Bonkers. Only word for it. What I find most disturbing is that you seem to have no qualms about coming across the way you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Printable View
Bonkers. Only word for it. What I find most disturbing is that you seem to have no qualms about coming across the way you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I have no issue with state laws being more prohibitive, if that's what citizens of those states choose to do, as long as they do not violate Constitutionally protected rights (whether they be gun rights, voting rights, religious rights or citizenship rights).Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
The term "assault weapon" has become rather meaningless in modern usage (kinda like "socialism" ;) ), as its misuse takes it away from the actual, original meaning, derived from the German word, "sturmgewehr", meaning storm/assault rifle. By definition, a (true) assault weapon is one which has the ability to be fired on full automatic or select fire modes. Such weapons, while available in a very limited way, are largely unseen by most Americans. The AK-47 variants and AR-15's, that people associate with the term "assault weapons", are actually just semi-automatic weapons which fire cartridges of medium to low caliber and which have only medium power. Do they look mean and scary? They sure do. But are legally possessed versions of any of these weapons used in any statistically significant number of gun crimes in the U.S.? No. But they do look mean and scary. But in fact, a Remington 750 "hunting rifle" in .30-06 caliber is MUCH more powerful and deadly than any AK or AR. The AK only has about the same punch as a .30-30 rifle produced over 100 years ago.
If I was studying water safety and attacks by sea life, I would mostly focus on sea creatures which posed the greatest statistical threat to swimmers. But I ask, which is the more scary creature, a Great White shark or a jellyfish? The shark, right? I mean, just like an AK or AR, those are some scary looking beasts! :eek: And just like an AK or AR, they most certainly can kill you. But from what I've read, jellyfish attacks kill 30 times more people per year than all shark attacks combined... so you can imagine what sort of small (statistical) threat Great Whites pose. Same with these so called "assault weapons" (depending on what one wants to misname or call an assault weapon). From the last data that I saw, these weapons account for far less than 1% of firearms related murders.
So that's why I've made no specific mention of that weapons class or what law abiding citizens can or cannot have. While possibly worthy of discussion, it doesn't appear to be a topic which would accomplish the primary goal here. But if you don't agree, I'd be happy to address the topic and look at whatever data that you come across. Everything is open for discussion, right? The smuggling of illegal full autos (did you click my links?) and the possession of any weapon by convicted criminals and the mentally disabled have received most of my attention, because (statistically) that's where the problem seems to lie. I'm not allowing a violent criminal to legally possess even a .22 caliber short cartridge in his pocket, much less an AK or AR rifle. Gotta get the most bang for the buck, right? So I'm trying to address the root cause and primary contributors, not so much the things that just frighten people because of their cosmetic appearance.
Oh! BTW, to make room for all of these smugglers, money launderers in fancy suits, repeat violent offenders, gangsters, et al, that I'd see rounded up and locked away for very long periods of time, I'm going to be releasing many/most of the potheads and petty criminals that are clogging up the judicial and prison systems right now. If they're truly a problem, we'll need to deal with them in ways other than just locking weed smokers up with murderers, rapists and child molesters. The ridiculous War on Drugs, that we've had for the past 40 odd years, comes to an end, certainly as it's been "fought" so far! And there would need to be (severe) reforms within various law enforcement agencies as well.
I couldn't agree more. Governments seem increasingly keen on fighting wars which are blatantly unwinnable (cf. Afghanistan). There is no practical sense in which the 'war on drugs' can meaningfully be won, and it amazes me that politicians — and others — of successive generations have sought to perpetuate the fallacy that it can, while simultaneously wasting the police's time. I'm not convinced that the prison space they currently occupy need automatically be filled up with other sorts of criminal, as I take the view that the prison population, certainly in the UK, is already too large as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
I very, very much appreciate your approach to this topic. You raise some very interesting points, and I agree with many of them. Certainly, they are a welcome antidote to the inarticulate nonsense being spouted from some other quarters, representative of the worst of right-wing American worldviews. However, I do feel you're still neglecting, somewhat, one important element — the underlying culture. More specifically, I'm referring the way in which the gun has become some sort of default option for the sort of attacks that always provoke the discussion we're having. Do you feel your ideas for reform would do anything towards tackling this? My worry, from reading elements of this thread, is the way in which the gun has in the US become 'normalised'; the way people refer to guns in the same vein as they would a badly-driven car, to cite one example. To me, at least, it's completely alien. This must have an effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Well, we could quit threatening to take something away from folks and simply enforce the tight regualtions as suggested by Jag. Prohibition is the worst form of control IMHO. Then we could challenge the media and the entertainment industry to cease teh sensationalization of violence as they are all too apt to do currently. Real or percieved, if you are constantly bombarded with violence, it eventually is accepted as real.
I do find it strange that you and others, presumably, don't apply this to everything. After all, I assume you consider prohibition the best form of control in relation to certain things, don't you? Otherwise you would oppose the very concept of laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Again, I say that I completely disagree with you about this in the context of gun crime. I deplore sensationalised depictions and the glamourisation of violence, simply because I find them vulgar, but I don't think they are central to addressing this topic. Nor, more importantly, am I in favour of undue media censorship. I would sooner place further restrictions on firearm ownership on the grounds that I consider this far more inherently troublesome and dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
No, I do not believe absolute prohibition is necessary or appropriate in every aspect of society. Prohibition of marijuana use or posesession has been one of the biggest jokes of the last hundred years in this country. Alcohol phohibition was an absolute catastrophy. Actually, I do resent the constant over legislation of our country. The very concept of personal responsibility is absent from our society. Just passs another law... I never said censorship of the entertainemnt, but ok- self censorship. Self monitoring. Just because you CAN does not mean you should. The entertainment industry, in this country especially, has zero conscience. They need to get one. instead, we'll have a movie about it within a year. We will have to agree to disagree on the influence it has on MY society. So called action movies, television, music, ESPECIALLY the vast majority of rap music, GAMING, the way our news outlets report on violence. Sure, we've always had cowboy movies, war movies, etc, but the extreme level of violence we are constantly bombarded with in this country absolutely has an effect on people.
With respect, though, that wasn't quite what you said previously, was it? The quote to which I referred was 'Prohibition is the worst form of control', which I took to mean that you are always opposed to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
On this, I very much agree with you. But I'd place the prohibition of violent movies and video games in the same category. Some might argue, with a degree of justification, that alcohol prohibition would be of more practical effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Again (and somewhat in contradiction with what some think of me), I agree with you, but I do feel there are limits. To me, firearms — instruments designed to kill — simply cross the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Another thing on which we're in agreement. However, events of the recent past have proved to me that simple responsibility simply does not exist in large sections of the media. How, then, to change this?Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Well, I haven't gone to a movie theatre to see or rented a violent movie in close to ten years. I do admit my kid has several video games others have bought him, however I also know my son and daughter and I teach them morality and responsibility. It has to start somewhere, but simply banning and confiscating weapons will NOT have the desired effect. That I am confident of.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Several of us have come up with realistic suggestions for reducing gun related crime and deaths in the US. There are already many laws on the books that are ineffective mostly because they are not enforced. Yet you keep coming back with wanting more restrictions on ownership. We put practical, realistic ideas out there. Where are yours? Be specific now, we were.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell