What kind of gun control would you propose?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

I have often wondered what the people who want to enact more gun control legislation would propose if they had an opportunity to propose such legislation.

David

[bbinacan]

1. That question is a loaded gun.

Pun intended. :evilgrin: :smoke: :popcorn:

[iverglas]

how about some post control?

There are about 4 current threads in this forum with essentially the same opening post.

For what reason would you need one of your very own?

Why would anybody bother answering when the answers are ignored?

Oh look -- there's one now ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=170607&mesg_id=170803

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. Interesting that you choose not to post.

I figured as much. Would have bet a paycheck on it?

David

[iverglas]

8. the world is so full of such interesting things

Like the fact that you have apparently replied to a post that doesn't exist.

And the fact that the post in which I answered your question before you asked it -- with links to half a dozen posts dating from 2.5 years ago in which I answered the same question -- has been acknowledged by NO ONE, including yourself. Notwithstanding how fascinated with all posts moi you otherwise are.

I find that last bit really very interesting.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. It was too long.

I have ADD and my medication is wearing off.

David

[iverglas]

12. Oh. Alrighty then.

You ask a question but you only want the answers you want.


Here ya go:

common sense gun control
reasonable gun control
sensible gun control


Anything to make you happy.

Have a picnic, now.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. OK Just finished.

regulations requiring safe/secure storage of firearms
legislation requiring licensing of individuals seeking to acquire/possess firearms
legislation requiring registration of firearms ownership/transfers

You forgot a total ban on handguns.

Little late for a picnic.

David

[iverglas]

15. you what now?

You forgot a total ban on handguns.

You seem to have managed to see that in the post in question.

So what you're saying here ... well look, I seem to have the flu, been real stupid-like all day, and I'm afraid I'm just not up to deciphering much more of this. So don't mind me, I'll just wander off in confusion again.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. Straight from the horses post.

Oh, and strict controls on acquisition and possession of handguns, the criminal/murderer's weapon of choice. Preferably no acquisition and possession of handguns.


Did you not write that?

David

[iverglas]

29. and straight from the post of yours to which I was replying:

You forgot a total ban on handguns.

You did not write that?

Since I did not "forget" any such thing -- I stated it in the post to which you are referring, and you acknowledged that in your reply to that post -- why would you say here that I "forgot" it?

Perhaps I should point out that before a couple of years ago I had not settled on the position that handgun possession should be prohibited. I did, following the multiple thefts of large numbers of handguns and other restricted firearms from "collectors" in Canada and the crimes and killings in which the stolen handguns were used.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. You failed to list it in Post #12.

That's why I thought you forgot it. Just didn't want anyone else with ADD to miss your position on things.

David

[iverglas]

36. jeezus christ it is beyond belief

Post 12 was SARCASM.

You were only going to be happy if you got the answers you wanted, so I gave you the answers you wanted. The straw soldier for you to slay.

They have absolutely nothing to do with any words that come out of my own keyboard.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. I just wanted to point out what you thought was reasonable.

I've got no problem with your United States wish list.

DAvid

[Mitt Chovick]

2. I propose using both hands

Thank you, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.:rofl:

[spin]

20. Interesting footnote:

Two handed shooting with handguns is a fairly recent development.

The excitement and challenge of wide open competition was what led Jack Weaver to develop the Weaver Stance, with the sole purpose of winning Jeff Cooper's "Leatherslap" competition in Big Bear, California. In Cooper's own words, "It began in 1956 at Big Bear when I set up the first Leatherslap. As far as I know, it was the first match of its kind held anywhere in the world. It was unrestricted as to technique, as to weapon, as to caliber, as to holster, as to profession. It was a straight quick-draw match — just draw and hit a target at seven yards."

At that time everyone shot from the hip or one-handed from the shoulder, which is a loosely defined style know as "point shooting." This worked well on television, but in real life competition things are different. According to Jack, sometimes "what started out as serious business soon produced gales of laughter from the spectators as most of the shooters blazed away…" Then "with guns empty and all 12 rounds gone but the 18 inch balloons still standing, they had a problem: load one round and take aim or load six and blaze away again."

By the time the 1959 Leatherslap rolled around Jack had realized that "a pretty quick hit was better than a lightening-fast miss," and decided to bring the pistol up using both hands and actually aim it rather than simply point and shoot. Quoting Cooper again, "Jack walloped us all — and decisively — using a six inch Smith K-38. He was very quick and he did not miss. And, of course, he shot from the Weaver Stance, which was, and is, the way to go."
http://weaverstance.com/history.htm

“The fascination of shooting as a sport depends almost wholly on whether you are at the right or wrong end of the gun.”
P. G. Wodehouse

[iamahaingttta]

3. How'z about we keep it simple...

Anybody who commits a crime with a gun goes away for a very long time.
Anybody who kills someone with a gun goes away forever.

Does it really need to be any more complicated than that?

[iverglas]

9. well, I think you need to add a bit

Anybody who commits a crime with a gun goes away for a very long time.
Anybody who kills someone with a gun goes away forever.

And anybody who gets killed with a gun rises from the dead after three days.


If we don't include that, I have to wonder what your goal is.

To punish people who do naughty things?

Pretty low goal to aspire to, to my mind.

[gorfle]

18. Why?

Anybody who commits a crime with a gun goes away for a very long time.
Anybody who kills someone with a gun goes away forever.

And anybody who gets killed with a gun rises from the dead after three days.


If we don't include that, I have to wonder what your goal is.

To punish people who do naughty things?

Pretty low goal to aspire to, to my mind.

The simple fact is, we can't yet raise people from the dead. We can punish people and make examples of them so as to deter future crime. The whole purpose of punishment, in my view, is deterrence. That is the goal. But I think you knew that.

[iverglas]

31. what I know

We can punish people and make examples of them so as to deter future crime. The whole purpose of punishment, in my view, is deterrence. That is the goal. But I think you knew that.

I've actually published on the subject of sentencing, something you wouldn't know.

And I've studied the subject academically and in my work.

And I know exactly how effective individual punishment is as a general deterrent. I.e.: not very. It doesn't even work well when the punishment is death, and it didn't work well when the punishment was cutting off hands or stoning or being banished to Tasmania. If it worked, you'd think we'd have seen some evidence by now.

I also know that there are a lot of people who just love the idea of punishing bad guys, and hang their hat on the general deterrence theory even though they have never lifted a finger to investigate whether there is any sound basis for their fervent belief that if they just punish enough people hard enough, they'll fix crime.

You'd think they could just look around them and get a clue, wouldn't you?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. The goal would be to reduce crime and future instances of violence.

Not a difficult concept.

David

[iamahaingttta]

27. I just have no idea what this means.

Rises from the dead?
Huh?

Yeah, we should punish people who do naughty things.
And not punish people who are doing nothing wrong.

Not that complicated...

[old mark]

24. How about if they kill someone...

...with a knife?
a baseball bat?

should they get a lesser sentence than if they had used a gun?

mark

[iamahaingttta]

28. Who said anything about knives?

"should they get a lesser sentence than if they had used a gun?"

I don't know. What do you think?
I think a murder is a murder.

[onehandle]

4. License guns and gun owners like automobiles and drivers.

Every gun and gun owner should be registered.

Legal gun owners would have nothing to fear.

[razors edge]

7. What will that accomplish?

How does a list stop crime?

[iverglas]

10. what thrill do people here get

from making themselves look ridiculous and thick as two planks?

If you actually are so completely ignorant of the theory and practice of crime prevention, what could possibly prompt you to want to display that ignorance so publicly?

[razors edge]

13. Indulge me your braininess.

If you can.

Cars are licensed, and they never get stolen, right Einstein?

[iverglas]

16. phew

More, please.

If I collect enough, I may be able to get them published somewhere.

[razors edge]

21. Not if people keep ignoring you

the way you claimed up thread.

I took the time to peruse your link, not really impressed with the cookie cutter solutions to an issue of this size. You represent your side with conviction, I can admire that, but it won't solve the crime problems involving guns.

If people wanted to transfer a handgun, and had to perform and wait for a background check on the buyer, and then the next step in all that is the inevitable tax on the transaction as well as fees, I think most would just sell the gun and report it stolen. Not everyone likes having the government involved in their business, so they just won't do it.

So how do you get around all that, put crime victims in jail for having their guns stolen?

The whole idea of confiscation is a non issue, unless you want a blood bath in the streets. Who would enforce it? The police are not that stupid, they don't get paid well enough to die in a civil war for ideals they don't support.

Gun crime is a terrible thing, worse in America than other countries with similar conditions. Registering a law abiding citizen won't change that, since it goes deeper than the guns.

Until we get Tom Cruise and his wonderful group Scientology to show us how to pick out the thought criminals, lock and load. (I would bet you already are)

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

34. my, you're a charming fellow

You're right. If public safety cannot be ensured by permitting people to possess certain firearms subject to conditions (whether because the conditions are never adequate for the purpose or because it proves impossible to secure compliance with them), the only way to protect the public may be to cease permitting people to possess them.
Your words not mine dumb fuck. Shit is not wit, you have been weighed, measured, and found lacking.


You're so very clever that you ... uh ... neglected to notice that I was referring to the situation in Canada.

You ... uh ... neglect to mention that I also said this:

Oh, and strict controls on acquisition and possession of handguns, the criminal/murderer's weapon of choice. Preferably no acquisition and possession of handguns. Not an easy thing to implement when your country is awash in the bloody things, but the longest journey starts with a single step and all that. And in the meantime, there are always

regulations requiring safe/secure storage of firearms
legislation requiring licensing of individuals seeking to acquire/possess firearms
legislation requiring registration of firearms ownership/transfers


I have no idea how one would go about eliminating handguns in the hands of members of the public in the US. I've never proposed that it be done.

So, now, what did you think you were proving by copying and pasting those words of mine?

And just by the way, what point did you hope to make by referring to me as "dumb fuck", thus ensuring that your words will no longer be available to the reading public?


BTW the German's were a very public spirited sort back in the day, you would have fit in quite nicely.

And calling me a Nazi ... dang, now that's wit.


If you are so concerned about a gun owner breaking a law that deprives the state of resources they do not now receive, why don't you spend your time going after the corporate crooks off shoring their profits, and leave the law abiding citizens the hell alone.

Now if that made a stitch of sense ...

"If you are so concerned about a gun owner breaking a law that deprives the state of resources they do not now receive" -- okay, I'm not. I mean, I am, so I'll consider your advice. In this particular instance, I'm concerned about the transfer of firearms into the hands of people not eligible to possess them. Settles that, I guess.

[razors edge]

38. If you don't like like the rhetoric

then perhaps you should stop the holier than thou shit you started off with.


"what thrill do people here get from making themselves look ridiculous and thick as two planks?

If you actually are so completely ignorant of the theory and practice of crime prevention, what could possibly prompt you to want to display that ignorance so publicly?"


You started out on the offensive and I let it slide, for a while. But you never answered the question and implied there was a benefit, but you could not demonstrate it. Also, you have not presented one single solution to the problem, only wish lists and derogatory responses.

Also when you claim you never advocated confiscation, and then got caught doing just that, your reply is that I didn't notice that you were referring to Canada? Whats the difference, please explain, do you advocate a solution for Canada that you feel is totally unfit for the US to implement? That dog ain't hunting.

And no, I didn't call you a Nazi, I inferred you would have been a "good German", two totally different things. Look it up.

So here we are, you have stated you feel all hand guns should be off the street, you have admitted you haven't a clue how to get the hand guns off the street, you have insulted me repeatedly and are no closer to achieving your aims than before.

I have shown you how paperwork is ineffectual, and the criminalization of the law abiding citizen is fruitless, if not criminal in and of it's self. So what really gets me is, you have completely ignored asking me how I would achieve the goal you admit you cannot, simply because I don't agree with your position to begin with.

That is what I call cutting your nose of to spite your face my friend.

[gorfle]

19. What legal gun owners fear.

License guns and gun owners like automobiles and drivers.

First of all, in most states, firearms are already licensed and registered like cars. If you want to operate them in public, you need a license and registration. If you want to use them on private property, you do not need a license or registration.

Every gun and gun owner should be registered.

Legal gun owners would have nothing to fear.

Here is what I fear: Our founding fathers intended that The People be the primary body of armed men in our country, to either eliminate or counter federal military power. They did this out of fear of an overly-powerful federal government that might otherwise become corrupt and attempt to oppress its people.

By keeping a federal record of all firearm owners you make it a simple matter for the government to quickly confiscate firearms and check for compliance. I believe such registration is dangerous and is a precursor to confiscation. I have vowed that registration is my "line in the sand" that I will not cross. I will never comply with firearm registration.

[bossy22]

23. ehhh.....

"Legal gun owners would have nothing to fear"- ehh...bad precedent

you can use this to back up getting rid of the 4th amendment- if you have nothing to hide why are you worried?

[old mark]

25. "you have nothing to fear."...

Sounds too much like "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you".

When we legally have guns only in the hands of law enforcement and the military, there will still be guns in the hands of criminals, just not in the hands of honest people.
Stalin enforced strict gun control, as did Hitler.

mark

[bossy22]

26. i dont fear that

as much as i could see an administration using the same logic to get rid of other amendments- sort of like this admin right now

[slackmaster]

35. That would be great!

With a gun license I could carry a gun in public in all 50 states.

[Ian David]

5. I'd be for complete removal of ALL gun control laws once the metal detectors in Congress are gone.nt