Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 18, 2020 19:27:48 GMT -8
Agreed. If I thought anything meaningful could be done about the number of handguns in the country I'd suggest it...but I'm at a loss there. It might stop the mass shootings from happening quite so often. I think that's a meaningful enough reason to take some action, and I haven't heard a better suggestion yet. If we're going down the road of preventing access, I think you'd make the same suggestion... ALL guns stored at a gun club, right? Besides the whole 2A thing that would get in the way of the gun club solution, I think the focus really SHOULD be on the handguns. I'm pretty sure there are already laws in place that prevent bad guys from possessing weapons of any kind, how would you propose getting the guns away from them? Would you agree most all the solutions involve limiting access to the good guys? |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 18, 2020 19:42:15 GMT -8
We've already gone down that road. How easy is it for you to buy and possess a machine gun? It's not illegal, but it's also not as easy as walking into a store and plunking down $1000. There are hoops to be jumped through and no one says that violates the 2nd Amendment.
Ok...how?
First let me say that I refuse to discuss "good guys" and "bad guys". No insult intended but I believe those terms are an oversimplification of reality.
Since as you pointed out there are far too many handguns to effectively regulate I think the best way to address the problem is to regulate ammunition, while at the same time looking at ways to counter the gun lobby, and reduce the number of handguns in this country.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 18, 2020 21:53:17 GMT -8
Good guys = law abiding citizens
Bad guys = criminals / gang members
The fix to the gun violence issue centers around identifying the bad guys, and limiting their access to guns or limiting their access to society... Preferably the latter.
Energy focused on limiting access to law abiding citizens seems feckless at best.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Feb 18, 2020 23:52:14 GMT -8
As a young man I was a member of the NRA... Hold on, I call BS on that (the NRA member part, not the young man part). The only way you were ever a member of the NRA was either a well meaning relative gifted you a membership in an ill fated effort to get you to "man-up" or you misunderstood what it meant to cock a pistol. Like ParrotPaul claiming that he just was at the DMV and it was a wonderful experience, such a claim can only be believed by the most credulous of people. Photos of the membership card or it didn't happen... |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 19, 2020 4:13:28 GMT -8
What about all those suicides MDDad is always mentioning? How does your rating system view them?
Is it feckless that we limit the access law-abiding citizens have to automatic weapons?
It seems odd to me that people claim that we can't ban assault rifles when we ban machine guns and no one is screaming about the 2nd amendment. Why won't the same tactics work with assault weapons?
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 19, 2020 6:41:39 GMT -8
What about all those suicides MDDad is always mentioning? How does your rating system view them? Is it feckless that we limit the access law-abiding citizens have to automatic weapons? It seems odd to me that people claim that we can't ban assault rifles when we ban machine guns and no one is screaming about the 2nd amendment. Why won't the same tactics work with assault weapons? By feckless I mean ineffective on the overall gun violence problem. You're going after the cause of less than 0.5% of the gun violence deaths instead of the 99%,and it targets mostly law abiding citizens for compliance. There's a hole in the bottom of the boat, and you're suggesting we waterproof a tear in the corner of the roof tarp first. Here's something to consider that might actually work, and unites us along the way. Bill Bratton made a huge dent in LA gang violence by hiring more cops, so police presence was a lot more visible. How about having trained militia types, along the lines of an armed red beret guardian angels, working with law enforcement and patrolling the streets of gang infested areas? I'm guessing those militia types would be NRA members. Further, we could make a condition of AR-15 ownership that you are properly trained, and will serve in such a capacity. Any critical holes in that thinking? |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 19, 2020 8:10:20 GMT -8
Beats the heck out of claiming the problem is unsolvable and doing nothing at all don't you think?
How does having trained "militia types" with assault weapons patrolling our streets "unite" us? Just curious.
I have no problem with that.
Let's just leave it to the cops.
Well, when one of these well-trained, not-at-all trigger happy militia types shoots someone, who gets sued?
I'm not sure the guys who want to own assault rifles are the ones I want patrolling my neighborhood.
I also don't want the NRA involved in any capacity. They represent the interests of the gun manufacturers and not the interests of society at large.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,815
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 19, 2020 8:57:16 GMT -8
How about having trained militia types, along the lines of an armed red beret guardian angels, working with law enforcement and patrolling the streets of gang infested areas? Bick, with all due respect, this is 2020. I will never understand why so many otherwise rational, intelligent people think the solution is to return us to the Wild West of the 1880's. I don't want to live in Tombstone. The thought of criminal gangs and legal "guardian angel" gangs roaming our neighborhoods with military weapons creeps the shit out of me. If the intent was a one-time, or periodic, sweep of gang neighborhoods and the confiscation of any weapons possessed by gang members, I'd be all for it. Or I'd probably support making the mere possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony a capital offense with no possibility of parole. But legitimizing a perpetual militia with military weapons patrolling our streets to offset the bad guys, leaving citizens having to anticipate a firefight at any time forever, is not what I can abide. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 19, 2020 9:14:26 GMT -8
When citizens act together to defeat a common enemy...gangs...it unites us. There aren't enough cops around.
Would your prejudice against the NRA have you prefer having no police presence v. an NRA-trained, concealed carry red beret so that you might feel more secure enjoying the nightlife near Washington Square?
Is knowing who gets sued more important than the public safety?
Your thinking implies you would prefer the status quo of growing gang presence to involvement with "the other side".
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 19, 2020 9:26:15 GMT -8
How about having trained militia types, along the lines of an armed red beret guardian angels, working with law enforcement and patrolling the streets of gang infested areas? Bick, with all due respect, this is 2020. I will never understand why so many otherwise rational, intelligent people think the solution is to return us to the Wild West of the 1880's. I don't want to live in Tombstone. The thought of criminal gangs and legal "guardian angel" gangs roaming our neighborhoods with military weapons creeps the shit out of me. If the intent was a one-time, or periodic, sweep of gang neighborhoods and the confiscation of any weapons possessed by gang members, I'd be all for it. Or I'd probably support making the mere possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony a capital offense with no possibility of parole. But legitimizing a perpetual militia with military weapons patrolling our streets to offset the bad guys, leaving citizens having to anticipate a firefight at any time forever, is not what I can abide. I'm not suggesting we have guys roam the streets with assault weapons. In some heavily gang-infested areas...maybe I do mean that. I doubt we need it at all where we live, but seeing red-berets Guardian Angels (who aren't generally armed) out in public places adds a sense of security for me. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 19, 2020 10:40:22 GMT -8
Bick, with all due respect, this is 2020. I will never understand why so many otherwise rational, intelligent people think the solution is to return us to the Wild West of the 1880's. I don't want to live in Tombstone. The thought of criminal gangs and legal "guardian angel" gangs roaming our neighborhoods with military weapons creeps the shit out of me. If the intent was a one-time, or periodic, sweep of gang neighborhoods and the confiscation of any weapons possessed by gang members, I'd be all for it. Or I'd probably support making the mere possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony a capital offense with no possibility of parole. But legitimizing a perpetual militia with military weapons patrolling our streets to offset the bad guys, leaving citizens having to anticipate a firefight at any time forever, is not what I can abide. I'm not suggesting we have guys roam the streets with assault weapons. In some heavily gang-infested areas...maybe I do mean that. I doubt we need it at all where we live, but seeing red-berets Guardian Angels (who aren't generally armed) out in public places adds a sense of security for me. In concealed or open carry states, we effectively already have that, just not in sufficient numbers. I see people, whether or not we call them a “militia” carrying the weapons on which they’ve been trained as a suitable and effective deterrent to gangland murderers and other crimes. but there needs to be enough of them that criminals have to think twice about committing their crime, wondering if someone able and willing to stop them is there. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Feb 20, 2020 0:06:49 GMT -8
Attempting to end crimes that involve the use of a gun by removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens is nonsensical. As I have said before, if you have 10 dogs and 1 dog bites someone, you don't remove the teeth of all of the dogs. Rather, the solution is to put down the offending dog. Period.
A fundamental truth that many people don't want to acknowledge is that you & you alone are responsible for your own safety. The police aren't, the government isn't, that responsibility is yours & yours alone. Now the choices you make in your life, the situations you put yourself in, where you choose to go & to live are part of that equation. The other part of the equation is the ability to defend yourself against those that choose to do you harm, be they individual criminals, gangs or an authoritative force. To abdicate that responsibility to the state is the ultimate in cowardice.
Bottom line, to advocate for the removal of guns from society puts you in 1 of 2 camps. Either you are wholly ignorant of what happens to a populace that can't defend itself or you want to take advantage of a populace that can't defend itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 20, 2020 4:20:27 GMT -8
I see. Thanks.
Yet you were the one who suggested that cops were the answer to the gang problem in LA.
Don't be silly.
Of course not, but it would be nice to anticipate any problems with your proposed "solution".
Well, think what you will but I don't think the NRA is interested in public safety, they're interested in selling more guns. That's why all their "solutions" to the gun violence problem always involve arming more and more people. I'm interested in breaking THAT status quo.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 20, 2020 4:23:32 GMT -8
A fundamental truth you are ignoring is that we as a society have decided long ago that we wish to have policemen and the law protect us rather than angry individuals with guns seeking vengeance on our behalf. I don't think you'll find many people willing to accept your view of the way things are or should be.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 20, 2020 9:33:18 GMT -8
There's not nearly enough police in certain areas, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I also believe it's inaccurate to characterize card carrying NRA members as angry, trigger-happy, guys and gals. While I don't have any stats at my fingertips, my sense of them is they are rarely, if ever involved in perpetrating crime using guns, and take gun ownership / safety more seriously than those who aren't members. I would also bet a good portion of the "good guys" who do stop violent criminals before the cops arrive, are in fact, NRA members.
To RSM point, it is incumbent upon ourselves to protect ourselves and our families.
Making it mandatory to serve the community as a condition of gun ownership, would serve notice on criminals that there are a lot more of US than THEM. I think that's a good thing.
|
|
