Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Control The Debate

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Bernoulli, Dec 15, 2012.

  1. Bernoulli

    Bernoulli Guest

    Control The Debate

    It is obvious that recent mass murders have two things in common. Mentally deranged people and guns. Like it or not, the gun control debate will heat up considerably and some type of gun control will likely follow.

    If the debate is not focused on mental problems, gun owners will lose. Calling names, insulting elected officials and chest beating bravado do nothing more than add fuel to the fire. Making statements based on opinion that you cannot back up with real facts and real statistics makes you look as crazy as the folks we need protection from.

    For those of us who value our Right to Bear Arms, it's time for a reality check. Guns must be kept out of the hands of the mentally deranged. In order for this to happen, restrictions are going to have to be enacted.

    Throwing your hands up and saying it's impossible to protect ourselves from crazy people is not going to work. While we probably can't do it 100%, we can certainly do better than our current system.

    1. Make it illegal to sell firearms to the mentally deranged. In other words have a national database that must be checked for all firearms sales. This means gun show sales as well.

    2. Find our people with mental problems before they find guns. It seems to be common that many deranged shooters are loners with few friends who have real difficulty adapting to our society. Our schools do a lot of screening now. Two of my granddaughters have been diagnosed with scoliosis through school screening. How hard would it be to find kids (or adults for that matter) who have difficulty coping. We all take a myriad of standardized tests. If these folks could be identified, we may be able to provide them with the help they need.

    Even though the mass murder in Newtown was done with pistols, assault weapons are going to be front and center in the debate. Assault weapons are purposely designed to kill people. They are not hunting rifles. They are extremely poor home defense weapons. Our government has done a good job of protecting us from Al Qaeda. You can't. I see no plausible reason not to put assault rifles in the same category as fully automatic weapons.
     
    PaulZ and (deleted member) like this.
  2. GOG

    GOG State of Jefferson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    1,070
    The guy stole the gun. There shouldn't be any gun control debate. Control thieves, not law abiding citizens.
     
  3. wp4

    wp4 Beaverton Active Member

    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    141
    Assault rifles are already illegal in new jersey and new york.
     
  4. sasquatch

    sasquatch Everett, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    48
    And I see no plausible reason not to put you in the same category as Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and Sarah Brady.......
     
    Misterbill, BAMCIS, fuhr52 and 27 others like this.
  5. BillB1960

    BillB1960 Hillsboro Active Member

    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    106
    We already have a national database for vetting potential gun owners. It's called the NICS and it does include information on mentally ill people who have been flagged although that portion is not fully implemented.

    The guns used in both of the recent tragedies were stolen. Period.

    Unless you're willing to suspend and/or rewrite all of the HIPAA laws then weeding out the mentally ill from society in general is going to be an inexact, error prone process with lots of holes.

    Assault rifles and the Second Amendment aren't there to protect us from Al Qaeda, they're there to protect us from our government!
     
  6. Misterbill

    Misterbill Yakima County, Washington New Member

    Messages:
    1,308
    Likes Received:
    1,013
    You could say the exact same thing about all handguns. If your position is that any weapon not designed and useful expressly for hunting or target shooting should be banned, you're just another gun-grabber.

    As for my AR not being useful as a home defense weapon, you don't know WTF you are talking about. If I have an armed intruder in my home and I'm hiding out in my bedroom waiting for the cops to get there. I'm a lot better off with my AR than with a pistol or pump-action shotgun.

    Have a look at this and tell me how useless a AR or AK is for HD again:

    [video=youtube;DuhKCiY-lu0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY-lu0[/video]

    You're a gun-grabber. Go troll on the Brady website.
     
  7. Karma

    Karma the woods in Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    72
    It is my understanding that the clackamas shooter, as well as the CT shooter stole the weapons that they used. I'm not understanding how this relates to gun control. Nobody sold either of them a weapon, in fact the ct shooter was denied a rifle recently. The system worked until he stole the weapons from his mother who he killed. W do need to fix our broken mental health system, but or second amendment needs to be left alone. A RIGHT is something that is good given and not to be taken away, even if the majority want it to be.

    By the way, i also disagree with your position on "assault weapons"which we don't have. The AR platform is incredibly versatile and is now used in everything from sport shooting to hunting.
     
  8. mosinguy1

    mosinguy1 out by the ocean Active Member

    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    218
    First and foremost a home defense weapon should be one that is easy to handle and accurate with little overpenatration my .223 m4 with jhp is less likely to have an overpenatration then say a 9mm or .45 in the walls of my house. It is also a faster more accurate weapon then a pistol IMHO and there are special 7.62 x 39 rounds that are made to the same effect. Look it up, do the reasearch and be in the know.

    Their are also many many people that hunt with both rounds very effectivly.

    There is no reason to ban any type of weapon. It will do no good what so ever except to put them in the hands of the bad guys!!!
     
  9. DMax

    DMax Yamhill Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    obammy being the pres of free stuff, sunday tommorrow he goes to the location of the shooting and I will bet he uses that platform to lauch an all out political assalt on 2A which will keep up the emotion and gather steam. Never let a crisis go to waste, words he lives by. We will be in a fight for our political rights on this one. Anyone see the number of signers on the petition gov website it will embolden the left. Going to be fun to watch the left that resides on this website. "crickets"
     
  10. bikejunkie

    bikejunkie Salem Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    294
    The one question that gun control advocates can never answer: how does restricting my rights as a law abiding citizen cure the severely mentally ill?

    Can we work on identifying and helping the mentally ill before they shoot up a crowded building, rather than passing feel-good measures that amount to a band-aid on a tumor?

    Passing laws that make it illegal to purchase a certain type of gun does nothing to reduce violence, as murder and assault are already illegal. A rational person doesn't do these kinds of things, and laws are only a deterrent for the rational.

    There is not a single person who commits these unspeakable actions that would have not done it if a bad law like the "Assault Weapons Ban" was still in effect. They would have instead used handguns (like the Virginia Tech shootings), or a knife (like happened yesterday in China), or fertilizer and diesel fuel (Oklahoma City).

    A criminal who's planning to commit capital murder doesn't give a single crap about a felony weapons charge. Pass all the laws you want, criminals break laws by definition, so it doesn't change anything for the better unless you repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate all 200M guns in the US.

    And I don't feel that giving up my rights is a good way to stop someone else from doing something they're gonna do anyway without proper mental help.
     
  11. GOG

    GOG State of Jefferson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    1,070
    Sorry bikejunkie, but making sense never works with the left.
     
  12. bikejunkie

    bikejunkie Salem Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    294
    Oh yeah- I sort of forgot that...
     
    GOG and (deleted member) like this.
  13. Bernoulli

    Bernoulli Guest

    It is pointless to attack the messenger. If you can't debate the message.....
     
  14. Bernoulli

    Bernoulli Guest

    I've been a Life Member of the NRA for about 50 years. Some time ago there was an article in the American Rifleman about home defense. Their conclusion was that a pump shotgun of any gauge loaded with #6 shot was more accurate, more deadly and far safer than any pistol or rifle round - it won't penetrate two layers of sheet rock and still have lethal force.

    Many people may hunt effectively with those rounds. With assault weapons? C'mon. Is it really sportsmanlike hunting to use a weapon whose accuracy is not designed for the task.

    I don't have a problem with the ownership of assault rifles. Just treat them like fully automatic weapons. Get the license and register it.

    If you think an assault weapon is going to protect you from your own government, it's time you were counseled. The government is well aware of gun ownership statistics. It is also well aware of the second amendment.
     
  15. Flyingswords

    Flyingswords Texas Active Member

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    62
    Seems the OP likes being way off and talking with his foot in his mouth

    Bsides the US Military already had classified *Assault Rifles* as being a select-fire capable weapon.

    Safe
    Semi
    Full Auto

    Semi Auto rifles such as ARs AKs etc and their variants are not assault rifles because they are NOT select-fire capable.

    #6 shot can still go through 2 layers of drywall as well as the basewad.

    A shotgun shell of #6 load more accurate than a pistol or rifle? I dont know where the hell you got that BS from because it surely stinks. You havent heard of stray shots have you? Shooting target loads inside a house especially when ppl are in your cone of fire is pretty stupid. Target loads spread farther out the further the target is away. increasing the chances of an errant shot hitting someone or someone getting hit from a ricochet if it were steel shot off a hard surface.
     
  16. Karma

    Karma the woods in Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    72
    I also think that a shotgun is the ultimate home defense weapon, especially in unskilled hands. That being said, an AR is a fine home defense weapon in capable hands. Notice that the military is fine clearing buildings with a very similar platform. Since I am not in the business of dictating what weapon everyone owns and uses to protect their family, I will leave that Conde to the individuals.

    AR's are great rifles, and are found in more calibers than .556. With the right upper, they are a very capable shooter at distance. I was reading a article about small game Hunters taking small animals at 400 to 500 yards with a .223 and a 20" bull barrel. Seems like a capable hunting rifle to me.

    You touched on something important in your last point. The 2nd amendment want written for hunting or sport, although those uses are nice to have. It was written to protect the rest of our rights. Yes the government knows about the second amendment, what bothers me is their great desire to cripple it, especially during a time that they are trying to take control of nearly every part of or lives. You tell me how we are supposed to stand up if good forbid it becomes necessary again, with pellet guns.
     
  17. Flyingswords

    Flyingswords Texas Active Member

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    62
    To more clarify it.....This is how it was interpreted to be by Eric & Barry from Moss Pawn (iraqveteran8888 on youtube). Barry says that the 2nd Amendment was put there not for hunting/sport alone, but it was put there incase the govt got too big for its britches.
     
  18. handydan918

    handydan918 Columbia County New Member

    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    10
    Perhaps it is life members like you that have rendered the NRA virtually ineffective.
    I lived in California before, during and after the Roos-Roberti assault weapon ban.
    It made *no* difference in the number of murders.
    At least, they kept climbing.
    If you want to continue with the politics of compromise, just look at California.
    That's where you are headed if you start backing down.
    I won't go there now, and I didn't then.
    I don't have any intention of complying with any more unconstitutional laws.
    If you lack the will to stay in the fight, at least get the hell out of the way.
    Your swim bladder seems to be losing it's buoyancy...
     
  19. MikeE

    MikeE Portland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    500
    I think the OP is right about controlling the debate, and about putting the emphasis on mental health - or causes of violence. I do think you go off into the weeds about assault rifles and background checks. No need to go there, the other side will. What would be really powerful would be a campaign from the gun community on harm-reduction, and violence reduction. If we were advocating a radical increase in mental health resources, for example, we would do two things:
    1. We would be telling the truth and advocating something that actually would save lives, and improve the lives of millions who suffer from metal illness, their families, and the communities that are impacted.
    Good for us, and everyone else.
    2. We would split the opposition. Corporate liberals like Ginny Burdick, Chuck Schumer, and Mayor Bloomberg advocate gun control, in large part, because it is a cheap way to show they are 'doing something about violence' without actually committing resources that might have to come from their corporate sponsors (hello Sen Burdick, how's that NIKE tax guarantee goin'?).

    Same with the issue of gun violence on the 'street corners' as the President put it. The white middle class is perfectly ok with letting that take place out of sight in the poor communities. If we gun rights people advocated for increased school funding, after school programs, and yes, government financed jobs for low-income youth we would again do two things:
    1. Advocate a solution that has been shown to reduce gun violence in gang-affected communities.
    2. Split the opposition by providing support from our older, largely white, male demographic to the working class parents, churches, and community groups that fight the day-to-day good fight to save their sons from death or prison. And, by the way, take another issue away from the corporate liberals like Mayor Bloomberg et al.
    People say you cannot stop violence, it's part of life. Two hundred years ago they said the same thing about cholera. Violence is a public health issue, and can be solved the same way.
    Of course, this implies a choice for the pro-gun community - choose between protecting the 2nd Amendment or protecting the failed right wing politics of the last thirty years.
     
  20. jimboshooter

    jimboshooter West Portland, Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    100
    My thoughts to your comment in no order of importance. Sorry if this sound ranty, but I cannot hold it in.

    #1: Please Do Not Ascribe Human Traits to Inanimate Objects: There is no such thing as an assault weapon. Firearms do not assault anyone, people do. Do you drive an assault car? Cars kill lots of people. Do you use an assault steak knife when you eat dinner? Sharp knives kill lots of people. What about an assault pocket knife?

    #2: Tattoo Bar Codes Anyone?: So you propose that the government can "test" us in school and decide to throw kid A in the "your ok" bucket and throw kid B in the "your likely to go nuts" bucket. You really want the mischievous, malicious government to have that kind of control? Yes the same government that exposed citizens to radiation. The same government that interned people due to thier race? The same government that is constantly embroiled in fraud, back office deals, and lies (and in some cases sexual impropriety and then lies about that). The same government that spends more than it takes in. The same government that vilifies law abiding citizens for being successful or exercising their rights. The government that NEVER EVER makes a mistake? You want them to have the power to decide who is good and who is maybe not and should lose freedom before they do ANYTHING to justify disenfranchisement? Maybe we could tattoo a number on their arm so we know who they are! Let's do a bit better than the Nazi's. Let's go for bar codes! So much easier to scan. You may think it a good thing to prevent gun violence because you feel a need to react to the massacre in CT, but it would only result in the loss of your own personal freedom at some point. But it would be too late then now won't it? That kind of thing works great if you are in the "good" group. Just how do you know the "new test" won't put you in the 2nd class citizen category?

    #3: Please Double Check All Facts in a Fluid Situation: Please be sure to get your facts correct before you start throwing information out. This story is so fresh that initial information usually turns out to be incorrect. Current information is suggesting that the shooter did take an AR-15 into the school with the hand guns.

    #4: All Guns Kill Something (Paper or Otherwise): I do not agree with the argument that AR guns kill people and other guns do not. ALL guns are designed to kill something. Under your argument, no handguns would be legal as handguns are only for killing people. And all long guns would be banned to boot since they can kill. I think the argument has nothing to do with how dangerous a gun is, it has to do with freedom. And that is just what is lost with gun control. If you think the government will be satisfied with just your AR, look at Australia, UK and Canada. You will not have a gun at some point, but trust me the bad guys still will.

    #5: Tactical Guns Do Have a Purpose: You suggest that the AR-15 is a poor defense gun and that the government has done a good job protecting us from our enemies and we cannot perform that function. An AR-15 may not be the best home defense gun, but they serve other purposes. Beyond the sporting and fun, they provide two key functions. The first is as a third line defense. As citizens of the US, we provide a third line of defense against external enemies. An unarmed citizenry would be easy prey for an invading force if the military and national guard are unavailable or defeated. If you think that cannot happen, go do some research on China's military. AR-15 rifles also provide another defense against a malicious government. The founding fathers understood that all government is malicious, over reaching and prone to despotism. They provided many controls over the overextension of power. One of them was to ensure the government had some fear of its citizens. Ensuring citizens can bear arms provides some healthy fear for a despot. Remember, the founding fathers just rebelled against a despotic government and they knew firearms helped them achieve victory. They valued that right. The first step in despotism and totalitarianism is to disarm your citizens to they are easy prey.
     
    Mr. Ben, iusmc2002, bcdon and 3 others like this.