PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it? (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/549775-usa-gun-thread-wont-controversial-will.html)

PTT 30th Oct 2014 18:09


Would someone point out exactly how better training, licensing would actually, you know, reduce murder and mayhem using firearms?
Instilling a healthy respect of weapons means accidents are far less likely to happen, including those accidents involving leaving guns lying around.

The problem isn't fixable by laws; it's only fixable by people being more responsible and the consequences of misuse being understood.
A law mandating training is exactly what this would achieve.

I grew up around guns; was taught well and responsibility was demanded by both parents.
Good for you. Not everyone's parents are that responsible.

con-pilot 30th Oct 2014 18:36

John


Hardly likely as NZ is one of the most socialist countries in this world.
But for how long, how long has New Zealand been ruled by Socialist and just how much longer will New Zealand be ruled and controlled by Socialists?

The first one is easy to answer, the last not so much. Sooner or later all parties in power fade away. Therefore it is in the realm of possibilities that any Socialist ideology parties could be banned in New Zealand.

We have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect all Parties and the Rights of the people, including the Second Amendment, does New Zealand?

I do not know the answer to that last question, so I would really like to know.

Thank you.

421dog 30th Oct 2014 18:39

When I was in high school, for P.E. we had archery with 20-40 lb bows and semi-pointy field-pointed arrows.

When I got to college, there was an on-campus rifle range for .22 and hi-power.

Don't remember anyone ever shooting anyone back then.

con-pilot 30th Oct 2014 18:56


When I was in high school, for P.E. we had archery with 20-40 lb bows and semi-pointy field-pointed arrows.

When I got to college, there was an on-campus rifle range for .22 and hi-power.

Don't remember anyone ever shooting anyone back then.
In high school we had a shooting team. I was not member of it, I was too busy screwing around with aircraft and working to pay to afford screwing around with aircraft. :p

At university there was an indoor shooting range in the ROTC building, where I was really taught how to shoot by a Marine Corp Gunnery Sargent, that at one time was considered the best pistol shooter in the world. He had shelves and trunks full of trophies. Including a gold plated 1911 .45 that had been presented to him by President Eisenhower

He started off teaching me how to shoot a pistol with a .22 target pistol and then finally ending up with the .45*.



* Oh, not the gold plated one.

brickhistory 30th Oct 2014 19:02

Our oh-so-reasonable, mostly anti-gun ppruners want to fix stupid with the state via laws.

Or licensing.

Or banning.

They hold up rocket scientist Jose Conseco as an example of "this could've been prevented."

Sure it could - no finger on the trigger until you, personally, have checked the chamber.

Stupid should hurt.

You cannot legislate away stupid.

You want to punish the law-abiding for the crimes of the evil or the acts of the stupid.

I am agin that.

I have top cover in my country with the Constitution and Second Amendment.

Tough if you don't like that fact. Tough if you want "to debate the matter."

It is not up for debate.

Simply by existing as an American citizen, I have the right to possess a firearm (or several dozen).

No registration, no mandatory licensing, no snap inspections by the police to ensure I am following their rules.

Just me.

And that makes all the difference.

Y'all have a nice day. I'm off to the range.

A nice Walther followed up by a manly 1911, I think today.

PTT 30th Oct 2014 19:27


Stupid should hurt.

You cannot legislate away stupid.
You can make it harder to be that stupid.

You want to punish the law-abiding for the crimes of the evil or the acts of the stupid.
Why would mandated training be a punishment?

It is not up for debate.
Anything is up for debate. You cannot stop us talking about it no matter how much you would like us to.

Y'all have a nice day. I'm off to the range.
Have fun. I genuinely mean that: for someone who possesses a firearm to make regular use of it at a range is a good thing as it can only increase knowledge.

rgbrock1 30th Oct 2014 19:33

Hey brick, I'll be "practicing" with this at the range over the weekend.
Why do I have this? Because I can. :ok:

http://www.firearmsprostore.com/imag...15wreddot2.jpg

brickhistory 30th Oct 2014 19:36

Bump your gums/flex your fingers on pprune as much as you like.

But in the real, practical, world, there is no real debate.

There are constant challenges to the inherent right, but no debate that it exists.

Unless/until the Constitution is amended regarding the Second Amendment, the right is relatively secure.

Lots of petty tyrants will make runs at it, but in the end the grand design of the ideas behind the expressed limitations on government - a man-made construct full of the evils/failures/mistakes of man - will out.

John Hill 30th Oct 2014 19:39


Originally Posted by con-pilot
But for how long, how long has New Zealand been ruled by Socialist and just how much longer will New Zealand be ruled and controlled by Socialists?

About 120 years. The Liberal Party of the 1890s set NZ on the path to a welfare state, workers rights and the breaking up of large land holdings.

New Zealand does not have a single formal constitution and this is what Wiki has to say on the matter


here is no entrenched law that forms the New Zealand constitution. The Constitution Act 1986 and a collection of statutes (Acts of Parliament), the Treaty of Waitangi, Orders in Council, letters patent, decisions of the Courts and unwritten constitutional conventions, comprises only a portion of the uncodified constitution of New Zealand.

New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of government. This system is based on the Westminster system, although that term is increasingly inapt given constitutional developments peculiar to New Zealand. The head of state, the monarch of New Zealand is represented in the Realm of New Zealand by the Governor-General and is the source of executive, judicial and legislative power.

PTT 30th Oct 2014 19:39


in the real, practical, world, there is no real debate.
There is. Nothing that is affected by what we say here, but there certainly is debate. BenThere seems to think the 2nd is under "relentless attack", which certainly suggests that the debate is not only there but it is thriving.

Unless/until the Constitution is amended regarding the Second Amendment, the right is relatively secure.
Or the USSC changes their interpretation of the 2nd :ok:

BOING 30th Oct 2014 19:56

I am in favor of a level of training for firearms ownership but the devil is in the details.

Unfortunately mandated training, although desirable, is used by anti-gun administrators to make firearms possession more difficult. For example, Washington DC, under a court order to permit greater firearms ownership, recently promulgated modified firearms ownership rules that include training. They announced the rules two days before the judge's deadline and as a result there are presently no instructors qualified to teach the course in the area so none of the many hundreds of potential license applicants can take the required class. It is estimated that it will be six months before limited training capability is in place.

Second, there has always been a belief in the US that a "right" should not be impeded by unreasonable taxes or restrictions. Many people see the requirement for training as an impediment to their rights. The situation is considered to be similar to a pole tax or education test levied on voters.

PTT
"Relentless attack" does not necessarily mean that the attackers hold a majority of popular opinion. It has been often demonstrated that the majority of Americans prefer the status quo in honest polls. Ironically, many of the prominent attackers are the very people that surround themselves with multiple armed guards.

Mayor Bloomberg is taking his most trusted NYPD bodyguards with him to the private sector next year — to ensure they don’t spill any of his secrets, law-enforcement sources told The Post.
“He wants them to go with him because they’ve been with him so long and know him personally,” one source said.
“So, he gives them plum jobs to keep their mouths shut.”
The move means the cops will all hit the jackpot — pocketing cushy pensions and new “six-figure salaries” to keep serving the outgoing mayor, whose eponymous business-media empire has made him the seventh-richest person in America.
Bloomberg’s new security team will comprise a current lieutenant and several detectives, all with more than 20 years on the force. They will file for retirement immediately after mayor-elect Bill de Blasio is sworn in on Jan. 1, sources said.
With public salaries of at least $120,000 each, they’ll all get pensions that amount to at least half that much — on top of their pay to keep working for Bloomberg, sources said.
“They’re all getting six-figure salaries,” one source said.
While Bloomberg’s security detail has 17 members, not all will be riding his gravy-train run.
17 members on the security team of a man who recently donated 3.5 mill. to anti-gun efforts.





.

con-pilot 30th Oct 2014 20:10

Thank you John.

PTT 30th Oct 2014 20:28


"Relentless attack" does not necessarily mean that the attackers hold a majority of popular opinion.
I didn't say otherwise. I was merely pointing out that there is a debate contrary to what brick suggested.

421dog 30th Oct 2014 20:45

I am in favor of mandatory testing for firearm ownership just as soon as we mandate a basic level of civic competence and financial independence in order to vote.

Rights are rights, right?

obgraham 30th Oct 2014 20:58

Our Euro-friends (you know who you are!) continue to argue that the problem with the guns in the USA is "accidents". Stupid former doper-athletes blowing off a finger or two. 3-year-olds finding Daddy's loaded bedside PPK.

These are minuscule numbers compared to the willful murders carried out by thugs and criminals. Hundreds every day. Do you think these are all accidents, subject to elimination by regulation of guns?

Rather than a "gun" problem, we have a cultural problem that keeps these people living in an environment where criminality and violence is honored. No amount of rules and regulation will fix that.

Lonewolf_50 30th Oct 2014 21:19


Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose (Post 8720810)
Do you not think a time will naturally come when the opinion of the majority takes precedence?

It already does. The majority supports the Bill of Rights.

Lonewolf_50 30th Oct 2014 21:21


Originally Posted by bcgallacher (Post 8720014)
Lone wolf 50 your right of assembly and freedom of speech took a bit of a beating in the 1950s in the so called MCarthy Era.

And bounced right back in the 60's, with the added bonus of the Civil Rights act being passed. The right of assembly and freedom of speech remain in force, and in place, the latter having been used to make porn more readily accessible. Freedom run amok, eh? This place is crazy!

You lose, buckwheat.

bcgallacher 30th Oct 2014 22:25

Lone wolf - I think you have proved my point, your constitution only guarantees what the interpretation of it permits. Until the Civil Rights acts a large percentage of your population never had the freedoms that the constitution supposedly applied to all. The legally imposed segregation overrode constitutional rights in many states until the position became untenable.

Lonewolf_50 30th Oct 2014 22:31

You can spin it however you like, bc.
That doesn't change the matter of rights, nor that they occasionally need fighting for. By the way, the year is 2014, and other rights seem to be contested, including the 2d amenment rights that are the topic of this thread.
That last underscores the point that our founding fathers made: you really can't trust people in government.

PS, bc:
Your statement of "large percentage" is in fact a falsehood.
The problem was with a minority who got poor treatment, particularly in the case of the Jim Crow laws in a minority of the states. You really should brush up on facts before you go and make assertions. That it needed correcting was an issue that had arisen during WW II, and kept growing as more and more people got onto the Civil Rights bandwagon.

I suggest that you look up some population numbers, learn what a Minority is, why it is called that, and how that term morphed in the past 50 years into a code for "special entitlements" rather than the original issue at hand: a no-kidding minority of the population getting screwed.
The basis for their protest? The Constitution. Funny old dog, that is the basis for our protest against the undue interference of government in our rights to bear arms.

Do you now understand?

Dushan 30th Oct 2014 22:38


Originally Posted by PTT (Post 8720715)
Or the USSC to change its interpretation of the 2nd. :ok:

That's right, when hell freezes over, as I said.

Dushan 30th Oct 2014 22:47


Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose (Post 8720788)

I seem to recall from a previous thread that about 50% of US homes are gun free, if that's the case at what point do you think there will be a sufficient majority of folks in favour of reform.......

The homes are gun free* because the owners chose not to have guns. That does not mean they are against guns and want them banned.

My home is 100% hockey equipment free, however I have no problem with many of my neighbours playing hockey, and having a garage full of hockey equipment.

It's called a choice. Something that the rest of the world seems to be forgetting very fast as they cede more and more control to the government.





* I also question that number because I think a lot of Americans are reluctant to provide this kind of information to people snooping around, especially if they are government snoops.

Dushan 30th Oct 2014 23:05


Originally Posted by PTT (Post 8721218)
You can make it harder to be that stupid.

Why bother? Stupid is as stupid does.

Hempy 30th Oct 2014 23:15

Typical nothing comment from you Dushbag. About all you ever post tbh.

Con-plot, why so defensive? You claim the Constitution protects pollitical affiliation of any kind, that it could 'never happen' that a political view like Socialism could be banned.

The Communist Party WAS banned, no??

finfly1 30th Oct 2014 23:17

"I also question that number because I think a lot of Americans are reluctant to provide this kind of information to people snooping around, especially if they are government snoops. "

IMO this is a most excellent point. Further, the number of US residents who actually trust and believe anything the US government says or does is probably at an all time historic low (and rightly so).

And I would not be surprised if the proportion of people who do NOT trust and believe the government is somewhat higher among gun owners than it is for those who choose not to own guns.

BenThere 30th Oct 2014 23:29

Got under your skin, did he, Hempy?

PTT 30th Oct 2014 23:33


These are minuscule numbers compared to the willful murders carried out by thugs and criminals.
To the people affected it is still too many.

we have a cultural problem that keeps these people living in an environment where criminality and violence is honored. No amount of rules and regulation will fix that.
I don't disagree. That's a separate matter, though.

On whether 50% support stricter gun control or not:
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gal...wro-0hgnya.png
Guns | Gallup Historical Trends

No, really, Americans support gun control - Salon.com

Poll: 92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks | TheHill

Guns

BenThere 30th Oct 2014 23:38

That graph seems to be saying support for stricter gun control has eroded by a third over the last 20 years. That's progress!

Dushan 30th Oct 2014 23:51


Originally Posted by Hempy (Post 8721555)
The Communist Party WAS banned, no??

Guns in DC and Chicago were banned as well, but as soon as the case got to the Supremes they were unbanned, just like the Commies were.

The government keeps trying, but the Constitution says "the rights of the people shall not be infringed". Powerful words.


I nope this counts as "something".

galaxy flyer 31st Oct 2014 00:06

Firearms Training
 
PTT,

I don't disagree that more training might, just MIGHT, have effect on accidental deaths using guns. However, training can't train character, which is responsibility, sober thought about consequences, simple courtesy and respect. Granted, some deaths are the result of simple lack of training, but many are a lack of character, lack of responsibility which cannot be trained.

Look at the lamented case of the instructor shot by the little girl using a machine gun. He was an INSTRUCTOR, for God's sake. He didn't need training, he knew how to safely operate the gun, he lacked the judgement to say, "NO" to the parents and his boss. Knowing right from wrong isn't trained, at least not as an adult.

GF

con-pilot 31st Oct 2014 00:24


The Communist Party WAS banned, no??
Are you having reading comprehension problems? Guess so, therefore, I will type this very slowly.

If it was, I'm really not sure if it was or not I just heard it was, it would have been ruled un-Constitutional.

Because it is un-Constitutional.

Just like making laws against the private ownership of guns. They would be un-Constitutional because of the Second Amendment.

Now, do you even comprehend “un-Constitutional” and the concept of the Supreme Court?

galaxy flyer 31st Oct 2014 00:39

Hempy,

No, it wasn't, don't know where you got that idea. Even in the McCarthy hearings, the American Communist Party wasn't banned.

GF

con-pilot 31st Oct 2014 00:53


No, it wasn't, don't know where you got that idea. Even in the McCarthy hearings, the American Communist Party wasn't banned.
Thank you, I was just getting ready to look that up. As I just posted, I wasn't sure if it was banned or not.

In fact, I think it was my mother that told me it was and one never disagreed with Mother. Not if you knew what was good for you. :\

PTT 31st Oct 2014 01:09

BenThere - indeed that appears to be the case. I wonder if it's more the case that the sides have become polarised and "gun control" equates to "taking the guns away" in many people's heads, which is not necessarily the case.

galaxy flyer - we're getting somewhere if we can get a reduction in accidental shootings.

However, training can't train character, which is responsibility, sober thought about consequences, simple courtesy and respect.
There are a hell of a lot of people who started with poor character and joined the military who demonstrate the falsehood of that statement. Even if you argue that the training only unearthed character which was already there it proves that a lack of apparent character absolutely can be turned around through training, and a decent instructor is able to identify those who need it most very quickly.
I'm not suggesting everyone should go through boot camp, of course, but that a bit of training might well highlight those with issues.
I don't think you can reasonably call an error of judgement by the instructor you mentioned a lack of character. Everyone makes errors: this one happened to be fatal.

BOING 31st Oct 2014 01:19

PTT

Loaded survey questions about gun control are bread and butter for the US press and survey companies - usually with hysterical reports of the results that the conductor of the survey wanted.

They go to a group of people, ask if they would like more measures to reduce gun violence and crime and, voila, get an 84% result in favor, then they report that 84% of the people surveyed are in favor of more gun control. It's a cottage industry. Both sides do it. Unless you can find out how and where the survey was carried out most of them are a waste of time.

bcgallacher 31st Oct 2014 01:30

Lone wolf - you are getting a little desperate- the term ' no kidding minority' is new to me If it is some king of technical term I would be grateful to have it explained to me As far as your mention of problems in the military I recall that during WW 11 the British government informed the US government that the segregation policies of the US army were not acceptable in the UK.

con-pilot 31st Oct 2014 01:36


I recall that during WW 11 the British government informed the US government that the segregation policies of the US army were not acceptable in the UK.
Just what does that have to do with gun control?

If you want to do general USA bashing, go to the US Hamster Wheel thread. We'll be happy to debate you. :ok:

galaxy flyer 31st Oct 2014 01:47

PTT,

Oh, I see, we just need to send all potential gun owners thru a psych exam, boot camp and some time in the military.

Simple fact is Americans will never agree to the level of government control you envision. Here, I can not identify a small on the first try, go out and rent, if I have a credit card. American driving standards are not one-tenth of the UK's. Heck, how many UK residents pass on the first try. Out pilot training doesn't have near the pedantic questioning than the UK's have. We just aren't amenable to captivity.

GF

rh200 31st Oct 2014 01:49


BenThere - indeed that appears to be the case. I wonder if it's more the case that the sides have become polarised and "gun control" equates to "taking the guns away" in many people's heads, which is not necessarily the case.
Polarized, of course its polarized! Like so many other issues. I was going to crack a joke but thought stuff it, but now I will.

How about we find a subject that the left are extremely passionate about and not give ground, then we say okay, we will give a bit on guns if you give a bit on that subject?

In essence its a standard distribution of reasons of why you won't get any where. An extreme point of principle, and extreme point of being afraid of the wedge, and extreme point of up you to the other side. etc etc.

And as usual the majority who are generally in the center go, yawn its all to hard.

Dushan 31st Oct 2014 02:44

Rh, the problem with attacking and criticizing something near and dear to the left induces immediate cries of racism, homophobia, intolerance, etc. you see they "know" they are morally right and any opposition is morally bankrupt.

John Hill 31st Oct 2014 02:53

It is a bit of a pointless argument anyway as the UN are going to take the guns away which will solve all the problems.


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:57.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.