• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

The One said:
I'd like to see a poll asking how many planners have been to a public meeting where security was specifically asked to attend for one reason or another.
Click to expand...

We almost always have a police officer at our CC meetings, usually the Police Chief. I told my boss this morning that if the PC cannot attend, and no other officer will be there, then neither will I.
 
Duke Of Dystopia said:
Practical gun control has been dead since about 2006 (?).

NOBODY has been advocating for greater gun control recently. At least not credibly since before the assault weapons ban lapsed.

You just gutted your own argument that the Tea Party and gun nuts are non violent in intention.
Click to expand...

How does the existence or absence of someone advocating for greater gun control disprove that that "gun nuts" and the Tea Party are non-violent? There are tons of things on the Tea Party laundry list of priorities that may or may not be threatened, just like there are with the progressive movement with things that may or may not be important. The right to bear arms is viewed as an essential safeguard against most of the other priorities on the Tea Party's list, so whether it gun control is being advocated or not, or whether the Tea Party would ever use that right to physically safeguard their other rights and priorities, doesn't matter. They have not shown aggressive intention.
 
"Words have consequences. Like all powerful things, they must be used carefully."
-Bob Schieffer

It is false and irresponsible to say the hate filled speak fromthe Tea Party caused this but the escalation and the talk revolution, vast government conspiracies and violence no doubt contributed to this tragedy, in a small way.

Representative Giffords spoke of bi-partisanship more than almost anyone on the Hill. If the political rhetoric will be toned down in the interest of focusing on governing rather than petty differences then some good will have come from this tragic event.
 
otterpop said:
Thankfully three of our unarmed citizenry ended the shootings.
Click to expand...

Actually, one of the citizens, Joseph Zamudio, was armed. I think he tackled him to the ground, since he was reloading. But had he gotten there when the gunman was still firing, I think chances are he would've used his gun.
 
illinoisplanner said:
But had he gotten there when the gunman was still firing, I think chances are he would've used his gun.
Click to expand...

Which, unless he'd been trained to understand and recognize a clear field of fire, could have been a horrible mistake.

And really, that's why carry laws worry me. I know of people carrying concealed weapons who I wouldn't trust with a potato gun. They're as likely to kill you as the nut case. To strap on pistol you should be reasonably trained in the use of it...
 
Mastiff said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5X1Forjwck
Click to expand...

Violence is way more likely to occur and there is much more violence that has broken out after major sporting events than at Tea Party events. Do major sporting events breed or show aggressive intention? Let's blame the sporting events, not the persons rioting...

I realize it may be a shaky comparison, but violence has broken out, historically, and just about every type of public gathering at some point.
 
Last edited:
TexanOkie said:
Violence is way more likely to occur and there is much more violence that has broken out after major sporting events than at Tea Party events. Do major sporting events breed or show aggressive intention? Let's blame the sporting events, not the persons rioting...
Click to expand...

Now you want to talk shades of gray? Don't be definitive unless it fits, and violence erupts at political rallies, including these. So how likely it is to happen, or who will do the deed, and even the perpetrator... is moot. So I say, dial it down.

Everyone just needs to ratchet it back a few notches.
 
TexanOkie said:
Could be expected? Sure. Would be expected? No. Keep in mind, most of these signs and protests these are at are pro-gun rallies or Tea Party events which highlight (amongst other things) gun control opposition. The signs and "threats" are more acts of defiance or dumb protest slogans than they are threats or intimidation.
Click to expand...

cough, cough, the town hall meetings where the idiots were openly showing their guns, cough, cough.

If the left has got to own their radicals. so does the right. This includes Timothy McVeigh and the idiots like Zion Nation et al. This the left is gonna take away my guns paranoia has got to stop. Politically there is not movement to restrict gun ownership. Persoanlly, I don't think there should be any limits on weapons of any sort. If granny wants an rpg, so be it. If you neighbor wants enough guns to make a small country envious, have fun. Children in elemetary school with 12 gauges, have at it. This would finally make the weapon ownership a non issue and we can move on to important issues. Like how can we rob the working and middle classes for the wealthy and the corporations.
 
People and especially politicians and media personalities, regardless of political orientation, need to stop talking about watering the tree of liberty, second amendment remedies, hunting down your enemies, and having a revolution. They need to stop this rhetoric. Its disgusting
 
illinoisplanner said:
Actually, one of the citizens, Joseph Zamudio, was armed. I think he tackled him to the ground, since he was reloading. But had he gotten there when the gunman was still firing, I think chances are he would've used his gun.
Click to expand...

Zamudio actually got there after another guy had already wrestled the gun away from the shooter. He grabbed this other man who was holding the gun, but fortunately didn't go beyond that:

http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."
Click to expand...
 
TexanOkie said:
Violence is way more likely to occur and there is much more violence that has broken out after major sporting events than at Tea Party events. Do major sporting events breed or show aggressive intention? Let's blame the sporting events, not the persons rioting...

I realize it may be a shaky comparison, but violence has broken out, historically, and just about every type of public gathering at some point.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I think that IS a pretty shaky argument to me. Violent behavior can cluster around any type of social activity, its true, but to say that that's just the way it is or that there should be no response is, I feel, not a responsible course of action. If there was a lot of violence flaring up around sporting events as an identifiable pattern, it would, in my opinion, merit a response. Especially if the players themselves are using language that foments the action. Its one reason stadiums hire security for events, for example. It happens, but its still not ok. And no one is suggesting we do away with politics any more than we are saying to do away with organized sports. But civility and decorum is a must for either to be sustainable.

I recently read a very interesting account of how the violence in the former Yugoslavia, particularly the anti-Muslim violence promoted by Milosevic, was built around the soccer "clubs" (not the players, but the fans who liked to go bust heads before all of this violence broke out and were consequently networked and strategic about their use of violence) who were also tied in with organized crime. I don't think dismissing that kind of behavior (violence around sporting events) as just part of what happens at public gatherings is an acceptable response when it escalates.

Personally, I do feel the rhetoric needs to be toned down, regardless of the fact that Mr. Loughner is clearly a mentally ill man. Having such intensely polarizing rhetoric swirling around as it does in that particular district of Arizona I feel probably contributed to him picking up on that particular narrative as part of his psychosis. And while I feel both sides (extremes on the left and right) bear a responsibility for the escalation, I do think that, generally speaking, it is the extremists on the right (in this country anyway) that have historically been more oriented toward outright hostility and anger that could erupt in actual injury or death. I don't mean to suggest that the left is just a bunch of peace loving hippies, but in my personal experiences, those farther out on the left tend to react to their frustrations by divorcing themselves from society, to opt out entirely (or move to Canada...). Yes, there are contingents like eco-terrorists and IMF/G8 anti-globalism folks that are focused on property damage and aggressive social action (smashing storefronts, etc.) but not so much targeted threats and violence against individuals. Again, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but this is my impression.

Of course there are a good number of violent-minded folks who would be difficult to categorize as left or right as their philosophies blend a diverse range of sentiments. For these people, it is often the case that each side (left and right) puts them in the other groups' camp without really analyzing what is troubling them.
 
This time, the REVOLUTION..... WILL be televised.

I actually think most of the discussions will come to naught. I weep for the future as this country spirals slowly out of control.

It is one thing when a developing nation looses control. They can affect themselves and their neighbors. A nation with our power, will effect the whole world.

Our future is a country wracked by competing Columbian style death squads. Right and left shooting it out. The right wont be able to go to the cities and the left wont be able to get out of them. Our economy will crash. A low grade civil war will make a mockery of all the talk of fiscal responsibility.

It will be an eye opener for the right wing when they find out the left has nearly as many guns and the guts to use them.

Sorry to be so glum, but the right never thinks they push the nutbags to destabalize the political system. They think it is OK to support nutbags to murder people when it coincides with their beliefs. Example, when abortion doctors get murdered. O'rielly is a good example of a cheerleader for murderers.

Thier are also times when you have to fight. Like it or not, the left must fight to protect the gains of the last 2 years. Healthcare is something worth fighting for. Using the word fight is a hostile word. It implies conflict. It does not have to be violent. It should never be in our system. Unfortunately, it does happen. There is a history of republican use of federal and national guard troops using military force on organized labor. There is every reason this will happen again.

Again.... sorry for the gloom and doom... please show me different.
 
I'm not really on one side of the fence when it comes to gun rights, but this report really is telling....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/...DeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA3RoZXRvcDIwZGVhZA--

Given the complexities involved in gun regulation and violence, The Daily Beast sought to determine which states are the most dangerous when it comes to firearms. Our methodology was simple: Rather than measure the number of guns, we measured the measure of gun deaths per capita in each state, using the most recent data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention....
Click to expand...

#1, Mississippi Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3 Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50

#2, Arizona Gun deaths per 100,000: 15 Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50

#3, Alaska Gun deaths per 100,000: 17.6 Permissive gun laws: 11th out of 50

#4, Arkansas Gun deaths per 100,000: 15.1 Permissive gun laws: 7th out of 50

#5, Louisiana Gun deaths per 100,000: 19.9 Permissive gun laws: 23rd out of 50
Click to expand...

#45, New York Gun deaths per 100,000: 5.1 Permissive gun laws: 43rd out of 50

#46, New Jersey Gun deaths per 100,000: 5.2 Permissive gun laws: 49th out of 50

#47, Connecticut Gun deaths per 100,000: 4.3 Permissive gun laws: 46th out of 50

#48, Rhode Island Gun deaths per 100,000: 3.5 Permissive gun laws: 42nd out of 50

#49, Massachusetts Gun deaths per 100,000: 3.6 Permissive gun laws: 48th out of 50

#50, Hawaii Gun deaths per 100,000: 2.8 Permissive gun laws: 47th out of 50
Click to expand...

It is pretty apparent that states with stronger gun control laws have less gun deaths per capita. I believe in the right to bear arms, but not if it means people will die. Taking away guns is one thing, but making it extremely hard to get them is another.
 
Cripes.....

Hink_Planner said:
I'm not really on one side of the fence when it comes to gun rights, but this report really is telling....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/...DeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA3RoZXRvcDIwZGVhZA--








It is pretty apparent that states with stronger gun control laws have less gun deaths per capita. I believe in the right to bear arms, but not if it means people will die. Taking away guns is one thing, but making it extremely hard to get them is another.
Click to expand...

And I STILL need a fishing license to catch a stupid tilapia fish in my local river or lake:-@
 
Hink_Planner said:
I'm not really on one side of the fence when it comes to gun rights, but this report really is telling....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/...DeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA3RoZXRvcDIwZGVhZA--







It is pretty apparent that states with stronger gun control laws have less gun deaths per capita. I believe in the right to bear arms, but not if it means people will die. Taking away guns is one thing, but making it extremely hard to get them is another.
Click to expand...

I'm missing something here. I understand that they put 75% of the weight on deaths/100,000 and 25% on the permissiveness assessment by a less than biased organization but why? Why aren't the states just listed in order of deaths/100,000 and let the permissiveness rating fall wherever it falls?
 
The One said:
And I STILL need a fishing license to catch a stupid tilapia fish in my local river or lake:-@
Click to expand...

my understanding is that most places have serious restrictions on the amount of ammo you can carry in your hunting weapons, but there are no restrictions on high ammunition assault clips whose sole purpose is to kill dozens of people.
 
ofos said:
I'm missing something here. I understand that they put 75% of the weight on deaths/100,000 and 25% on the permissiveness assessment by a less than biased organization but why? Why aren't the states just listed in order of deaths/100,000 and let the permissiveness rating fall wherever it falls?
Click to expand...

Beats me. I just thought the information was interesting. Take it for what it is, bias and all...
 
Hink_Planner said:
It is pretty apparent that states with stronger gun control laws have less gun deaths per capita. I believe in the right to bear arms, but not if it means people will die. Taking away guns is one thing, but making it extremely hard to get them is another.
Click to expand...

This study was not very well thought-out as they did not consider other factors, like education levels, police levels, amount of gangs, etc.

wahday said:
Yes, there are contingents like eco-terrorists and IMF/G8 anti-globalism folks that are focused on property damage and aggressive social action (smashing storefronts, etc.) but not so much targeted threats and violence against individuals.
Click to expand...

You're right that the Left is well-known for such violent groups as the ALF, ELF and we all know about violent protests. However, your mention of targeted threats of violence against individuals is false, but like you said, it's just your impression. People like Bill O'Reilly, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, even Ted Nugent receive death threats from extremists on the left all the time.
 
illinoisplanner said:
You're right that the Left is well-known for such violent groups as the ALF, ELF and we all know about violent protests. However, your mention of targeted threats of violence against individuals is false, but like you said, it's just your impression. People like Bill O'Reilly, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, even Ted Nugent receive death threats from extremists on the left all the time.
Click to expand...

Im sure Jeanine Dewhatever her name is and Whoopi Goldberg receive death threats too. Besides the point. The issue is media personalities and politicians targeting individuals. Sharon Angle said we need to use second amendment remedies to take Harry Reid out. That seems to me to be targeted against an individual, and seems to me to be a clear call for gun violence. There has been very documented threats made against politicians of both parties. Some talking heads have gone as far as to say specific politicians need to be afraid to come out of their own house.
 
imaplanner said:
Im sure Jeanine Dewhatever her name is and Whoopi Goldberg receive death threats too. Besides the point. The issue is media personalities and politicians targeting individuals. Sharon Angle said we need to use second amendment remedies to take Harry Reid out. That seems to me to be targeted against an individual, and seems to me to be a clear call for gun violence. There has been very documented threats made against politicians of both parties. Some talking heads have gone as far as to say specific politicians need to be afraid to come out of their own house.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are documented threats made against politicians and media personalities of both parties. My point is that it's not just crazies on the right that's making these threats, it's crazies on the left too. However, I'm still of the opinion that these extremists on either side do not (IMO) accurately or fairly represent either party. Regardless, there is no place for threats of violence.
 
By being the party that loudly screams about its PRO-GUN views, the GOP only brings the negative stereotypes upon themselves.

When will people realize that the Democratic Party is not ANTI-GUN? I love guns, but don't go around spouting off about the 2nd Amendment every chance I get.
 
Here's a fun idea to beat to death. We have several issues in our country that need to be fixed in one form or another, as I see it. I have a partial solution we could consider. Call it "Mandatory U.S. Service" or something. I break it down like this:

At some point between the ages of 16 and 21, each U.S. citizen must complete 21 to 36 months of mandatory service.

Of this service, 3 months of classroom and 6 months of field training must be dedicated to military practice.

Twelve months of social service is required, unless an individual formally joins a branch of the U.S. Military. Certain non-military careers, requiring a secondary degree, may be allowed to postpone service until age 25.

Without completion of this service, you cannot get... well, anything. It's required. If you can't pass the psych evaluation, you might be able to drive a such, but no guns for you!

I have many more ideas on this, but what do you think?

I know I'd be more comfortable with people having guns, less people would fight knowing everyone has had hand-to-hand, and service is a good way to learn. I'd rather spend medicare and assistance money on people providing a service.
 
Mastiff said:
Here's a fun idea to beat to death. We have several issues in our country that need to be fixed in one form or another, as I see it. I have a partial solution we could consider. Call it "Mandatory U.S. Service" or something. I break it down like this:

At some point between the ages of 16 and 21, each U.S. citizen must complete 21 to 36 months of mandatory service.

Of this service, 3 months of classroom and 6 months of field training must be dedicated to military practice.

Twelve months of social service is required, unless an individual formally joins a branch of the U.S. Military. Certain non-military careers, requiring a secondary degree, may be allowed to postpone service until age 25.

Without completion of this service, you cannot get... well, anything. It's required. If you can't pass the psych evaluation, you might be able to drive a such, but no guns for you!

I have many more ideas on this, but what do you think?

I know I'd be more comfortable with people having guns, less people would fight knowing everyone has had hand-to-hand, and service is a good way to learn. I'd rather spend medicare and assistance money on people providing a service.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with it. For many reasons.

First of all, there are plenty of people that are self-disciplined and responsible as it is, and they shouldn't have to waste their time in some lenghty program if they don't have to.

Second of all, it's a violation of freedom. Taking a gun safety course to CARRY is one thing. Preventing a MENTALLY ILL person from owning is one thing. But to make gun ownership for perfectly sane and respnsible people contingent on the passage of some unreasonable military program is not only wrong and excessive, but it is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The military is very good training and provides many useful skills for people, but it isn't for everyone. Many of the skills it teaches can also be learned elsewhere in society in learning environments and formats that may be better suited to certain individuals that might not benefit as well in a military environment.
 
Also, if anything, the military appreciates responsible private ownership of firearms and parents teaching their kids the basics of firearms safety and marksmanship - it saves a TON of time and money in training and makes for better overall soldiers.

Mike
 
illinoisplanner said:
First of all, there are plenty of people that are self-disciplined and responsible as it is, and they shouldn't have to waste their time in some lenghty program if they don't have to.
Click to expand...

Plenty? [A] full or more than adequate amount or supply? You really think that a few months with the experts who fire the guns you want to own is a waste of time? Ask a casual gun owner you might know to field strip his weapon.

illinoisplanner said:
Second of all, it's a violation of freedom. Taking a gun safety course to CARRY is one thing. Preventing a MENTALLY ILL person from owning is one thing. But to make gun ownership for perfectly sane and respnsible people contingent on the passage of some unreasonable military program is not only wrong and excessive, but it is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Yes. I know. We're changing a freedom in my scenario. But not even close to the 2nd... Once you're checked out on your weapon, you can carry it. I want people with a firearm to be more than responsible. Responsible is when you rear-end my car, trained is when you use a weapon in a public space. Where were you trained?

illinoisplanner said:
The military is very good training and provides many useful skills for people, but it isn't for everyone. Many of the skills it teaches can also be learned elsewhere in society in learning environments and formats that may be better suited to certain individuals that might not benefit as well in a military environment.
Click to expand...

I think it'd be good for all but a few, really. If you cannot do it, other exceptions can be made.
 
Mastiff said:
Plenty? [A] full or more than adequate amount or supply? You really think that a few months with the experts who fire the guns you want to own is a waste of time? Ask a casual gun owner you might know to field strip his weapon.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a waste of time. It does not take months or years in a military environment to know the basics about firearms or proper gun safety. Maybe a week. One or two days in the classroom and three in the field. I don't think there are enough cases of irresponsible and reckless people that carry weapons that would justify such an excessive program. I'm sure there are a few cases, but a few irresponsible people does not mean the majority who are responsible and proficient should be punished and hereded into some excessive program.

Yes. I know. We're changing a freedom in my scenario. But not even close to the 2nd... Once you're checked out on your weapon, you can carry it. I want people with a firearm to be more than responsible. Responsible is when you rear-end my car, trained is when you use a weapon in a public space. Where were you trained?
Click to expand...

Well, we shouldn't be changing this freedom. It's there to put the power in the hands of the people, because once you put it in the hands of the government, the people are at the mercy of the government, which as we've learned throughout history, is never a good thing. This is put into place to prevent people from overthrowing our democracy, not petty differences between Ds and Rs. As far as where was I trained? At the range (field) and at home (classroom) by my gun expert dad, thank you very much. Regardless, IL is one of the few states where you can't carry, anyways. If I were to carry, I think I would want to take a class that was a few days or a week long, if it was offered.

I think it'd be good for all but a few, really. If you cannot do it, other exceptions can be made.
Click to expand...

Well, that's your opinion. Everybody has different circumstances and has different things going on in their lives and different mindsets. As well as differing ranges of responsibility, proficiency, and skill. Like I said, the military is not for everyone. And some can learn these skills better in other settings. You'd think we'd learn by now that one size does not fit all.
 
Last edited:
illinoisplanner said:
This study was not very well thought-out as they did not consider other factors, like education levels, police levels, amount of gangs, etc.
Click to expand...

Yea Mississippi and Arizona have a much bigger gang population than New York or California...:r:

You can make any argument you want, but the numbers show that states with weaker gun laws have more deaths by guns. To me that is all the proof I need. I think that you should never ban guns. But I do think that you should make them damn hard to get. I don't think the argument that you want to be "safe" by carrying a concealed weapon is good enough. If you like to hunt and have a permit, or if you live on a farm or other agricultural reason, I can understand. No in the United States uses a semi-automatic weapon for pleasure. The use it for the perception of safety, and unfortunately some use it to kill mass amounts of people.

How about we do some gun laws like Bush Tax cuts... we put them in place for 3 years and see what happens at during those years. At the end of those years the laws expire. If they work and gun deaths go down - we keep the laws, if gun deaths go up or stay the same - we go back to how it was prior. I think we all know how that would go...

*I will admit that I am not in any way a Constitutionalist - honestly, I think the Constitution should be rewritten, so this comes from a slightly libertarian, slightly democratic, and slightly republican slant....

[rant] I hate the argument that we shouldn't do something because that would attack freedom. Make a real argument. Freedom means something different to everyone - make a sound argument based on fact, not some mythological "freedom" belief.[/rant]
 
As a veteran, I may be a bit biased, but I actually like Mastiff's idea. I think there could be a few other exceptions made to get people out of it (maybe 4 years of JROTC in high school could be substituted for 2 years of active service or something... as long as you are in a school that actually takes the JROTC program seriously). Or maybe the service wouldn't be mandatory, but it would be required if later down the road you want to qualify for programs like federal student aid (or maybe some student loan forgiveness), Medicaid, food stamps, etc.

And yes, I agree that the military is not for everybody so not everybody would have to do military service. There are other programs, like AmeriCorps or possibly a newfangled CCC, that could be substituted.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/12/news/economy/illinois_income_tax/index.htm?hpt=T2

Yikes! IP I am sure you have something to say about this. That is a tough decision that was made for the State of Illinois. We will see if it helps cut the budget gap... my feeling is that many other states are going to follow.

To address these shortfalls, the Illinois House and Senate approved:

* Temporarily raising the personal income tax rate to 5%, from 3%.
* Temporarily hiking corporate income taxes to 7%, from 4.8%.
* Imposing a moratorium on new programs with spending growth capped at 2% per year, with the exception of increased school aid of more than $700 million.
Click to expand...
 
Everybody agrees mentally ill people should not get guns.

The problem is, who keeps the list, and can you ever be considered "cured"?

I have a problem with the list idea. I have a problem with who decides if you are cured.

A majority of people, at some point in their life will experience a bout of depression. This is a mental illness of indeterminate length. Should the majority of people never be allowed to own a fire arm as long as they live? Do you realize how many people would NOT then seek help for depression? You would re-stigmatize mental illness all over again.

What mental illnesses should be on the list? Borderline personality disorder? ADD? How about people with fybormyalgia or nueropathy that take medications that are all labeled "may cause suicidal thoughts, hallucinations, irritability, behavioral changes, etc..."? Who decides if the side effects are serious enough? How do you get off "The LIST"?

The shooter in Arizona was a legal citizen that met all qualifications for buying fire arms. He may have been mental, but it has only been AFTER the fact that it was clearly apparent.
 
Hink_Planner said:
Yea Mississippi and Arizona have a much bigger gang population than New York or California...:r:

You can make any argument you want, but the numbers show that states with weaker gun laws have more deaths by guns. To me that is all the proof I need.
Click to expand...

OK, if you want to come to conclusions based on only one factor, you are free to do so. Personally, I would rather come to conclusions based on multiple factors considered. People in Mississippi also have among the lowest education and health rates, so I think that definitely plays a role in things.

I think that you should never ban guns. But I do think that you should make them damn hard to get. I don't think the argument that you want to be "safe" by carrying a concealed weapon is good enough. If you like to hunt and have a permit, or if you live on a farm or other agricultural reason, I can understand. No in the United States uses a semi-automatic weapon for pleasure. The use it for the perception of safety, and unfortunately some use it to kill mass amounts of people.
Click to expand...

I think there should be regulations in place regarding guns, but they should be in place to prevent criminals and mentally ill people from getting them, not law-abiding citizens. And you really think people don't use semi-automatic weapons for pleasure?!? Target shooting is a recreational sport enjoyed by millions of Americans, who use rifles, handguns, and yes even semi automatic weapons. It is a sport that gives a huge adrenaline rush and sends endorphins to the brain, increasing one's happiness and well being. Personally, it is an activity I partake in with my dad and brothers that bonds us together. Take our guns away, and that's one less thing we have to bond with. I'm sure the same can be said for many other families. And many people prevent crimes every year by keeping guns in their homes and place of business. Oftentimes they don't even have to use it. Often, the homeowner or business owner merely displaying the weapon is enough to deter a criminal.

How about we do some gun laws like Bush Tax cuts... we put them in place for 3 years and see what happens at during those years. At the end of those years the laws expire. If they work and gun deaths go down - we keep the laws, if gun deaths go up or stay the same - we go back to how it was prior. I think we all know how that would go...
Click to expand...

Like I said before, most people consider multiple factors in statistical analyses, rather than come to conclusions based solely on one factor.

*I will admit that I am not in any way a Constitutionalist - honestly, I think the Constitution should be rewritten, so this comes from a slightly libertarian, slightly democratic, and slightly republican slant....

[rant] I hate the argument that we shouldn't do something because that would attack freedom. Make a real argument. Freedom means something different to everyone - make a sound argument based on fact, not some mythological "freedom" belief.[/rant]
Click to expand...

OK then the Constitution is my fact and my argument. It's a fact that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Bottom line, end of argument.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/12/news...dex.htm?hpt=T2

Yikes! IP I am sure you have something to say about this. That is a tough decision that was made for the State of Illinois. We will see if it helps cut the budget gap... my feeling is that many other states are going to follow.


Quote:
To address these shortfalls, the Illinois House and Senate approved:

* Temporarily raising the personal income tax rate to 5%, from 3%.
* Temporarily hiking corporate income taxes to 7%, from 4.8%.
* Imposing a moratorium on new programs with spending growth capped at 2% per year, with the exception of increased school aid of more than $700 million.
Click to expand...

Well, I look forward to getting out of this state soon, if I can.
 
illinoisplanner said:
Second of all, it's a violation of freedom. Taking a gun safety course to CARRY is one thing. Preventing a MENTALLY ILL person from owning is one thing. But to make gun ownership for perfectly sane and respnsible people contingent on the passage of some unreasonable military program is not only wrong and excessive, but it is a violation of the 2nd Amendment..
Click to expand...

Define what a responsible person is. Define what mental illness is. Mental illness is not as clear cut and as easy to define as you think. What standards are you using? There should be no restrictions of any type on weapon ownership or use. That way we could bury the issue once and for all. I, for one, am sick of this nonsensical agrument. Make weapon ownership available to all without restrictions of any type.

As for military service, what would you do with people like me? Looking at me during the time I was between 18-25, you would have thought I was the ideal candidate for service. However between my coke bottle bottom thick glasses and asthma, both of which I hide pretty well, no service would have taken me. What options would be available to someone like me?
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
Define what a responsible person is. Define what mental illness is. Mental illness is not as clear cut and as easy to define as you think. What standards are you using? There should be no restrictions of any type on weapon ownership or use. That way we could bury the issue once and for all. I, for one, am sick of this nonsensical agrument. Make weapon ownership available to all without restrictions of any type.
Click to expand...

Well, I think responsible would be successfully passing a week-long safety course. And this is an idea I would have for being able to carry, not necessarily to own a gun. Regarding mental illness, I don't know, that's a gray area. Hopefully professionals in that field and lawmakers would be able to sort that out. I am neither, so I would let them work out the details. And I agree that weapon ownership and use should be available for all, save for convicted felons. However, I am willing to come to the middle and put in reasonable restrictions.
 
Duke Of Dystopia said:
Everybody agrees mentally ill people should not get guns.

The problem is, who keeps the list, and can you ever be considered "cured"?

I have a problem with the list idea. I have a problem with who decides if you are cured.

A majority of people, at some point in their life will experience a bout of depression. This is a mental illness of indeterminate length. Should the majority of people never be allowed to own a fire arm as long as they live? Do you realize how many people would NOT then seek help for depression? You would re-stigmatize mental illness all over again.

What mental illnesses should be on the list? Borderline personality disorder? ADD? How about people with fybormyalgia or nueropathy that take medications that are all labeled "may cause suicidal thoughts, hallucinations, irritability, behavioral changes, etc..."? Who decides if the side effects are serious enough? How do you get off "The LIST"?

The shooter in Arizona was a legal citizen that met all qualifications for buying fire arms. He may have been mental, but it has only been AFTER the fact that it was clearly apparent.
Click to expand...

You make a very, very good point. People have said the mentally ill should not have access to guns. The term "mentally ill" is a very broad diagnosis, and not all sub-diagnoses increase the potential for a violent act involving firearms. Even within some sub-diagnoses that we associate with violent outbursts, like multiple-personality disorder/schizophrenia, are not consistently violent and vary greatly by individual.

You also have otherwise normal individuals just "lose it" unexpectedly due to other external factors (job loss + loss of personal relationships + etc.).

The only way I see is through assessment during firearms training like you get for conceal/carry permits, but even then it would be at least a somewhat subjective assessment and I don't see a practical means of implementation (especially for simple ownership and not conceal/carry). I know I can't picture the instructor for my permitting class doing anything like that, at least not correctly (he was kind of an idiot).
 
WSU MUP Student said:
As a veteran, I may be a bit biased, but I actually like Mastiff's idea.
Click to expand...

I find some merit as well. For the record, many countries considered to have great civil liberties and individual freedom have military service requirements - Switzerland, Israel, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, etc. There are many ways this can be structured, but in general, I like the idea of a thorough gun safety and use curriculum required to won a firearm. Like a drivers license.

I strongly disagree with IP's in saying

I don't think there are enough cases of irresponsible and reckless people that carry weapons that would justify such an excessive program.
Click to expand...

Personally, I am not talking just about conceal and carry. I'm talking about the entire area of responsible gun ownership. Consider shootings of youth - the second leading cause of unnatural death among children and adolescents is firearm injury (according to the CDC). Partly these are accidental shootings by children who found a gun in the home. Partly they are homicides perpetrated by children and youth who had access to a firearm, most commonly one in their own home.

An increase in gun safety and responsible use and ownership of guns could have an impact on these events by emphasizing the need to secure and control access to firearms. Guns should NEVER be accessible by young people without supervision. They certainly shouldn't be loaded and they should be locked and inaccessible except by an adult. The firing of a weapon should also always happen under adult supervision. It seems obvious to some of us, but perhaps not to others. Just as some might not see the importance of putting their kids' (or their own) seatbelt on.

Sure, some percentage of these deaths could be by youth that acquired the gun illegally, but statistically, the majority are getting access within their homes and we can assume that those adults considered themselves to be schooled in the ways of gun use if asked. But were they?

I learned to shoot as a boy under the NRA system (Bar 10 baby!) and I also thought that system was an excellent introduction to gun safety and responsible use. What the NRA has become today is something quite different, but I can see that even if the government/military didn't serve the role, that someone could.

You have to pass a test to use a car, afterall (and a car can be considered a "deadly weapon" if you are intoxicated or otherwise responsible for killing someone) so why not something more stringent than currently exists for firearms? While the number of guns owned by citizens gives me cause for alarm in some respects, uninformed gun owners scare me even more. And I do own a firearm.
 
Duke Of Dystopia said:
A majority of people, at some point in their life will experience a bout of depression. This is a mental illness of indeterminate length. Should the majority of people never be allowed to own a fire arm as long as they live? Do you realize how many people would NOT then seek help for depression? You would re-stigmatize mental illness all over again.
Click to expand...
This has been a major issue in the USA's DoD and intelligence services in recent years - you don't want nutty people in the ranks, but otherwise excellent soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, spooks, etc who are suddenly finding themselves in a bit of depression or other similar conditions have been strongly dissuaded from seeking the help that they need to get everything back on track because they will likely, at minimum, lose their security clearances ('Have you ever been treated or sought treatment for a mental illness?' - If 'YES', then *NO* 'top secret' for you!) - effectively ending their otherwise stellar careers.

Also, that nutcase never got onto a 'list' because he was never treated nor professionally diagnosed.

And anyways, have any laws of these sorts, including 'CC' permits, ever stopped a criminal from getting the weaponry that they need and/or desire to do what they do?

^o)

Mike
 
WSU MUP Student said:
And yes, I agree that the military is not for everybody so not everybody would have to do military service. There are other programs, like AmeriCorps or possibly a newfangled CCC, that could be substituted.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating military service, just more like everyone going through basic training. Our teens are out of shape, this can help the situation. Young people can't find work with no experience, this could help. (And I think the private sector could help a great deal with inexpensive internships.) This is true gun control... you learn how to control your gun. And wouldn't there be fewer bullies if everyone knows hand to hand combat? Illegal immigrants couldn't get in the program, and thus, would get no entitlements meant for US citizens. I think it could solve a lot of issues...

Just something to chew on.
 
I wonder whether Ms. Palin's speechwriter knows the historical reference of "blood libel". Seems an odd turn of phrase to me, given its historic usage.:not:
 
wahday said:
I strongly disagree with IP's in saying

illinoisplanner said:
I don't think there are enough cases of irresponsible and reckless people that carry weapons that would justify such an excessive program.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I was referring to Mastiff's proposal of 24 months of mandatory military service or whatever as the excessive program, not a one-week class or something more reasonable which it sounds like you are alluding to.

wahday said:
Personally, I am not talking just about conceal and carry. I'm talking about the entire area of responsible gun ownership. Consider shootings of youth - the second leading cause of unnatural death among children and adolescents is firearm injury (according to the CDC). Partly these are accidental shootings by children who found a gun in the home. Partly they are homicides perpetrated by children and youth who had access to a firearm, most commonly one in their own home.

An increase in gun safety and responsible use and ownership of guns could have an impact on these events by emphasizing the need to secure and control access to firearms. Guns should NEVER be accessible by young people without supervision. They certainly shouldn't be loaded and they should be locked and inaccessible except by an adult. The firing of a weapon should also always happen under adult supervision. It seems obvious to some of us, but perhaps not to others. Just as some might not see the importance of putting their kids' (or their own) seatbelt on.

Sure, some percentage of these deaths could be by youth that acquired the gun illegally, but statistically, the majority are getting access within their homes and we can assume that those adults considered themselves to be schooled in the ways of gun use if asked. But were they?

I learned to shoot as a boy under the NRA system (Bar 10 baby!) and I also thought that system was an excellent introduction to gun safety and responsible use. What the NRA has become today is something quite different, but I can see that even if the government/military didn't serve the role, that someone could.

You have to pass a test to use a car, afterall (and a car can be considered a "deadly weapon" if you are intoxicated or otherwise responsible for killing someone) so why not something more stringent than currently exists for firearms? While the number of guns owned by citizens gives me cause for alarm in some respects, uninformed gun owners scare me even more. And I do own a firearm.
Click to expand...

According to the World Almanac, accidental deaths by firearm are only around 680 a year, down from about 1500 in the early 1990s. Meanwhile, accidental deaths by falling are far more, up to about 22,000 and have doubled since the early 90s, so regarding household accidents, maybe we should place more focus on preventing falls. Also, only about 50 of those 680 accidental deaths by firearms were to kids aged 0-14. Regarding all firearm injuries and deaths (including intentional and unintentional), a lot of the firearm injuries and deaths among children and adolescents are due to gang violence and their illegal acquiring of firearms, so thus, we need to be focusing on rooting out gangs and gang violence. Yes, even once you fix that problem there will still be kids accessing guns and there will still be accidents. The focus needs to continue to be on promoting a culture of gun safety education and awareness. Being a member of the gun-owning community, I'd say most people are responsible and safe gun owners and did just fine without some mandatory government program. But there are still those that are out there that need to be reached out to.

A lot of the things you mention are all common-sense things that a responsible gun owner already knows and follows, but unfortunately even those that would sit through a mandatory government program but really don't care much at all about gun safety will still go back to their ways no matter what you do. So why inconvenience the good people of this world who already know this stuff either from it being passed down from generation to generation or through voluntary classes/training when the bad and ignorant are still going to go about their ways anyways?
 
Gedunker said:
I wonder whether Ms. Palin's speechwriter knows the historical reference of "blood libel". Seems an odd turn of phrase to me, given its historic usage.:not:
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain she did, and that's why she used it; it's an adequate parallel, if a little extreme. Much like swearing for emphasis.

There's also this explanation from noted attorney and esteemed Harvar Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz: http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/01/12/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/
 
mgk920 said:
And anyways, have any laws of these sorts, including 'CC' permits, ever stopped a criminal from getting the weaponry that they need and/or desire to do what they do?

^o)

Mike
Click to expand...

yes.

234567


Gedunker said:
I wonder whether Ms. Palin's speechwriter knows the historical reference of "blood libel".
Click to expand...

Probably. She uses lots of coded language for racists and anti-semites.
 
illinoisplanner said:
According to the World Almanac, accidental deaths by firearm are only around 680 a year, down from about 1500 in the early 1990s. Meanwhile, accidental deaths by falling are far more, up to about 22,000 and have doubled since the early 90s, so regarding household accidents, maybe we should place more focus on preventing falls. Also, only about 50 of those 680 accidental deaths by firearms were to kids aged 0-14. Regarding all firearm injuries and deaths (including intentional and unintentional), a lot of the firearm injuries and deaths among children and adolescents are due to gang violence and their illegal acquiring of firearms, so thus, we need to be focusing on rooting out gangs and gang violence. Yes, even once you fix that problem there will still be kids accessing guns and there will still be accidents. The focus needs to continue to be on promoting a culture of gun safety education and awareness. Being a member of the gun-owning community, I'd say most people are responsible and safe gun owners and did just fine without some mandatory government program. But there are still those that are out there that need to be reached out to.
Click to expand...

Really? You are comparing something that everyone does to something that very few do. That is like saying that McDonald's has more thefts than Mom and Pop Shop 1. Or that more people have sprained ankles every year than broken legs caused by jumping out of a plane. There is no relation.

I am sure if we just had more classes with gangs on gun safety it would fix our problem...:r: This should be just be like the drug war. Why waste the money if people are going to get it on the black market anyway? My argument would be because it is better for our country if it is hard to get things people don't need. Sure some will get them because they are crazy or needy or whatever, but those on the fence won't. It won't stop all, but it will stop many. One less death caused by some guy who leaves his gun on his kitchen table, or by a semi-automatic weapon by a crazy guy, is a win. Personally, I enjoy shooting at the range. I enjoy clay pigeon shooting and bow hunting. That doesn't stop me from understanding the benefits of allowing less people to be able to own guns. Especially semi-automatic or anything that isn't hunting related. Mmm I love my deer meat with 12 bullets in it...:r:

IllinoisPlanner said:
Also, only about 50 of those 680 accidental deaths by firearms were to kids aged 0-14.
Click to expand...

The fact that you used the word only scares me. That is completely unacceptable to me. One is completely unacceptable. And in probably 95% completely stoppable. I hope we never find a gun death acceptable.
 
Alan Dershowitz: first he helps defend OJ Simpson, now he attempts to defend Palin. We are fortunate to have Champions of the Truth such as him among us.
 
Hink_Planner said:
Really? You are comparing something that everyone does to something that very few do. That is like saying that McDonald's has more thefts than Mom and Pop Shop 1. Or that more people have sprained ankles every year than broken legs caused by jumping out of a plane. There is no relation.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that too much attention is focused on accidental gun deaths in comparison to other types of accidental deaths. Nobody should die in a fall...that's also unacceptable. Poisoning deaths are also higher, but I don't hear of proposals to ban household chemicals or make it harder for people to buy them. Or for it to be required to take a class on how to safely deal with household chemicals or use a ladder in order to use those items, even though they result in larger amounts of accidental deaths.

I am sure if we just had more classes with gangs on gun safety it would fix our problem...:r: This should be just be like the drug war. Why waste the money if people are going to get it on the black market anyway? My argument would be because it is better for our country if it is hard to get things people don't need. Sure some will get them because they are crazy or needy or whatever, but those on the fence won't. It won't stop all, but it will stop many. One less death caused by some guy who leaves his gun on his kitchen table, or by a semi-automatic weapon by a crazy guy, is a win. Personally, I enjoy shooting at the range. I enjoy clay pigeon shooting and bow hunting. That doesn't stop me from understanding the benefits of allowing less people to be able to own guns. Especially semi-automatic or anything that isn't hunting related. Mmm I love my deer meat with 12 bullets in it...:r:
Click to expand...

Well, you enjoy hunting, but not everyone does. Some people just enjoy shooting at a target with semi-automatic weapons. We don't infringe on your rights to kill animals and break clay pigeons, so why restrict the rights of people who enjoy harmless target shooting with semi-automatic weapons? And even if it makes it harder for people to acquire weapons, and people still go around the system, then we aren't really solving the problem anyways. Inconveniencing law-abiding citizens doesn't really solve anything.

The fact that you used the word only scares me. That is completely unacceptable to me. One is completely unacceptable. And in probably 95% completely stoppable. I hope we never find a gun death acceptable.
Click to expand...

Maybe my choice of words was wrong. Yes, every accidental gun death is a tragedy, and I wish it were zero. I hope that education and awareness efforts in the realm of gun safety continue, so that this figure can be further reduced, which as I said has been reduced in half from just 15 years ago or so. Unfortunately, accidents do happen, no matter how much education, awareness, and training is provided. Mastiff suggested some program with the military, and look, we still have accidents happen in the military. Someone suggested how we are required to take a driving test to get a license and drive a car, but yet we still have 40,000 accidental automobile deaths a year. Yet, with guns, and the hundreds of millions of them that are in homes all across this country, and thanks to already-existing gun safety education and awareness, we are now down to 680 accidental deaths, which is a lot better in comparison. I hope the number continues its slide towards zero, but I just wanted to put it in perspective for you.
 
Maister said:
Alan Dershowitz: first he helps defend OJ Simpson, now he attempts to defend Palin. We are fortunate to have Champions of the Truth such as him among us.
Click to expand...

For one, someone has to take those kinds of cases. Two, for someone to take those kinds of defense cases, he has to ensure justice is obtained legally. It is the prosecution's duty to garner a conviction. For an attorney to take as many challenging and precedent-setting cases as he has takes some grit and intelligence. He is (or at least was, prior to his academic career) the defense lawyer of last resort for major criminal cases.

Since those days, he's contributed a lot of respected scholarship towards US foreign relations (especially towards the Middle East), public policy, and animal rights. He is also an avowed liberal.
 
Back
Top