Ask Me Help Desk - Gun Control

Gun Control

Hello:

The killer we've been talking about was subdued AFTER he emptied his magazine and before he could insert another. He was using 30 round clips. THOSE clips were illegal under the Assault Weapons Ban that EXPIRED under Bush and was not reinstated.

If it HAD been reinstated, the killer we've been talking about would only have been able to get 10 shots off before he would have been subdued. 20 shots would NOT have been fired. People would be alive who aren't alive now... Maybe the 9 year old girl would be one of them..

excon

The gun used was also banned under the assault weapons ban.
The NRA influences lawmakers from both parties.
Are you now an advocate of gun control or is this an opportunistic bash of Bush... Do You now FAVOR assault weapons bans?

By the way... States are free to ban them if they choose. NY does. In Arizona you don't need a permit to conceal.

Oh yeah... and a bill to reinstate and expand the assault weapon ban has been stuck in Committee since June 2008 . It was introduced by Republican Mark Kirk and never made it to the floor of the DEMOCRAT led Congress .(H.R. 6257)

Pure conjecture on your part of course. Who's to say whether under such a restrction he might have brought two guns instead of one? Or even if he only had one with 10 rounds perhaps the stunned bystanders wouldn't have reacted quickly enough to subdue hime while he was changing the magazine after only 10 shots? We'll never know. Having said that - I do agree with you. I see no rational use of a 30 round magazine for either self defense or sporting purposes.

I am happy to say I do not support gun control. That said, I do support reasonable regulation. Banned or not, a trip to mexico would get him whatever he wanted and being in AZ that's not a long trip.

I heard a discussion yesterday that if this had been a republican congressperson and gathering, perhaps more people would have been armed and the shooter might have only gotten off a few rounds.

Also, selling weapons to a mentally ill person is prohibited (maybe he wasn't ill before the shooting?).

I just disagree with the whole concept of someone who is going to commit a crime will chose to obey the gun control laws while breaking other laws.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Are you now an advocate of gun control or is this an opportunistic bash on Bush?

Hello tom:

I knew your knee would jerk. Read the OP again.. I don't say one way or the other whether I support gun control.. I just asked the question that needed asking.

You know what I think. An armed society is a POLITE society.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebaines

I do agree with you. I see no rational use of a 30 round magazine for either self defense or sporting purposes.

Hello again, ebaines:

And, I AGREE with you... The key word, however, is "rational". If only that damned Constitution made the same distinction.

excon

Good... because I was going to talk about the person in 2005 who was hell bent on mass murder in California . He deliberately parked his gasoline-drenched SUV on railroad tracks. 11 were killed and 180 injured. He didn't use a gun. The national press under reported it.

Thoughts on mental illness:
Just as gun owners run the gamut, so does mental illness. Both have small groups way out on the edge of the bell curve. Most mentally ill are merely struggling to function, not plot evil doings while functioning reasonably well out and about in society. Psychopaths and sociopaths may be classed as mentally ill, along with child molesters, but they should be in a special category. They often don't exhibit need for help before they snap. So what can be done? Throw everybody who gets kicked out of school for disrupting classes into mental hospitals?

There are just some dangers in life. We can't protect all of us from everything that might happen.

(I am for the right to bear arms and against various assault guns and don't understand the arguments that the lines are somehow fuzzy between types of guns.)

I guess I ask why name Bush,? If it was not for political reaction or a anti Bush slur, why not say it was done by a democratic congress during his time in office.

But I will agree and disagree, the weapons and clips were available in gun shops everywhere, the ones producd prior to the ban or at any shop where you know someone.

Plans to convert semi auto to full auto are everywhere you look on the internet, and there are sites to buy "upgrade" with instructions of what you are not allowed to do, that would make it auto.

If he had used a two handguns with a 15 shot clip, there is not a lot of difference, I think we can be glad he did not look up on the interent how to make a dozen different bombs from household items or from gun powder. He could have killed a lot more with a few bombs. That can be purchased without any controls ( the parts )

A nut case is always going to be able to kill another person, if they are willing to die over it. *** and I guess that is a question why he is not dead, and where were the police at this, do congress people not have at least some police body guards when they are out in public

Well ex it seems that sometimes good laws are thrown out just because they don't have the right colour, now it's a pity they didn't have the same attitude towards the Bush tax cuts, eh? What you might find is the laws they enact this time might be more stringent and permanent. What will you gun lobby do then?

Hello:

I only mention Bush to show that the rescission of the law was recent... I didn't mean it as a slam against George W. Bush... Honest.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

You know what I think. An armed society is a POLITE society.

excon

But this doesn't actually seem to be the case..?.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skell

But this doesn't actually seem to be the case.?.?.

And you have evidence of this, where ex? I support Skell there is no indication that guns equate to politeness but there seems to be correlation between guns in a society and violence

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

and you have evidence of this, where ex?

Hello clete:

I don't know about you, but when I see somebody is armed, I don't want to piss him off. You might do something else, so in your case, I could be wrong.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello clete:

I dunno about you, but when I see somebody is armed, I don't wanna piss him off. You might do something else, so in your case, I could be wrong.

excon

Well you see, Ex, I rarely see anyone who is armed excepting a police officer and as a law abiding citizen he has no reason to be interested in me. Last guy who approached me armed I took his gun off him but that was many years ago. This is a society that has demonstrated guns are not necessary to live peacefully with your neighbours

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

I dunno about you, but when I see somebody is armed, I don't wanna piss him off.

That's not a polite society, that's a society that lives in fear and you are correct that it represents the US perfectly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

That's not a polite society, that's a society that lives in fear and you are correct that it represents the US perfectly.

This isn't even close to the truth. Its about slowing down and thinking. So someone doesn't act irresponsibly. Yes we have states with liberal gun laws and others that have much stricter laws. The ones with the more restrictive laws tend to be more violent. Go figure. Gang members have guns and they are banned by law to not own them. Its not about the guns but the responsibility of those that carry them. In states the changed their laws and went to more liberal gun laws the crime rates dropped. In states where carry permits can be had fairly easily gun crimes aren't near as bad as in places where gun banning is popular. The only thing I would like to see is that those that have permits to carry also should have the responsibility of proving they know how to use it. And that should be an ongoing thing. Not just like a drivers license where you get automatic renewal.

Its not about magazine size its about shooting and hitting. And if someone is intent on it they are going to do it without much stopping them at the onset. Look at the paralells of the other shooter recently in the news. The one that wanted suicide by police. He shot point blank and didn't hit a single person?? Im glad for that but you can see the dramatic difference. It's a tragidy anytime a life is lost. But with freedom comes responsibility. Its not the "old west" in the U.S.

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

This isnt even close to the truth.

Actually it is. I am of course replying to excon's description of "polite". You went off on a tangent somewhere.

Here is the complete Heinlein quote :
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life

Makes sense to me.

I guess we have different views on life. I like good manners for the sake of good manners, I don't do it because my life is at stake every time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Here is the complete Heinlein quote :
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life

Makes sense to me.

Hi Tom,

A rather poor defense of individual rights. Negative liberty means freedom is just about guaranteed if people are fearful enough.

The point I raised in an earlier post was that liberty doesn't work for people who won't or can't take responsibility for their actions. Your reply was, "There is a presumption of a civil society other than that there are laws to cover the few." This is not quite right (in my view).

The presumption actually is that rights existed prior to there being a civil society. I have always found this to be a rather odd concept. How can there be rights prior to there being a civil society to give individuals their rights? The laws to cover the few are obviously inadequate when the cost of their actions so obviously disproportional.

Regards

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

A rather poor defense of individual rights. Negative liberty means freedom is just about guaranteed if people are fearful enough.

Hello T:

What you say is true. It would be nice if, on our own, we recognized peoples rights, and governments didn't have to codify them... But, that world doesn't exist. So, for those who are less than fairminded, we write them down.

excon

Quote:

The presumption actually is that rights existed prior to there being a civil society. I have always found this to be a rather odd concept. How can there be rights prior to there being a civil society to give individuals their rights?

Tut
I disagree... 'positive rights' do not exist until there is a social contract. The social contract itself implies that there is a surrender of some rights for the 'common good'.Police protection ,Armies etc. are services that the people decide are needed.
Are you saying that there is a presumption that government will define and guarantee freedoms ? Sadly that is not the history of human governance... Democracies and individual freedoms are relatively new concepts... and if you look at the world today,the exception. The writing of a bill of rights is to protect the people from the government... Not to codify the rights government thinks you should have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Tut
I disagree ...'positive rights' do not exist until there is a social contract. The social contract itself implies that there is a surrender of some rights for the 'common good'.Police protection ,Armies etc. are services that the people decide are needed.
Are you saying that there is a presumption that government will define and guarantee freedoms ? The writing of a bill of rights is to protect the people from the government .... Not to codify the rights government thinks you should have.

Sorry Tom, I mean negative liberty.

I should have said "The presumption is that negative liberty existed prior to their being a civil society.

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

Sorry Tom, I mean negative liberty.

I should have said "The presumption is that negative liberty existed prior to their being a civil society.

Tut

Quote:

How can there be rights prior to there being a civil society to give individuals their rights?

I'm a John Locke kind of guy. Divine rights are not given to the sovereignty .They are the individuals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'm a John Locke kinda guy. Divine rights are not given to the sovereignty .They are the individuals.

Hi Tom,

Yes, most Americans are ( whether they realize it or not). His contribution is obviously very significant. Locke tried to show that men can live amicably together without submitting to an absolute authority (as you point out). Naturally, this state of affairs can be attained through government by law. Hobbes on the other hand would say that divine rights are given to the sovereign ( from what you say you are not a supporter of Hobbes). Hobbes' position is in direct contrast to Locke. Hobbes says that men cannot live in a society dictated by fear and suspicion. In my view 'a polite society' is a Hobbesian society.

The point I was trying to make was the idea of 'natural rights', i.e.. rights that men enjoyed prior to their being a civil society. As I said before I find it odd that such rights could have existed prior to there being a government and a system of law to grant and uphold these rights.

So you're a Levithian kind of guy ? Should we then rely on the benevolent ruler to determine which rights we are entitled to... even if the benevolent ruler is subject to the popular franchise from time to time ?

Back to Locke... Under the assumption that the right to be secure in life and possessions is a right either naturally or as part of the civil society ,then how could the right to self defense be denied ? Should we be sheeple hoping that the authorities arrive in time to secure our safety for us ?
Look... I think the civil society has a vested interest in knowing who owns guns ,and to screen gun ownership to keep them out of the hands of those who have served notice to civil society that they cannot be trusted to be responsible owners .So I am not an absolutist on this issue .
But ,an out right prohibition of the right to own guns I could never go along with.
As the founders properly noted ,the individual's right to self defense is not only against the individual thug. It is also for self defense against the Levithian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

so you're a Levithian kinda guy ? Should we then rely on the benevolent ruler to determine which rights we are entitled to ...even if the benevolent ruler is subject to the popular franchise from time to time ?

Back to Locke...Under the assumption that the right to be secure in life and posessions is a right either naturally or as part of the civil society ,then how could the right to self defense be denied ? Should we be sheeple hoping that the authorities arrive in time to secure our safety for us ?
Look ...I think the civil society has a vested interest in knowing who owns guns ,and to screen gun ownership to keep them out of the hands of those who have served notice to civil society that they cannot be trusted to be responsible owners .So I am not an absolutist on this issue .
But ,an out right prohibition of the right to own guns I could never go along with.
As the founders properly noted ,the individual's right to self defense is not only against the individual thug. It is also for self defense against the Levithian.

Hi Tom,

No, I'm not 'a Leviathan type of guy'. No one takes Hobbes seriously except when it comes to self defense. Yes, Locke had strong view on self defense as did Hobbes. In fact they held more or less the same view. Similar to the view you put forward. Unfortunately, Hobbes and a long term vision of the consequences of self defense. No doubt because he lived in a time where the climate of fear and loathing was the norm. He had an opportunity to think through the long term consequences for a society, for what every reason, decided continued along this path.

By the way a I definitely don't support prohibition of guns. It hasn't worked for anything in the past and it won't for for anything in the future.

Hello again:

If a liberal asks you why you NEED an extended clip, tell him you don't NEED it, any more than he needs HIS civil rights. I mean, who NEEDS free speech?

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

If a liberal asks you why you NEED an extended clip, tell him you don't NEED it, any more than he needs HIS civil rights. I mean, who NEEDS free speech?

excon

'Unfettered free speech and unfettered self-defense' My point exactly.