opposite side makes me cringe as well with some things.

From what I've seen in the multiple threads after Sandy Hook, nobody on my side says there should be nothing done. I think there is room for compromise. But I do think it's accurate that when proposals are made by gun supporters and met by responses that basically say, "no, not good enough, you need to get rid of them", that it's emotion speaking.

ETA: I am addressing it, even though I consider the responses I'm facing to be emotional. I don't think the emotion is unwarranted either. I should mention that personally, I don't think there should be any gun control. Zero. But that's in a perfect world, in which monsters don't shoot up school rooms. I'm just trying to find the best possible solution.
As far as emotions, I'll end my part of this discussion with this comment. I consider your emotional "enjoyment" of an AR-15 less compelling then my emotional response to the murder of dozens of innocent people with that or similar guns.
__________________
I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars.
Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe
Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 12:53 PM   #44
Polaris
Philosopher
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,608
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
As far as emotions, I'll end my part of this discussion with this comment. I consider your emotional "enjoyment" of an AR-15 less compelling then my emotional response to the murder of dozens of innocent people with that or similar guns.
What an unfortunate way to prove my point. I don't see the need for scare quotes either.
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 01:11 PM   #45
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,688
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
We noticed you didn't address the fact Adam was a gun thief, why's that? Tell us how these laws would have stopped this?
Who is "we" and when did they authorize you to speak for them? I didn't address this point because it sounds ridiculous to me. I bet he also sped on his way from the murder of his mother. Why are all the anti-gun people ignoring the SPEEDING???

The fact is that the guns were at his disposal legally. Nancy Lanza did not break any laws, and until he went on his murder spree, neither had Adam. That she placed such deadly tools in the close proximity of Adam Lanza is a mistake that cost her and dozens of others their lives. Had she not been a paranoid "gun enthusiast" she'd be alive right now. If more people made the decision not to become "gun enthusiasts" then the opportunity to go on murder sprees would diminish. This seems irrefutable to me. In Japan, where guns are banned, they have some years with just TWO gun homicides. In the U.S., 587 people are killed every year just from accidental gun discharges. So obviously, banning guns works in other places. The question is how we best get to a place where we can boast of such low numbers as well. And the answer is not more guns, that's for sure.
Unabogie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 01:20 PM   #46
Polaris
Philosopher
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,608
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Who is "we" and when did they authorize you to speak for them? I didn't address this point because it sounds ridiculous to me. I bet he also sped on his way from the murder of his mother. Why are all the anti-gun people ignoring the SPEEDING???

The fact is that the guns were at his disposal legally. Nancy Lanza did not break any laws, and until he went on his murder spree, neither had Adam. That she placed such deadly tools in the close proximity of Adam Lanza is a mistake that cost her and dozens of others their lives. Had she not been a paranoid "gun enthusiast" she'd be alive right now. If more people made the decision not to become "gun enthusiasts" then the opportunity to go on murder sprees would diminish. This seems irrefutable to me. In Japan, where guns are banned, they have some years with just TWO gun homicides. In the U.S., 587 people are killed every year just from accidental gun discharges. So obviously, banning guns works in other places. The question is how we best get to a place where we can boast of such low numbers as well. And the answer is not more guns, that's for sure.
Education, storage, registration, background checks, buybacks, social reform (meaning ending the War On Drugs and dealing with poverty/economic inequality).
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 01:40 PM   #47
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,688
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
Education, storage, registration, background checks, buybacks, social reform (meaning ending the War On Drugs and dealing with poverty/economic inequality).
I think I agree with all of that. It may not be enough, but it's certainly a move in the right direction.

/thread?
Unabogie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 01:44 PM   #48
Polaris
Philosopher
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,608
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
I think I agree with all of that. It may not be enough, but it's certainly a move in the right direction.

/thread?
For now, yes. I'm pretty spent on the subject even though it directly affects me (I've had a TEC-22 since before the 1994 AWB), so I'm bowing out to lurk for now. I'm sure it will be bumped anyway.
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 02:12 PM   #49
Hercules Rockefeller
Woof!
 
Hercules Rockefeller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,180
Is Feinstein the one who thinks a barrel shroud is "the shoulder thing that goes up"?
__________________
Quantum physics means that anything can happen at anytime and for no reason. Also, eat plenty of oatmeal, and animals never had a war! - Deepak Chopra
Hercules Rockefeller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 02:22 PM   #50
AlBell
Philosopher
 
AlBell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,360
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
...

It is a waste of time effort and money to punish law abiding owners instead of improving the way we could keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals.

Ranb
We can hope the chance of passage in the senate is slim, and in the house, none.
__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Stay well back: I'm allergic to Stupid.
AlBell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 02:41 PM   #51
Fast Eddie B
Master Poster
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 2,077
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Had she not been a paranoid "gun enthusiast" she'd be alive right now.
Speculation.

Her son had mental issues. Had he gone off the rails with no gun handy, he could have dispatched her with a knife or a bat.

And had she been diagnosed as clinically paranoid, or is that just a handy term to smear her posthumously. If the latter, pretty shameful of you.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 03:02 PM   #52
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,688
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
Speculation.

Her son had mental issues. Had he gone off the rails with no gun handy, he could have dispatched her with a knife or a bat.

And had she been diagnosed as clinically paranoid, or is that just a handy term to smear her posthumously. If the latter, pretty shameful of you.
Yeah, but if he'd killed her with a bat, what would have happened to the school kids? And as for her paranoia, she was a "doomsday prepper" who was hoarding food and weapons for the coming societal collapse. Excuse me for prying, but is that not paranoid thinking where you come from?
Unabogie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 03:43 PM   #53
Autolite
Graduate Poster
 
Autolite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,710
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
The fact is that the guns were at his disposal legally. Nancy Lanza did not break any laws.
Well we know from the media reports that Nancy Lanza did have some sort of firearms storage cabinet or safe. We also know that Adam Lanza attempted to purchase a firearm of his own prior to the murders. Additionally, it was reported that Nancy Lanza had become increasingly concerned reference Adam Lanza's apparently deteriorating mental condition.

Taking these points into consideration, including the fact that Nancy Lanza was murdered by being shot in the face while she slept, I don't think that it's unreasonable to suggest that the firearms used might have been securely stored and that Adam Lanza may have successfully defeated any security safeguards in that respect.

What I don't understand is why there hasn't been any police comments regarding how Adam Lanza physically acquired the guns. I would have thought that that would have been one of the first determinations made during the initial investigation.

Has anyone else heard anything about how and if the guns were stored???
__________________
"When they come around sweet talkin', don't listen" - Willie Stark
Autolite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 05:04 PM   #54
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,965
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Really?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...8115128AAMm0Pc



The Bushmaster would have been legal at 20, would it not? Besides, Nancy was the legal owner, and she let her kids shoot her guns (legally). Then he used it to shoot her and the school. Up until that moment, no laws were broken, were they?
Well, a few things.

1- We don't know how Adam got the guns. If he held his mother a knife point, or threatened her in some way to compel her to give him the guns, then no, he did not legally get them. You and I don't know how he got the guns. To assume she let her kids have open access to the guns, is wrong.

2- If she did in fact allow Adam access to the guns, and he in fact did have mental health issues that were known to her, she violated the law.

3- He committed no less than 5 different firearm laws before even arriving at the school.

So, no your entire premise is wrong. So sit there in your wrongness and be wrong.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 05:13 PM   #55
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,688
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Well, a few things.

1- We don't know how Adam got the guns. If he held his mother a knife point, or threatened her in some way to compel her to give him the guns, then no, he did not legally get them. You and I don't know how he got the guns. To assume she let her kids have open access to the guns, is wrong.
She took the kids shooting, so yes, she gave Adam access to the guns prior to the murders. I'm not saying she gave him the guns that day. I'm saying she taught him how to shoot them.

Quote:
2- If she did in fact allow Adam access to the guns, and he in fact did have mental health issues that were known to her, she violated the law.
Oh? What law is that?

Quote:
3- He committed no less than 5 different firearm laws before even arriving at the school.
Well, duh. He was on a murder spree. I'm sure he didn't do much of anything legal that day. I'm talking about everything he and his crazy mom did prior to that.

Quote:
So, no your entire premise is wrong. So sit there in your wrongness and be wrong.
Your opinion is not evidence. You provided no links or citations to anything. But you're way more emotional than me on this. Only I'm emotional about a bunch of dead kids, and you're emotional about your toys. It's bizarre, frankly.
Unabogie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 05:49 PM   #56
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,275
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Your opinion is not evidence. You provided no links or citations to anything. But you're way more emotional than me on this. Only I'm emotional about a bunch of dead kids, and you're emotional about your toys. It's bizarre, frankly.
Some people consider guns to be their babies.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 05:51 PM   #57
Fast Eddie B
Master Poster
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 2,077
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Yeah, but if he'd killed her with a bat, what would have happened to the school kids?
I was only responding to your assertion she would be alive today but for the guns. Not necessarily the case.

Quote:
And as for her paranoia, she was a "doomsday prepper" who was hoarding food and weapons for the coming societal collapse. Excuse me for prying, but is that not paranoid thinking where you come from?
I have no knowledge of what she was or wasn't preparing for. Folks 'round these here parts DO try to be prepared in a general sort of way. If various disasters either natural or economic do occur, most are in a decent position to survive for a while "off the grid", as are we. Karen and I are also member of our local Community Emergency Response Team, so we're involved in "prepping" for our neighbors as well as ourselves.

Paranoid has a specific meaning, and I can't say whether she was or wasn't. It's just that it seems a bit too easy to label a dead victim with a derogatory label.

Last edited by Fast Eddie B; 28th December 2012 at 05:53 PM.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 05:56 PM   #58
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,688
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
I was only responding to your assertion she would be alive today but for the guns. Not necessarily the case.



I have no knowledge of what she was or wasn't preparing for. Folks 'round these here parts DO try to be prepared in a general sort of way. If various disasters either natural or economic do occur, most are in a decent position to survive for a while "off the grid", as are we. Karen and I are also member of our local Community Emergency Response Team, so we're involved in "prepping" for our neighbors as well as ourselves.

Paranoid has a specific meaning, and I can't say whether she was or wasn't. It's just that it seems a bit too easy to label a dead victim with a derogatory label.
She was a doomsday prepper, who told her family to hoard food and guns because the economy was about to collapse. I'm pretty darned comfortable with my characterization of that fact.
Unabogie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 06:16 PM   #59
Hercules Rockefeller
Woof!
 
Hercules Rockefeller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,180
I was wrong about Feinstein. It was Carolyn McCarthy

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Quantum physics means that anything can happen at anytime and for no reason. Also, eat plenty of oatmeal, and animals never had a war! - Deepak Chopra
Hercules Rockefeller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 06:20 PM   #60
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,225
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
The NRA is claiming that the semi-auto firearms registered as NFA weapons will be non-transferable, but the NFA of 1934 allows the transfer of these firearms. We will not know until January when the actual bill is released.

If Feinstein wants to make semi-auto's transfer like machine guns, then her bill should allow transfer at any time with BATFE approval. Destroying these firearms upon the owners death is a definite infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

I wonder what provisions the bill will contain to allow a person to keep their firearms pending registration? It currently takes at least six months for the BATFE to register a firearm. The bill also says we would have to submit the usual fingerprints and mugshots with the ATF form 4, what about firearms owned by trusts?

Will we have to obtain the local sheriff's signatures on the ATF form 4 to register the firearm? Unless the bill requires that the sheriff sign the application, the local sheriffs could prevent registration of any firearm they see fit and for any reason. They are not required to tell a person why the signature is withheld, so it could be for race or creed as far as we know. As far as I know only Tennessee requires that sheriffs sign the applications for those who are allowed to own guns.

Will the $200 tax have to be paid for each gun registered? I hope not. This would be a minimum of $4000 for me to pay. I have spent years educating people on safe and legal gun ownership and now Feinstein wants to increase my tax burden as thanks.

Ranb
Don't panic - this is blueskying at it's best.

Even if the bill passed in the senate, there's little chance of it surviving congress intact.

My best swag would be that if the portion of the bill requiring NFA registration were to stand, it would have to include an amnesty period for registration similar to '68 or the (iirc) ten year or so amnesty to register USAS-12's and street sweepers as DD's

You are correct about CLEO sign-offs, it's a major problem in some areas.

The sign-off is only intended to be a local ID verification that isn't really as important in today's world as it was from 1934 - pretty easy to determine ID now through NICS.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 08:00 PM   #61
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 5,906
Not panicking but venting instead.

I have heard that people who legally owned guns that were put into the NFA registry were allowed to register them on the ATF form 4 without paying the $200 tax; the street sweepers were given as an example. Not sure if it is true though.

I remember back in 1994 I was underway on my submarine the USS Cavalla. We got news bulletins posted in the passageway every few days that updated the current events including passage of the AWB. It sucked that bills were being passed and I could not communicate with my representatives while under the sea.

Ranb

Last edited by Ranb; 28th December 2012 at 08:01 PM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 08:04 PM   #62
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,965
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
As far as emotions, I'll end my part of this discussion with this comment. I consider your emotional "enjoyment" of an AR-15 less compelling then my emotional response to the murder of dozens of innocent people with that or similar guns.
Way to ignore the point.

Making laws that have an affect on everyone that owns guns, based on EMOTIONS, which may be against the law, and possibly useless, then it becomes a useless conclusion.

But, you're welcome to show me a law, that has been enacted based on emotions, that is a successful law. Here in the US of course.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 08:15 PM   #63
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,965
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Who is "we" and when did they authorize you to speak for them?
We is me too. DGM is welcome to speak for me WRT: guns at any time.

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
I didn't address this point because it sounds ridiculous to me. I bet he also sped on his way from the murder of his mother. Why are all the anti-gun people ignoring the SPEEDING???
Why is it ridiculous? Because it sounds like it?

A thief steals a gun. What is to prevent him from firing that gun? Laws? Oh, right, he's already committed a felony (armed burglary is, in most places, punishable by life in prison), so what's going to stop him?


Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
The fact is that the guns were at his disposal legally.
Proof?

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Nancy Lanza did not break any laws,
Actually, if she gave access to her mentally ill son, it's quite possible she did.

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
and until he went on his murder spree, neither had Adam.
Actually, many laws were broken before he fired the first round. But, of course, you've been told this quite a few times, and you ignore it.

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
That she placed such deadly tools in the close proximity of Adam Lanza is a mistake that cost her and dozens of others their lives. Had she not been a paranoid "gun enthusiast" she'd be alive right now.
Proof of this hilited claim?

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
If more people made the decision not to become "gun enthusiasts" then the opportunity to go on murder sprees would diminish.
This seems irrefutable to me.
And you've got proof of this? I mean, empirical data showing this?

I bet you don't.


Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
In Japan, where guns are banned, they have some years with just TWO gun homicides.
And how many others? How many suicides? How many other acts of violence?

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
In the U.S., 587 people are killed every year just from accidental gun discharges. So obviously, banning guns works in other places. The question is how we best get to a place where we can boast of such low numbers as well. And the answer is not more guns, that's for sure.
But yet, there are plenty of ways to get to that goal, without infringing on my rights, or at the very least, a reasonable amount.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 08:18 PM   #64
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,965
Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller View Post
Is Feinstein the one who thinks a barrel shroud is "the shoulder thing that goes up"?
No, that was Rep. McCarthy from NY.

Here's the video BTW. HILARIOUS!!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 08:40 PM   #65
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 12,421
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
Thank you for that. I'm approaching it with an underlying question: how can future shootings like this be prevented while preserving my ability to purchase and responsibly enjoy an AR-15 (not my first choice, but I'll use it as an example since it's common enough).

Regarding emotion, I just call it as I see it - before Dec. 14th was out people were already calling for bans on "assault weapons" (at a point when it was being reported that Lanza had used handguns), saying that people who owned them had blood on their hands, etc. If that's not emotion, I don't know what is. The barrage of "why do you need that"s and general tone of "I would never even touch those so anybody who wants one is a lunatic so they should be banned" made me cringe. For what it's worth, the opposite side makes me cringe as well with some things.

From what I've seen in the multiple threads after Sandy Hook, nobody on my side says there should be nothing done. I think there is room for compromise. But I do think it's accurate that when proposals are made by gun supporters and met by responses that basically say, "no, not good enough, you need to get rid of them", that it's emotion speaking.

ETA: I am addressing it, even though I consider the responses I'm facing to be emotional. I don't think the emotion is unwarranted either. I should mention that personally, I don't think there should be any gun control. Zero. But that's in a perfect world, in which monsters don't shoot up school rooms. I'm just trying to find the best possible solution.
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
Education, storage, registration, background checks, buybacks, social reform (meaning ending the War On Drugs and dealing with poverty/economic inequality).
Good posts on a thoroughly difficult topic.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 08:42 PM   #66
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,965
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
She took the kids shooting, so yes, she gave Adam access to the guns prior to the murders. I'm not saying she gave him the guns that day. I'm saying she taught him how to shoot them.
Ok, fair enough.

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Oh? What law is that?
18 U.S.C. 922

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Well, duh. He was on a murder spree. I'm sure he didn't do much of anything legal that day. I'm talking about everything he and his crazy mom did prior to that.
Wow, talk about being disrespectful. Not surprised though.

Here's your claim.

"Up until that moment, no laws were broken, were they?"

To which I answered, yes. Of course. Do I need to explain that murder, is illegal? If the guns were secured in some way (I don't know, but I am betting yes) and he took them, that's grand theft of a firearm, not just a state crime, but a federal crime.

Once he killed his mother, he's shown he has no disregard for any law. He violated so many state and federal laws after that moment, it's hard to start to count them.

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Your opinion is not evidence. You provided no links or citations to anything.
Do you really need a link to a law about not stealing things?

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
But you're way more emotional than me on this. Only I'm emotional about a bunch of dead kids, and you're emotional about your toys. It's bizarre, frankly.
I'm not going to respond to this, for risk of violating the MA. However, I will say that I am certainly disturbed by some wacko killing 20 innocent kids, and 6 innocent adults, and certainly shed quite a few tears over it.

So, your assumption is wrong.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2012, 11:01 PM   #67
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,189
Psycho that wants to shoot up a school would have the gumption to jump through these legal hoops, especially if they have no prior history. Someone wanting to collect guns for recreational purposes is going to be less likely to.

Brilliant piece of legislation, It comes down to what most anti weapon legislation does. Punishing collectors for the crimes of psychopaths because the collectors are the easier targets, and an easier political billboard. A stream of folks complaining about how they can't get a certain gun is going to give the anti weapon crowd the warm fuzzies, even if these people who want to hurt folks will just jump through the hoops, or acquire the weapons illegally.

The anti gun, hell, the anti weapon crowd, needs to stop punishing collectors for the crimes of maniacs, and stop feeling so self congratulatory whenever they manage to crap on the parade of the collectors. Collectors are the folks you turn to , to pay for the misuse of weapons, because when you have to think that there is no real face of spree killings, no group to watch out for and regulate , you realize that is a rather scary alternative to the safe fantasy that by making it a hassle to own weapons, you can stop their being used for crimes.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2012, 05:13 AM   #68
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,865
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Will it result in at least one less gun out there? Will it result in guns that shoot fewer bullets before needing to be reloaded? What, specifically, do you think is wrong with the law that makes it ineffective, and how would you word a better law that reduces the obscene number of guns and reduces the firepower of them?
It will result in a lot of abuses because some beaurocrat misinterprets it. It serves no other purpose than to harrass people who want to posess more than a wall-hanger or sporting piece.

Feinstein should concentrate on the social welfare and ecconomic issues she understands and let people who know something about arms and their uses handle this.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2012, 05:21 AM   #69
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,865
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
She was a doomsday prepper, who told her family to hoard food and guns because the economy was about to collapse. I'm pretty darned comfortable with my characterization of that fact.
Nobody is arguing that bat **** crazy people should not be allowed to have guns. I just don't see anything in any of the proposed laws that would make it easier to weed those people out. Banning rifles with a thumb hole in the stock or a bayonet lug will sure help you identifying a drooling paranoid, won't it?
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2012, 06:45 AM   #70
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,505
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Who is "we" and when did they authorize you to speak for them?
I would be one, so I suppose I authorized it. You missed Ranb's post #15, I'm sure he also noticed. Two, would be "we".

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
I didn't address this point because it sounds ridiculous to me. I bet he also sped on his way from the murder of his mother. Why are all the anti-gun people ignoring the SPEEDING???
Back to the dodging I see. Do you agree or disagree that these law would have not prevented this tragedy?

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post

The fact is that the guns were at his disposal legally. Nancy Lanza did not break any laws, and until he went on his murder spree, neither had Adam. That she placed such deadly tools in the close proximity of Adam Lanza is a mistake that cost her and dozens of others their lives. Had she not been a paranoid "gun enthusiast" she'd be alive right now. If more people made the decision not to become "gun enthusiasts" then the opportunity to go on murder sprees would diminish. This seems irrefutable to me. In Japan, where guns are banned, they have some years with just TWO gun homicides. In the U.S., 587 people are killed every year just from accidental gun discharges. So obviously, banning guns works in other places. The question is how we best get to a place where we can boast of such low numbers as well. And the answer is not more guns, that's for sure.
So, your plan is to make them magically disappear with these new laws? I'm reasonable sure that's what the government is hoping you'll believe.
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2012, 07:06 AM   #71
Autolite
Graduate Poster
 
Autolite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,710
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Banning rifles with a thumb hole in the stock or a bayonet lug will sure help you identifying a drooling paranoid, won't it?
Actually, a ban on bayonet lug does make sense. It might help to put a stop to all of those drive-by bayonetings that nobody seems to be talking about...
__________________
"When they come around sweet talkin', don't listen" - Willie Stark
Autolite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2012, 07:20 AM   #72
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,275
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Psycho that wants to shoot up a school would have the gumption to jump through these legal hoops, especially if they have no prior history. Someone wanting to collect guns for recreational purposes is going to be less likely to.

Brilliant piece of legislation, It comes down to what most anti weapon legislation does. Punishing collectors for the crimes of psychopaths because the collectors are the easier targets, and an easier political billboard. A stream of folks complaining about how they can't get a certain gun is going to give the anti weapon crowd the warm fuzzies, even if these people who want to hurt folks will just jump through the hoops, or acquire the weapons illegally.

The anti gun, hell, the anti weapon crowd, needs to stop punishing collectors for the crimes of maniacs, and stop feeling so self congratulatory whenever they manage to crap on the parade of the collectors. Collectors are the folks you turn to , to pay for the misuse of weapons, because when you have to think that there is no real face of spree killings, no group to watch out for and regulate , you realize that is a rather scary alternative to the safe fantasy that by making it a hassle to own weapons, you can stop their being used for crimes.
I am trying to figure out why someone would "collect" weapons like the Bushmaster .223.

Are you planning a wall display in your man cave of weapons used by famous spree killers?
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2012, 07:31 AM   #73
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 5,906
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
I am trying to figure out why someone would "collect" weapons like the Bushmaster .223.

An AR-10, Good for target shooting or hunting large game like elk. I would have a 10 round mag in there, but they are all out of stock at the moment.


AR-15 in 458 socom. Also good for large game, makes less noise then the 308 above.


300 whisper. Like shooting a less noisy 30-30 and more accurate, good for shooting competitions and hunting game up to the size of deer


My national match AR for service rifle competitions.

I only speak for myself, but these are only like the Bushmaster in that they are DI operated and share the same lower receiver design.

Ranb

Last edited by Ranb; 29th December 2012 at 07:40 AM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2012, 07:39 AM   #74
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 5,906
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
But you're way more emotional than me on this. Only I'm emotional about a bunch of dead kids, and you're emotional about your toys. It's bizarre, frankly.
Speaking for myself only; but this tragedy has affected me emotionally more than anything else since 9/11. How could 20 kids murdered not do that to anyone?

But now we have politicians exploiting this mess to promote a gun bill that would have probably done nothing to prevent the Sandy Hook shootings and will probably do little or nothing to prevent another one. This is what some people call dancing in the blood of victims.

Feinstein is not stupid, but she is behaving like Americans are. No doubt the legislative intent of her new AWB will say it is to prevent crime, just like the last one. But of course it will hardly affect crime at all. She will still expect us to lap it up like dogs.

Ranb
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2012, 08:11 AM   #75
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,865
Originally Posted by Autolite View Post
Actually, a ban on bayonet lug does make sense. It might help to put a stop to all of those drive-by bayonetings that nobody seems to be talking about...
Actually, if a looney-tune has a bayonette fixed when he runs out of ammo, it would seem to me that he might not even bother to re-load, just go on a stabbing rampage. As the homicidal rampages in China would indicate, this actually improves the chances that victims would survive.

It also increases the chances that some bad mofo will take that weapon away and make the thug eat it.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2012, 08:12 AM   #76
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,275
My Governor waited for months after the Aurora shooting to start the discussion on gun control. An article about his speech was on the front page of the Denver Post the morning of the Sandy Hook shootings.

Reality is that these events will keep happening as long as society keeps pandering to the NRA and the so called "collectors".
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2012, 08:15 AM   #77
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 5,906
What does "collectors" mean as opposed to collectors?

Ranb
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2012, 08:21 AM   #78
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,275
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
What does "collectors" mean as opposed to collectors?

Ranb
If you were collecting out of production rare and historic firearms, it wouldn't need the quotes.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2012, 08:50 AM   #79
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 5,906
But what do the quotes actually mean? It means I am not actually a collector? The common definition of a collector is someone who collects something in particular.

So if my ar-15's were original 1950's era with the Bakelite furniture, A1 sights, no forward assist and the skimpy barrel I would be worthy in your eyes of calling myself a collector without the demeaning quotes?

Do you insult others who collect plebeian items or is it just guns?

Ranb
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2012, 08:58 AM   #80
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,965
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
If you were collecting out of production rare and historic firearms, it wouldn't need the quotes.
So, I shouldn't be allowed to collect newer design weapons? This seems logical to you?

(Hint: It doesn't. It's pants on head kind of logic.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.