• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gun Control

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
wrightme wrote:
In this case, you are simply being obtuse because you can,
Not even close. I'm separating fact (no on really knows, let alone has proven) from opinion (what everyone thinks they know).
That just doesn't make sense. What did you intend to say?

"Fact" is by definition something the people know, and that has been proven.

"Opinion" is just what one person thinks.
What differentiation did you intend to state?


If the definitions give you trouble, I provide for your education the following:

Fact
–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.
Opinion
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Now that we have definitions out of the way, on to the topic at hand.

AWDstylez wrote:
Walleye wrote:
deepdiver wrote:
While I obviously don't agree with most of the column, at least he is thinking about the fact that gun control doesn't work. For NJ that is a pretty enlightened thought process.
I don't think he's saying gun control doesn't work, I think he's saying gun control is already there and more legislation is just a feel good measure.

I get the impression he still thinks guns should be banned and that is the only law that needs to be on the books.
He clearly states what is he is for:
"Now, truth be told, a certain amount of gun control is warranted. There should be waiting periods, required training, and careful checks on who buys handguns. All these impress upon law-abiding citizens the responsibilities involved in owning firearms."



Just so happens to be the same things I'm for and for the exact same reason. He then mentions law biding citizens owning firearms, so how you could come up with him as being for a total ban is baffling.
I see no supporting data, and I conclude that the enlarged bold statement is the opinion of the author. In my opinion, it is not the case. Such regulations merely cause delay and difficulty for a law-abiding person. A criminal will circumvent such regulations, and get a firearm in spite of them.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

wrightme wrote:
That just doesn't make sense. What did you intend to say?


Honestly man, just GTFO with your neverending lack of reading comprehension. Learn to understand the written word or except your plate of fail with a smile.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
wrightme wrote:
That just doesn't make sense. What did you intend to say?


Honestly man, just GTFO with your neverending lack of reading comprehension. Learn to understand the written word or except your plate of fail with a smile.
Honestly man, can't you complete one discussion without getting rude?

"except a plate of fail?" That has "fail" written all over it. Did you actually intend to write: "Accept your plate...."? :lol:


AWDstylez wrote:
wrightme wrote:
In this case, you are simply being obtuse because you can,
Not even close. I'm separating fact (no on really knows, let alone has proven) from opinion (what everyone thinks they know).
To you, is FACT really "no on really knows, let alone has proven"? What does "no on really knows" mean, anyway? :quirky


I comprehend fine. The statement you made does not make sense.

Now, back to the topic at hand. Have you come up with a response to my opinion on the opinion presented by the OP?
 

unreconstructed1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
695
Location
Tennessee, ,
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
You haven't been around for awhile, andbelieve itor not I like you,so I'll give you the heads up,we've been down this road already.

There is no way, other thanjust spouting opinion, for you to prove that the second amendment is unlimited or to define what constitutes "infringement." Go read Heller. No right is unlimited and placing limitations does not necessarily constitute infringement on what is a very vague and general "right."

Union gets slow in the Winter, Internet was low on the priority list...

anyway, honestly AWD, I'm not trying to argue the scope of the 2A, but rather the constitution as a whole.

regardless of what Heller, Miller, Plessy, or any other 2A supreme court decision, the constitution itself is very clear regarding federal authority. as for proving my "opinion" I already did in the rest of my last post. the Constitution clearly states that any authority not expressly given to the FED within the constitution is reserved to the States. the only mention of RTKBA in the constitution is the second ammendment.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
You haven't been around for awhile, andbelieve itor not I like you,so I'll give you the heads up,we've been down this road already.

There is no way, other thanjust spouting opinion, for you to prove that the second amendment is unlimited or to define what constitutes "infringement." Go read Heller. No right is unlimited and placing limitations does not necessarily constitute infringement on what is a very vague and general "right."

Union gets slow in the Winter, Internet was low on the priority list...

anyway, honestly AWD, I'm not trying to argue the scope of the 2A, but rather the constitution as a whole.

regardless of what Heller, Miller, Plessy, or any other 2A supreme court decision, the constitution itself is very clear regarding federal authority. as for proving my "opinion" I already did in the rest of my last post. the Constitution clearly states that any authority not expressly given to the FED within the constitution is reserved to the States. the only mention of RTKBA in the constitution is the second ammendment.



Ok that's understandable. I'm all for less Fed power and more state power, that way if I don't like the rules I can easily move.
 

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
Gordie wrote:
No, they serve as hurdles to law abiding citizens, and do nothing to stop criminals.

Prove it.

The CDC, among others, already has. They found NO conclusive proof that any gun control measures have an affect on violent crime.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Here isan article on the results of the study.

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/K/4/pub4475.html







CDC Report on Gun Control Confirms Laws Don't Work Says Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

10/3/2003

From: Alan Gottlieb or Joe Waldron, 425-454-4911, both of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

BELLEVUE, Wash., Oct. 3 -- A report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showing that there is no conclusive evidence that gun control laws contribute to decreases in violent crime or suicide "proves what we have been saying for years," the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today.

"For years," said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron, "anti-gun groups, often citing the CDC's earlier biased research, had claimed more gun laws will reduce violent crime and suicide. CDC stopped conducting advocacy research in 1996 by order of Congress. Now, according to more balanced research, the CDC is basically acknowledging that its earlier efforts, and those of extremist gun grabbers, have been all wet."

Yet the CDC, evidently unhappy with the available research, wants to study the issue more, arguing that there is "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence." Waldron rejected that as more partisan politics.

"Because the CDC could not reach yet another anti-gun conclusion," he said, "they want to study some more, at least until they come up with a report that squared with their long-standing anti-gun agenda. That doesn't wash. For the first time, CDC has had to acknowledge that gun control doesn't work."

The report brought an incredulous comment from Peter Hamm with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: "It's hard to study whether gun control laws work in this country because we have so few of them."

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb offered this blistering response: "Hamm is half-baked. Gun ownership in this country is heavily regulated by a Pandora's Box of federal, state and local gun laws, many which often conflict with one another to the point that private citizens cannot know whether they are obeying a law while breaking another. The CDC report seems to confirm what we've been saying all along. Gun control laws have no impact on criminals, only law-abiding citizens who don't commit crimes. To suggest we need more laws when the ones already passed as successive panaceas apparently haven't worked is ludicrous.

"The CDC's suggestion for additional studies, simply because they don't like the results of their own research, is like treating a patient with drugs that you know aren't working, so you give him more of the same drugs," Gottlieb observed.

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

Herea couplemore reports on the study.

http://100777.com/node/516

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wheeler200310220911.asp

Now, your turn, show a peer reviewed study that proves gun control measures work to reduce violent crime or even help impress how serious theresponsibility of gun ownership is.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Gordie wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
Gordie wrote:
No, they serve as hurdles to law abiding citizens, and do nothing to stop criminals.

Prove it.

The CDC, among others, already has. They found NO conclusive proof that any gun control measures have an affect on violent crime.


That's not what I asked. Let's try again.



AWDstylez wrote:
"Now, truth be told, a certain amount of gun control is warranted. There should be waiting periods, required training, and careful checks on who buys handguns. All these impress upon law-abiding citizens the responsibilities involved in owning firearms."



You say they don't.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
Gordie wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
Gordie wrote:
No, they serve as hurdles to law abiding citizens, and do nothing to stop criminals.

Prove it.

The CDC, among others, already has. They found NO conclusive proof that any gun control measures have an affect on violent crime.


That's not what I asked. Let's try again.



AWDstylez wrote:
"Now, truth be told, a certain amount of gun control is warranted. There should be waiting periods, required training, and careful checks on who buys handguns. All these impress upon law-abiding citizens the responsibilities involved in owning firearms."



You say they don't.

You say they do. How can you (or the author of the OP article) know how law-abiding citizens react to the "waiting periods, required training, and careful checks on who buys handguns?"

THIS law-abiding citizen recognizes them as stumbling blocks that do not provide the intent of the regulations.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

wrightme wrote:
THIS law-abiding citizen recognizes them as stumbling blocks that do not provide the intent of the regulations.



And anyone cares what you think, why? Much like licensing of driving, raise the standards and it raises peoples' responsibility. Compare American licensing requirements (an absolute joke) vs, say, German requirements (borderline excessive) andaccident fatality statistics between the two countries. The more difficult and expensive it is for people to acquire something, the more respect they treat it with and the more responsibility it encourages. It's simple human nature. Things difficult to attain are given more value.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
wrightme wrote:
THIS law-abiding citizen recognizes them as stumbling blocks that do not provide the intent of the regulations.



And anyone cares what you think, why? Much like licensing of driving, raise the standards and it raises peoples' responsibility. Compare American licensing requirements (an absolute joke) vs, say, German requirements (borderline excessive) andaccident fatality statistics between the two countries. The more difficult and expensive it is for people to acquire something, the more respect they treat it with and the more responsibility it encourages. It's simple human nature. Things difficult to attain are given more value.
Because I am one of those affected by the stumbling blocks. You are subjectively viewing the issue. That does not equate to evaluating it objectively for cause-effect. Neither you, nor the OP author know how each person affected (or even how a majority) thinks about the rules that are in place. To attempt to do so as you and the OP author do is false.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

wrightme wrote:
To attempt to do so as you and the OP author do is false.



Uh... umm... yea... not quite. Here, try again.


The more difficult and expensive it is for people to acquire something, the more respect they treat it with and the more responsibility it encourages. It's simple human nature. Things difficult to attain are given more value.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
wrightme wrote:
To attempt to do so as you and the OP author do is false.



Uh... umm... yea... not quite. Here, try again.


The more difficult and expensive it is for people to acquire something, the more respect they treat it with and the more responsibility it encourages. It's simple human nature. Things difficult to attain are given more value.
That is your opinion of the value placement based upon the requirements for firearms purchase. It is not the value placed on such requirements by all. It is an opinion.
 

buster81

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
The more difficult and expensive it is for people to acquire something, the more respect they treat it with and the more responsibility it encourages. It's simple human nature. Things difficult to attain are given more value.
So, by your theory,if you were subjected to an in depth interrogation by the State Police, FBI, and BATF before you were allowed to apply for a permit to buy a gun, then you had to wait90 daysand were required to take$2500 dollars worth of training, before you were allowed to pick it up, you would really, really, really value your gun?

Doesn't sound right to me.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

buster81 wrote:
So, by your theory,if you were subjected to an in depth interrogation by the State Police, FBI, and BATF before you were allowed to apply for a permit to buy a gun, then you had to wait90 daysand were required to take$2500 dollars worth of training, before you were allowed to pick it up, you would really, really, really value your gun?

Doesn't sound right to me.



What world do you live in?


What are you more likely to risk losing, something that was handed to you free or something that you have time and money invested in?

Driver's licenses in many European countries cost thousands of dollars and take extensive training to obtain. In contrast, any idiot 16 year old in the US that can drive around a city block without killing anyone can get their license for <$100. I'll let you guess where vastly more accidents and fatalities take place.
 
Top