HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "Regulate" does...

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:32 PM

 

"Regulate" does NOT mean "take them away"

Just sayin'

And the slippery slope argument is always one for the desperate

113 replies, 4922 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 113 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Regulate" does NOT mean "take them away" (Original post)
Taverner Dec 2012 OP
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #1
Taverner Dec 2012 #6
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #9
Taverner Dec 2012 #11
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #28
Taverner Dec 2012 #30
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #38
Taverner Dec 2012 #55
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #78
Taverner Dec 2012 #80
forthemiddle Dec 2012 #60
Taverner Dec 2012 #61
forthemiddle Dec 2012 #71
Taverner Dec 2012 #81
sanatanadharma Dec 2012 #57
Taverner Dec 2012 #62
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #15
Taverner Dec 2012 #18
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #20
Taverner Dec 2012 #24
Skittles Dec 2012 #51
former-republican Dec 2012 #2
Taverner Dec 2012 #3
former-republican Dec 2012 #10
former-republican Dec 2012 #12
Taverner Dec 2012 #13
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #17
Taverner Dec 2012 #21
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #23
Taverner Dec 2012 #26
Taverner Dec 2012 #27
derby378 Dec 2012 #4
Taverner Dec 2012 #5
tj_crackersnatch Dec 2012 #7
Taverner Dec 2012 #8
Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #56
tj_crackersnatch Dec 2012 #59
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #110
retread Dec 2012 #14
Taverner Dec 2012 #16
retread Dec 2012 #25
Bake Dec 2012 #42
white_wolf Dec 2012 #83
libdem4life Dec 2012 #19
Taverner Dec 2012 #22
former-republican Dec 2012 #47
laundry_queen Dec 2012 #52
former-republican Dec 2012 #58
libdem4life Dec 2012 #85
former-republican Dec 2012 #94
libdem4life Dec 2012 #99
libdem4life Dec 2012 #45
maxsolomon Dec 2012 #29
Taverner Dec 2012 #32
derby378 Dec 2012 #36
maxsolomon Dec 2012 #43
derby378 Dec 2012 #84
janx Dec 2012 #37
Bake Dec 2012 #44
maxsolomon Dec 2012 #49
Bake Dec 2012 #50
maxsolomon Dec 2012 #70
Bake Dec 2012 #112
maxsolomon Dec 2012 #113
Taverner Dec 2012 #68
maxsolomon Dec 2012 #79
spanone Dec 2012 #31
Taverner Dec 2012 #33
spanone Dec 2012 #40
Bake Dec 2012 #46
Taverner Dec 2012 #66
FrodosPet Dec 2012 #34
byeya Dec 2012 #35
Taverner Dec 2012 #65
XRubicon Dec 2012 #74
Taverner Dec 2012 #75
XRubicon Dec 2012 #77
Taverner Dec 2012 #82
MrYikes Dec 2012 #39
Bake Dec 2012 #48
aquart Dec 2012 #108
Taverner Dec 2012 #64
bighart Dec 2012 #41
patrice Dec 2012 #54
patrice Dec 2012 #53
Taverner Dec 2012 #63
hack89 Dec 2012 #67
Taverner Dec 2012 #69
hack89 Dec 2012 #95
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #109
patrice Dec 2012 #72
hack89 Dec 2012 #93
patrice Dec 2012 #96
hack89 Dec 2012 #98
baldguy Dec 2012 #100
hack89 Dec 2012 #101
baldguy Dec 2012 #102
hack89 Dec 2012 #111
baldguy Dec 2012 #73
Taverner Dec 2012 #76
libdem4life Dec 2012 #87
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #86
baldguy Dec 2012 #88
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #90
baldguy Dec 2012 #91
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #92
baldguy Dec 2012 #97
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #103
baldguy Dec 2012 #106
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #107
libdem4life Dec 2012 #89
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #104
Thinkingabout Dec 2012 #105

Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:34 PM

1. okay then... what regulations are you in favor of?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:41 PM

6. Psych Evals every year to keep your guns sounds good

 

And a generous buy-back program for those who don't pass the psych eval

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:47 PM

9. No way.

1. There aren't enough psychiatrists in the country to do 80 milion evals per year.

2. No psychiatrist will want to risk the liability lawsuit if they pass somebody and they commit a crime with the gun.

3. If you use a standardized written exam, the next day after the exam come out there will be books published on how to pass the exam, complete with a copy of the standardized exam.

4. It will be expensive so that only 1% can have guns.

People who call for all gun owners to be psych evaled actually want all guns banned. You aren't fooling anybody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:50 PM

11. Hire government Psychiatrists

 

Specifically for the job...pay them with the fees collected in registration

And yes, I think they should be taxed at least 200%

The gunfans always say it's a mental health problem - so why not do the obvious thing and keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill?

Anything less (or more) just becomes a feel good bill

If it's too expensive, then don't buiy one

There is no time that one ever NEEDS a gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:10 PM

28. There aren't that many psychs to hire enough.

You just simply want to ban guns except for the 1%.

If you actually want to predict future behavior we already have an excellent system. Past performance is the best predictor of future behavior. Very rarely will someone who has been law-abiding for their entire life suddenly change into a violent criminal. Look at their police record before they get a gun. It is called the NICS check. It isn't perfect, but no system can be perfect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #28)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:13 PM

30. Look, we can do this a lot of ways without Psychiatrists

 

Have them design the test, train ATF workers, etc...

You are nitpicking on details - all just to make sure psychopaths can once again kill indiscriminately.

I don't know why you gunfans want that, but it makes me think most gun owners REALLY ARE the anti-social psychos we make them out to be...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:20 PM

38. You haven't thought it through.

Day one, The test is finalized.

Day two. A book is published with a copy of the test, "How to pass the ATF psych test", and has the correct answers. Book will also be available online.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #38)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:31 PM

55. Doesn't work that way

 

There are ways to get around that

Ever hear of Adaptive Testing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #55)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:55 PM

78. There will still be good prep books, even for adaptive testing. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #78)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:57 PM

80. Prep books and answers to the test are two different things

 

They can have a prep book, but being an adaptive test, it changes based on the answers

Simple logarithms could weed out a faker

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:53 PM

60. what other right is reserved for the rich

Do you need to pay extra to prove you are eligible to vote? What about Freedom o Speech? Do you need to own the newspaper before your opinion matters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forthemiddle (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:55 PM

61. In capitalism, rights are only for those who can afford them

 

Freedom of Press? Buy a printing press

Freedom of Association? Make sure your association is white and male

So why should guns, a luxury, be any different?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #61)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:08 PM

71. So you are satisfied with that

In fact you want to expand on that and make certain that only the 1% are able to defend themselves?
In my America we are all still equal when it comes to rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forthemiddle (Reply #71)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:58 PM

81. That is what IS

 

Not what I want

Yes, Patrick Bateman could kill us all - but there would be LESS guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:41 PM

57. Psychiatrists won't risk the liability if they pass somebody who commits a crime...

...then grant psychiatrists immunity just as the Bush administration granted gun makers immunity so they could not be sued when guns are used for their only purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sanatanadharma (Reply #57)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:56 PM

62. +100

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:53 PM

15. sounds good on the face of it...

 

what should be the "passing" marks? If a test is "failed," is there an adjudication process?

Otherwise, all you need is one schmuck psychologist to start the witch hunt.

Mind you, I foresee a brisk business in laser weapons...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:55 PM

18. Make it a peer review process

 

We do have tests that can measure anti-social behavior

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #18)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:58 PM

20. err...

 

Those tests aren't great for predictive validity. Also, they are VERY culturally biased.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:01 PM

24. You're trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater

 

You can take bias out, and I'd like to see where they aren't good for predictive validity. Any sources?

The alternative is to confiscate all guns - would you rather do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:58 PM

51. the ones that bother people like you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:36 PM

2. Some wish to do just that but would like to hear what regulate means to you.

 

thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:38 PM

3. I am not certain what should be done

 

Honestly, and I know many are not going to want to hear this, but we need to do a study and find out what works.


Banning high capacity clips, banning assault style weapons, etc might not be a bad idea

But I think more effective would be mandating a psych eval every year to keep your gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:47 PM

10. I agree with you because it seems (at least on this board)

 

We have a lot of members that want them confiscated.
That's why the gun control side advocates lose by showing their lack of common sense or critical thinking skills
on the subject.


Watch and see...



They will be along shortly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:51 PM

12. Just a note on psych eval

 

Do you know how long it takes for a proper evaluation ?

Can it be done on a 15 minute visit with a standard questioner?

Plus we have 60 to 80 million gun owners in the country.

What is the availability of properly trained Doctors to perform something like that every year?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:53 PM

13. I don't know - I wish we had an "empathy test" like in Blade Runner

 

Part of it could involve background check too...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:55 PM

17. ummm...

 

Part of the point of that movie (and DEFINITELY the point of the originating book) is that those tests AREN'T objective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:58 PM

21. Well, yeah but they work enough

 

Right now the system is broken.

And if the gun owners do not stop blocking change, they might REALLY try to take them away

Psych Evals are pretty good. Use the kind they use for Police and Law Enforcement cadets

Yes, a psycho might get a hold of a gun, and a normal person might be denied, but that's a price I'm willing to pay.

It seems a lot more of a compromise - and honestly, you gun owners need to compromise or you might see your guns all going away....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #21)


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:02 PM

26. "...mighty white of you... " WTF is that????

 

Your Klan Robes are showing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:03 PM

27. And yes, I would be happy to compromise EVERYONE'S stuff

 

Because the value of a human life is exponentially more valuable than any "thing"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:39 PM

4. I'm listening, too...

Especially since a lot of folks on DU are saying "take them away." You seem more sensible than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:40 PM

5. I was all "take them away" right after the shooting

 

But to me that's as doable as "let's have a war on terror"

At least a annual psych eval to get a gun should be required

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:44 PM

7. immediate and crippling

Taxes on anything gun related. The revenue earned can be used to fund more security personnel and to fund the building and staffing of mental health facilities.

With rights come responsibilities. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tj_crackersnatch (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:45 PM

8. Not a bad idea - how about government run gun stores

 

Like how many blue-law states sell liquor...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tj_crackersnatch (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:31 PM

56. Extreeme taxes would be thrown out by the supreme court

You can not create a defacto ban by taking it out of existence.

First, off, all you would do it allow the rich to have guns, and take them away from poor people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #56)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:48 PM

59. so lets not do anything eh?

Tax on a sliding scale. The more guns you have the higher your tax obligation. No one needs a frikin personal armory.

Tax and regulate. Rights have responsibilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tj_crackersnatch (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:11 AM

110. Because only the 1% should be armed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:53 PM

14. Can't fool me. They're trying to take

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retread (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:54 PM

16. LOL - for some folks, it really is like that

 

I don't get it - but then again I do not own, nor do I ever want to own, a gun

I've got my eye on a Louisville Slugger for home security

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:01 PM

25. Louisville Slugger might work. Then again!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retread (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:47 PM

42. The LOTR references are way beyond tiresome.

All you're doing is showing your geekiness. Or copycatting somebody else. Try something original.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #42)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:04 PM

83. What's wrong with showing geekiness?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:55 PM

19. Registration..huge penalties for failure to register to start. There are 300,000,000 cars in the US

interesting statistic...same as guns...same as people...yet somehow we have developed a very secure way to regulate them and provide the gasoline and roadways to safely run them. You can't ban guns any more than you can cars.

When we got around by horses, we didn't need vehicle registration. Somebody figured that out at some time and it started somewhere and it got done. I'll bet there was a major brouhaha about the rights of private property, too.

When a musket was your armory, your source of food, your source of protection mostly against the Indians, later cattle rustlers, and before way Clint Eastwood movies, you didn't need registration. We need it...rules...education...consequences...civilization.

It's the 21st Century. None of the above apply, except for fears of the ghosts of the Wild, Wild West. The rest of the civilized world has joined...it's our turn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:59 PM

22. Registration would be a must.

 

An annual check in at the least should be part of registration.

Not just name, address but a face to face meeting with an ATF agent assigned this task

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:51 PM

47. logistically impossible

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #47)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:59 PM

52. It's done elsewhere.

More "it can't be done" attitude from the greatest country on earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:41 PM

58. We have around 2000 special agent investigators in the ATF that specifically deal with firearms

 

Then you have the agents that deal with alcohol enforcement
You also have the other ones that deal with the accounting side of regulations and enforcement.

The 2000 or so field agents that work out of the branches will conduct interviews , checks on gun shops
and FFL holders through out the country. Sometimes these records can be checked in a few hours ,sometimes they will be at a shop for several days or a week depending on the volume of sales.

These guys have their hands full.

What was suggested is not only have the agents do all these duties but to also meet 80 million gun owners face to face every year or
have 80 million appointments for interviews whether it's in the office or the field for an evaluation.

On top of that also have doctors to do a evaluation with 80 million gun owners every year




There are over 55, 000 gun shops in the country not counting FFL dealers that operate
out of home business that ATF has to investigate and deal with everyday.
Plus on top of that they check manufactures and wholesalers in the country.


It is logistically impossible










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #58)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:08 PM

85. Forget psych eval and school renovations..We are not going to be victims of the NRA and gun industry

This is the 21st century. We no longer ride horses or require muskets to provide us with food and protection against Indians or cattle rustlers.

We can create a federal agency out of outrage and sorrow. We have TSA, for instance, that is actually provided for but not mentioned precisely in the Constitution regarding life and liberty and pursuit of happiness...in air travel, not specifically covered in said Constitution because there were no airplaines...imagine that. But we all pretty much have gotten used to getting frisked before getting on a plane, because we want to feel safe from international terrorists...and for our kids...like it or not.

Now we have to deal with domestic terrorism...that has hit white America with a vengeance. We can do it. We require licensing, registration, manufacturing, repair, gasoline controls, specific legal ramifications...all for the 300,000,000 cars and their drivers and owners...and seem to have it down and accomplished pretty well. You injure or kill someone with a vehicle with even a bit of booze or pot in your system...you should have called a cab...you're going down. You drive without insurance or faulty blinkers or committing a crime or noxious gunk coming out of the tailpipe...ther fix-it ticket is on you and either show up with a licensed repair or call your attorney and pray for no jail time.

Speaking of the ATF, we license alcohol, tobacco, and soon your local head shop will be merrily charging taxes. Oh, and like insurance, most gun owners have cars. That's a shortcut until we can put together a new federal agency.

This is not rocket science. Most rational gun owners are OK with registration and hoping no gun nut kills their kid at elementary school with "just a bunch of women" to protect them. In fact, most would likely agree to some tighter controls, taxes, armed security guards etc. to insure there are no more Sandy Hooks. (paid for by the gun nuts themselves)

You say it can't be done and I say Hogwash. How can we be Number One in Empire and global supremacy from the Board Room to the War Theater, but number 25 or whatever in protecting our citizens/kids from death by gunshot.

It's time Americans joined the other civilized nations in standing against unfettered gun violence and apologetics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #85)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:06 PM

94. I'm not arguing the fact that some new laws could be implemented

 

I had asked the OP in the start of his thread what regulations he wanted.
I simply pointed out to him that his request and ideas we not feasible.

And I also believe a few other posters did as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #94)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:38 PM

99. OK...I've said on other threads...if we can't approximate the laws on motor vehicles as a start,

then there is not a mutual starting place.

We can regulate and register and tax and legally monitor 300,000,000 motor vehicles all over the country, the entire market of the sellers and user of alcohol, tobacco and soon marijuana...yet we can't find and monitor the guns that many of them either carry or enable and threaten our school childres? No.

Arguing over some caliber or multi-ammunition capability? Where does one start here...really? What grade in elementary school do we start protecting? They sure as hell show up at the school sports events.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:49 PM

45. How about another approach...as we're all learning here...a gun owner/parent of an

elementary kid...if they knew or even thought that their child was subject today, tomorrow, next week to a potential massacre...what would be their thoughts and what could be done...now? That's going through the mind a whole lot of parents right now. I'm talking parents of kids going to school tomorrow.

Not massive mental health screening...costs $5,000 for a divorce psych eval...a lot of that is for the liability. We can certainly beef it up, if we can afford it, that is. Not a bad idea...just not going to happen.

Retrofitting the schools is financially impossible and would take years of time.

We don't let our kids go to the park after dark. It didn't used to be that way. We don't put our young kids on a city bus. Didn't used to be that way. We don't let our kids eat certain Halloween treats from people we don't know. You put your kid on a school bus, you trust the driver is safe, trained, capable, licensed and will protect your kids.

For 25 or 30 hours a week, parents must trust their kids are safe. Schools can't afford to get it wrong. And before Sandy Creek, even the thought was not there, at least in white, middle class neighborhoods. Mine is grown, but if he were in elementary school, I'd be starting a PTA conversation, with administration, teachers, civic leaders, county leaders...and on up. The crazy has reached a new pitch. And that's whether I own a gun or not ... because in the end, when you're not there, you have to depend on those who are.

I think of it like a Crossing Guard ... at the school ... trained and armed and paid for by gun management/registration/accountability
system ... the schools can't afford it.

(On edit ... meant to respond to Taverner...good ideas)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:10 PM

29. Taverner, stop taking the bait

The Gun Troll tactic is to ask what regulations you want, and then to pick them apart. They know what won't work, but they can't offer any help.

I want to hear what THEY suggest. Tell us how to REDUCE, not eliminate, the incidence of firearm suicides, firearm familicides, firearm mass homicides. How do we keep more semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines out of the hands of more Schizophrenics and alienated males?

Australia seemed to figure it out - why can't we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:14 PM

32. Well you know their stock answer: "ARM EVERYONE TO THE TEETH"

 

That way, we can all just kill ourselves like in Reservoir Dogs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:15 PM

36. Oh yeah, let's just threaten gun owners with jail like they did in Australia

Cleita (who supports gun control) and I both came up with the concept of the civilian armory. You should check those threads out - between the two of us, I think we might be onto something. And it would foster more of a sense of community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:47 PM

43. Note that I didn't even say that we should do what Australia did!

And you proceeded to tell me why it won't work, which just makes my point.

I'll check out your armory idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #43)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:58 PM

84. Oops!

Sorry about that. If you get a chance, let me know what you think of the armory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:16 PM

37. Yep.

I could see it coming after the first two posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:49 PM

44. The burden is on the regulators to propose the regulation.

Show us what you got.

Please.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #44)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:52 PM

49. Gun owners are the experts. They have knowledge that non-gun owners don't.

Non-gun owners have made hundreds of suggestions on this forum. Every one of them is fatally flawed.

I know enough to know that I don't know enough, so no. Your turn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:57 PM

50. I'm willing to go for an assault weapons ban.

I certainly don't need a Bushmaster. But don't try to confiscate my S&W 9 mm. That's for protecting my family in the however unlikely event of a home intruder. It holds 15 plus one in the chamber. I'm comfortable with that.

Your turn.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #50)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:04 PM

70. step 1: confiscate bake's s&w 9 mm.

JK! your gun is super peachy keen!

the only thing i've seen that i like is the idea of references - from your family & others - to purchase. it might reduce the access of schizophrenic loners (giffords shooting, aurora dark knight shooting, even the cafe racer shooting) to semi-automatics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #70)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:48 PM

112. I wouldn't try taking mine, really.

And it's a semi-auto. That just means it fires when I pull the trigger without having to "cock" it. 15 times. The only difference between that and my revolver is the number of rounds it holds. I don't have an extended 30-round clip. Mine holds 15.

Not sure about the references thing, or if it would actually do any good. I'd have to think about it. At this point I'm skeptical.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #112)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:23 PM

113. yeah, i know what semi-auto means.

JK = just kidding, and 'confiscate' doesn't mean i'm personally going to try and take it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:01 PM

68. Oh, BULLSHIT. Gun owners are the most biased population you could choose.

 

They would say "everything's fine - move on - nothing to see here"

No, we need at least a psychologist, if not a psychiatrist...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #68)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:56 PM

79. then at least they're being honest

because unless they have constuctive suggestions, then they find these massacres an acceptable societal cost for their right to own guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:14 PM

31. ban means 'take them away'. that's what i suggest. no slippery slope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:15 PM

33. I don't know if that's possible

 

Australia did it - if we considered it, we would have to study how they did it

But whatever we do, it starts with an empirical study

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:20 PM

40. absolutely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:50 PM

46. And that will NEVER HAPPEN.

Hell, I'm a Democrat and I won't vote for that.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #46)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:00 PM

66. I wouldn't either - but I would vote for smart regulation

 

And to me, that means you need a psych eval if you are to buy a firearm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:15 PM

34. An alternative to guns for self defense

http://www.extremely-sharp.com/throwing-knives/

Throwing Knives

"Knife throwing is an art that takes much practice but can be a huge amount of fun. Throwing knives are almost always one-piece rather than the traditional knives that have a handle manufactured separately from the blade and attached later. Many throwing knives are double-edged and can be used as fighting knives, for self defense, if necessary."

----------------------------------------------------------

Still deadly and valid for personal defense, but you are not endangering anyone more than 15 to 20 feet away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:15 PM

35. Take them away means take them away.

 

Take them away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byeya (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:59 PM

65. I will pose this question to you: how do we "take them away"?

 

Australia at least had a list of gun owners.

We don't.

So how do we "bell the cat?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #65)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:27 PM

74. Cost is the key

Hummer H2's were not outlawed. They have all but disappeared because the cost to operate them is beyond the inbred means. Make guns more expensive, charge a little for traditional guns and escalate cost for the Ted Nugent style weapons.

watch em disappear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:35 PM

75. I am all for taxing them

 

But - I am worried about a 1%/99% imbalance with guns

Perhaps it should be based on your taxable income?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #75)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:45 PM

77. I see your point but

I would just charge by the gun type. Rich people will not notice as much but they are a small group. There are many more Ted Nugent wannabees and now the cost to play is way too low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #77)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:00 PM

82. This makes sense nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:20 PM

39. A person shall be put to death quickly if convicted of a crime while in possession of a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrYikes (Reply #39)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:51 PM

48. And here I thought liberals were opposed to the death penalty.

I know I am.

Consistency is just so pesky, isn't it?

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #48)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:04 AM

108. I'm consistently in favor of the death penalty.

People beg for their lives and you ignore them, you do not get to keep yours. That is simply fair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrYikes (Reply #39)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:58 PM

64. I don't agree with the DP

 

And this would vilify those who come to help

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:35 PM

41. From the Federalist Papers:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bighart (Reply #41)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:01 PM

54. Honest question here: Did everything in the Federalist Papers make it into the Constitution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:59 PM

53. Agreed. & Concealed carry is not "well regulated" because what is concealed could be anything, could

be anyone, legally or otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:56 PM

63. Exactly. Not well regulated at all.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:01 PM

67. It has always been illegal for criminals to carry concealed

a concealed carry license is only available to non-criminals. So yes it is very well regulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #67)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:02 PM

69. The fact that a gun-nut's son went on a killing spree proves it is not regulated enough

 

We need MORE regulation

Not a ban, but regulation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #69)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:07 PM

95. That has nothing to do with concealed carry.

CCW is well regulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #69)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:09 AM

109. What does that have to do with concealed carry??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #67)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:14 PM

72. My point is that because it IS concealed, ordinary people in the social environments of their OWN

lives have no way of knowing anything one way or another until it is too late.

Concealment negates whatever regulation everyone has wasted vast amounts of time and money on, because it makes regulation impossible, without harm or a crime of some sort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #72)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:05 PM

93. You can make CCW illegal

but you will still be surrounded by criminals carrying guns. Laws don't stop criminals.

Licensed concealed carry requires extensive background checks - people that go through that trouble are not the kind of people you have to worry about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #93)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:16 PM

96. Why dont we make concealing them be against the law, so when I go into public

I can see who is carrying and so can everyone who is concealing.

I think the reason that concealed carry is allowed in public is because merchants would object to open carry because it'll scare off business.

Someone enters a mall with a gun, I'd prefer that they be required to carry it openly (above their heads would be good ), so everyone can see and, thus, be allowed their own FREEDOM OF CHOICE about associating themselves with that environment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #96)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:30 PM

98. Criminals will still carry concealed

so what is the point? If you are that scared of guns then CCW is the least of your concerns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #98)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:59 PM

100. And where do criminals get their guns?

From "law-abiding gun owners" of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #100)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:06 PM

101. Most of them through straw purchases by friends and family

illegal as hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #101)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:38 PM

102. Proud "law abiding gun owners" all.

Just like Nancy Lanza.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #102)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 06:24 AM

111. So all gun owners are evil - got it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:23 PM

73. If gun owners want to preserve their supposed "right" to own a gun,

They MUST deal with the responsibility to promote security that goes with it. THE REST OF US WILL ALLOW NO OTHER OPTION!

The reason for this is because whatever they've been doing, it's been woefully ineffective AND THEY HAVE FAILED MISERABLY! If a gun owner has opposed every kind of gun control, belittles people who are rightly concerned about gun violence, shouts down any discussion on restricting certain guns, or runs down gun control advocacy groups & campaigns against candidates who support gun control, then the blood of the victims of Sandy Hook - and all the other mass murders that have happened - is on their hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #73)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:36 PM

76. Yes - the NRA has run the show for too long

 

I am all for banning pro-NRA threads on this site

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #76)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:17 PM

87. I have found them inspiring as someone who has not ever had to Get In Their Faces for decades.

In fact, my ideological friend, it has given me some grit to carry forth into other aspects of my life. Thank you...and especially if they come here to promote political crap that will affect or threaten my grandchildren...and as an old Vietnam War protester...No. Hell, no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #73)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:09 PM

86. If they don't agree with you, they're guilty?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #86)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:34 PM

88. It's not me, it's reality.

With all rights come responsibilities. And the reality is that gun owners have ignored those responsibilities. The result is 20 5 & 6-yr-olds - and thousands of others - getting slaughtered needlessly. Saying that they're "guilty" is an understatement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #88)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:39 PM

90. In other words, "Little Eichmanns"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #90)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:53 PM

91. So, anyone who disagrees with YOU is a Nazi?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #91)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:03 PM

92. I'm saying your attitude strikes me as *very* much like Ward Churchill's:

Quoth you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2042170

They MUST deal with the responsibility to promote security that goes with it. THE REST OF US WILL ALLOW NO OTHER OPTION!

The reason for this is because whatever they've been doing, it's been woefully ineffective AND THEY HAVE FAILED MISERABLY! If a gun owner has opposed every kind of gun control, belittles people who are rightly concerned about gun violence, shouts down any discussion on restricting certain guns, or runs down gun control advocacy groups & campaigns against candidates who support gun control, then the blood of the victims of Sandy Hook - and all the other mass murders that have happened - is on their hands.


Ward Churchill, from On the Justice of Roosting Chickens

..."As for those in the World Trade Center... Well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire - the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved - and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" - a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" - counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in - and in many cases excelling at - it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."


"Other"ize them, then blame them...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #92)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:30 PM

97. When all else fails, accuse your opponant of being a Nazi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

You poor, delicate little flower, you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #97)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:43 PM

103. Point out where I did. $50 to the Brady Campaign says you cant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #103)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:56 PM

106. Like you don't know who Eichmann is?

You're a pig who wants the America's appalling gun violence to continue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #106)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 12:16 AM

107. Didn't read the links or the excerpts, did you? Once again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns

Little Eichmanns

"Little Eichmanns" is a phrase used to describe persons who participate in society in a way that, while on an individual scale may seem relatively innocuous even to themselves, taken collectively create destructive and immoral systems in which they are actually complicit comparable to how Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi bureaucrat, unfeelingly helped to orchestrate The Holocaust. Anarcho-primitivist John Zerzan used the phrase in his essay Whose Unabomber? in 1995. The phrase gained prominence in American political culture four years after the September 11th attacks, when an essay written by Ward Churchill shortly after the attacks received renewed media scrutiny. In the essay, "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens", Churchill reiterated the phrase to describe technocrats working at the World Trade Center. The Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy ensued....


And, btw- I've been called worse by better.

You were so busy directing spittle-flecked invective at those whose views dare to differ from
yours that you forgot (or perhaps never knew) that your mindset is far from original.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #86)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:34 PM

89. No, they need to come up with an appropriate alternative...seriously lacking in the run of the mill

gun nut kneejerk. If anyone has access to my (now) grandchildren on a daily basis or me as a teacher or administrator, they either need a security gun as a protector, or get a Go To Jail Card.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:54 PM

105. There could be required liability and yearly license for every gun which is rapid fire.

These license would not be required of law enforcement as long as every department met the required evaluation of those in law enforcement. If the liability is not kept on the weapon then you would be required to give the weapon up and perhaps prison time for failure.

I read on another blog one gun nut said he needed his weapon to prevent being taken over by the government, now just intelligent would one be to think they could win the war with our military, block his owning a rapid fire weapon, not responsible. Also, just who on this site thinks any of those 20 first graders or principle or five teachers was part of a government taking over. If you believe this then another one to lose the privilege of gin ownership.

We could weed out many of the gun nuts with simple questions and perhaps some mental evaluations to get the gin violence curtailed. We regulate speed on the highways and this should be regulated also. The fees for license and training should come from gun owners, it should not be borne by the non gun owners

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread