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)

Seldomfitforpurpose 19th Dec 2014 08:11


Originally Posted by con-pilot (Post 8789192)
This thing just keeps going around in a circle.

Driving a motor vehicle is not a "Right" as set forth in Bill of Rights, it is a privilege granted by each of the 50 states.

If owning a gun in the US is a 'Right' as opposed to a privilege how come certain people are denied that 'Right' and who defines that?

Checkboard 19th Dec 2014 11:00


Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
should I be deprived now for what I or someone else, known or unknown, might do in the future?

Isn't that the entire argument? :confused:

Yes - you should be deprived of:
  • The minor pleasure of owning a firearm for collector or sport purposes, and
  • The dubious protection against random crime that it provides, and
  • The even more dubious protection against the rise of a totalitarian regime in the USA
In order to prevent:
  • The accidental death of those in households by misuse, and
  • The murder of those in households by domestic violence, and
  • The immediately successful suicide option for the depressed, and
  • The murder/suicide of those outside the household (as in school & workplace shootings), and
  • The cheap and plentiful supply of guns for crime.
You think that the first list is more important than the second. The other side thinks that the horrors of the second list outweigh the minor pleasures of the first. Isn't it that simple?

Boudreaux Bob 19th Dec 2014 11:07

You skipped right on over the Constitution which plays somewhat of a important role in all of this.

Checkboard 19th Dec 2014 11:11

Not really. It's covered in the third point of the top argument.

The constitution supports the current status quo. It can be changed, though (that's why the second amendment is an amendment! ;) )

... but it isn't part of the above argument.

Boudreaux Bob 19th Dec 2014 11:31

That is a typical Gun Banner position.

You insist the argument be limited to only that which you want it to be about and not about the Rule of Law, and the Legal Constructs that apply to the Issue.

That is why these things never go anywhere as Gun Banners only see the Issue as being the "Gun" and refuse to consider all of the factors that are a part of the real situation.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment could be changed or done away with.

Is that ever going to happen....not a chance.

Are your Assumptions correct and valid....that is the real argument and one you are free to have with anyone that will join in.

As these are always circular in nature I would think it shall be rather unusual that Gun Owners and those who embrace the Constitution and Bill of Rights including the 2nd Amendment would waste their time doing so.

Nothing we say will sway you on the other side so why should we waste our time?

Checkboard 19th Dec 2014 11:50

Is your position that "Americans should keep personal gun ownership, because it is enshrined in the constitution." ?

As an argument in obeying the rule of law, I suppose it works.

galaxy flyer 19th Dec 2014 11:59


The minor pleasure of owning a firearm for collector or sport purposes, and
The dubious protection against random crime that it provides, and
The even more dubious protection against the rise of a totalitarian regime in the USA
Personal opinions don't make it a basis to change the law.

GF

Seldomfitforpurpose 19th Dec 2014 12:14

The actuality is that



Originally Posted by Checkboard (Post 8789701)
Is your position that "Some Americans should keep personal gun ownership, because it is enshrined in the constitution." ?

As an argument in obeying the rule of law, I suppose it works.


And as you quite rightly point out the 2nd is actually an amendment hence its amendable and I am not sure that same amendment makes any mention of


Who Cannot Have a Gun in America? - U.S. Government Info/Resources


hence the God Given Right is actually a man made privilege :ok:

Boudreaux Bob 19th Dec 2014 12:35

It would appear the Australians are having a re-think on their Gun Laws in wake of the Sydney Hostage taking.

From the sounds of it they might like the British have a re-think on Knife Ownership after the mass killing of children in Cairns.


Former Sydney Deputy Mayor: Lift Gun Ban so Australians Can Defend Themselves - Breitbart

rgbrock1 19th Dec 2014 12:48

sffp wrote:


And as you quite rightly point out the 2nd is actually an amendment hence its amendable
Not meaning to split hairs, sffp, but an Amendment to our Constitution is in and of itself not amendable i.e., the amendment itself can not be amended. There are two ways to modify the inherent structure and definition of a Constitutional Amendment: 1. by repeal or 2. by introducing another Amendment which basically redefines the Amendment in question. But the original Amendment itself can not be redefined.

Hempy 19th Dec 2014 14:00


Originally Posted by Bordreaux Bob
It would appear the Australians are having a re-think on their Gun Laws in wake of the Sydney Hostage taking.

Yes, they are. The Prime Minister has announced tougher laws on illegal gun imports and tougher minimum sentencing laws.

Tony Abbott to get tough on gun crime with proposal for mandatory minimum sentence of five years jail

Don't take any notice of the whackjobs Leyonhjelm or Adams, their rantings are being dismissed by anyone with half a brain and everyone in Government as nothing more than random static.

Let's face it, if the Sydney 'Siege' was anywhere in the US except NYC, the criminal would have been kitted out with an AR-15, an UZI or two, a Desert Eagle and a couple of 9mm, and enough ammo to start a war. And if the patrons were anywhere in the US except NYC they'd have been armed too (something the criminal would no doubt have been aware was a probability..)

And now we would be talking about the 'Sydney Massacre' instead.

rgbrock1 19th Dec 2014 14:02


if the patrons were in NYC they'd have been armed too
How little you obviously know as obtaining a firearm in NYC is close to impossible for your average New Yorker. (Aside from the criminal element who have no problem obtaining firearms in NYC.)

Hempy 19th Dec 2014 14:31

So of an average 19 people in a NYC coffee shop, not one of them would be carrying a concealed firearm of any description? And the criminal could walk in there armed like Rambo comfortable in the knowledge that no one else is, in all probability, carrying a weapon?

Boudreaux Bob 19th Dec 2014 14:45

RGB,

Disabusing the Gun Banners of their preconceived notions and false information is a waste of time and effort. They just are not going to listen to reason, logic, or the Truth.

When you remind them of the successes of Gun Control as evidenced by Chicago, Washington DC and California where Gang Violence, Drug Dealing, and young Men of Color are the driving forces in our Gun Crime problems....all they want to is tell us about the lack of more gun laws and why is the "gun" that is the problem and not the finger on the trigger.

In the past week not one of my guns has violated a single existing gun law and not one single person has been harmed by any of them yet we are told I must surrender each and every one of them to make my home, neighborhood, town, County, State, and Nation a safer place.

How much safer can it be in light of my situation?

Go figure!

Plainly commonsense, reality, and logic just does not figure into their view of things.

That I might take some of the things down to the Rifle Range maintained by a Club with 800+ members in full compliance to every single Law, Ordinance, and Zoning Restriction is abhorrent to them.

They cannot fathom that such activities and conduct are absolutely legal and acceptable in our Country because it isn't in theirs.

They just are not capable of accepting there is Life outside their own wee Village.

rgbrock1 19th Dec 2014 14:51

Hempy:


So of an average 19 people in a NYC coffee shop, not one of them would be carrying a concealed firearm of any description? And the criminal could walk in there armed like Rambo comfortable in the knowledge that no one else is, in all probability, carrying a weapon?
NYC does not allow concealed firearm permits EXCEPT for off-duty policemen and women, who don't need the permit anyway, or private detectives. The latter may or may not get such a permit: most do not.

The criminal elements who have no such problems usually do not just walk into some place of business and start shooting the place up as they are too involved in their own neighborhoods - like Harlem, the lower Eastside or East New York - to venture very far.

Hempy 19th Dec 2014 15:05

I stand corrected. Is this considered 'stringent' control by general US standards? How about say Little Rock or Dallas?

p.s Bob, there really is only one argument you can make that will stand up to any genuine logic..."Fcuk off, I like guns!". It's a fair argument, if a little weak on substance, by to try and dress it up with any other illogical rationale is so transparent it frankly comes across as comical at best and worryingly delusional at worst.

Boudreaux Bob 19th Dec 2014 15:05

Not that this will do one bit of good as the usual suspects shall invariably ignore the information but City, Neighborhood, and Race combined with a Record of at least one Felony Arrest/Conviction by either of the Suspect or Victim, very much plays a role in the Murder Rate.

Taken from the Chicago Police Murder Stats.....

List of neighborhoods - Tracking homicides in Chicago - Tracking homicides in Chicago | RedeyeChicago.com


Note the disparity of numbers of murders by neighborhood.....willing to admit to yourself what the Data shows?

Now consider it by Race (note "White includes Hispanic" in the Data)

http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/races/

There is no way to deny where the Murder problem lies within the City of Chicago.

rgbrock1 19th Dec 2014 15:09

Hempy:

NYC gun control laws are some of the most restrictive laws in the United States. Most of these laws were initiated by the former mayor/Emperor of NYC - Michael "Ban Everything In Sight" Bloomberg.

Hempy 19th Dec 2014 15:16

Point taken. Original post corrected :ok:

beaufort1 22nd Dec 2014 13:32

Funny, it doesn't look like a gundog. :rolleyes:

Dog shoots man | New York Post

rgbrock1 22nd Dec 2014 14:12

Serves the guy right for not feeding Fido his preferred IAMS. :}:E

Seldomfitforpurpose 22nd Dec 2014 14:21

A classic example of a fixable problem, but without the will to take 'the big steps' stupid like this will continue for evermore.........

West Coast 22nd Dec 2014 16:18

A classic example? I think you over estimate your knowledge of the US and guns in general if you consider the accidental discharge to be "classic"

Sometimes knowledge of a subject requires more than Wikipedia and google.

Flying Lawyer 22nd Dec 2014 16:52

Sffp


A classic example of a fixable problem, but without the will to take 'the big steps' stupid like this will continue for evermore.........
A classic example of a fixable problem: Taking the little step of always making a gun safe.
Or the little step of not carrying a loaded gun in a vehicle.

Elementary but, human nature being what it is, such accidents probably will continue for ever more.
The men were hunting in a remote area of northern Wyoming, but similar accidents happen in Britain.

rgbrock1 22nd Dec 2014 17:43

FL wrote:


The men were hunting in a remote area of northern Wyoming
Interesting. I wonder if Dick Cheney was around? :}:E

Seldomfitforpurpose 22nd Dec 2014 18:11


Originally Posted by West Coast (Post 8793597)
A classic example? I think you over estimate your knowledge of the US and guns in general if you consider the accidental discharge to be "classic"

Sometimes knowledge of a subject requires more than Wikipedia and google.


Don't be so bloody stupid, if I had ever left any of my personal weapons in such a state and allowed such an accident to occur I may well have ended up in a military jail.


A loaded weapon insecure in a vehicle is in itself not that feckin smart but a loaded weapon that is in such a state that a dog can cause it to discharge is nothing short of criminal.


Ask RG for his thoughts on the matter, on our side of the pond the military would certainly frown on such stupidity and I doubt very much that his experience's would be that different.

rgbrock1 22nd Dec 2014 18:22

sffp:

Although the Dumb Ass with a Gun exhibited very poor firearms discipline by leaving his loaded rifle, with the safety off to boot, in his car I wouldn't say it was criminal. A Class A dumb ass, yes.

But Karma seems to have worked out in the long run and bit him square in the ass.

Clowns like him are what give responsible firearms owners, such as myself, a bad name.

(An unattended and loaded rifle in the Army would have put the culprit in a big world of hurt indeed.)

West Coast 22nd Dec 2014 19:08

SFFP

I see you've come down with a case of holier than thou. Hope you get over it by the Holidays. BTW, Merry Christmas, Hanukkah, festivus, Kwanzaa or atheist day as it applies.

The "classic" example of the accidental discharge isn't the norm but rather the exception. You'd have to be a part of the US gun culture to know that however. Save yourself finding another story of an accidental discharge, they exist without doubt, but again against a backdrop of millions of hunter and enthusiasts the numbers are nominal.

The US Marine Corps also frowned on accidental discharges just as your branch of the military did. Yet they happened in both of our services despite repercussions, which makes your point of punishment notable but not applicable to this situation.

Again, your knowledge of the US and guns here superficial at best.

Seldomfitforpurpose 22nd Dec 2014 19:11

RGB,

My use of the word criminal was a poor choice, I like your version better.

I have said it before on here there is no substitute for compulsory training, us Ex military folk understand that but how do you get that read across to civilian gun owners :confused:

Seldomfitforpurpose 22nd Dec 2014 19:17


Originally Posted by West Coast (Post 8793780)
SFFP

I see you've come down with a case of holier than thou. Hope you get over it by the Holidays. BTW, Merry Christmas, Hanukkah, festivus, Kwanzaa or atheist day as it applies.

The "classic" example of the accidental discharge isn't the norm but rather the exception. You'd have to be a part of the US gun culture to know that however.

I have taken part in most of these threads and I seem to remember that the number of accidents with guns per year in the US runs into thousands, something like 2 or 3 times the annual gun death rate so it's hardly the exception. You dress it up any way you want chap but it's not a rare event.

West Coast 22nd Dec 2014 19:29

And with that little snippet, you somehow believe you've the upper hand? No my friend, you have to PROVE it.

Again, your knowledge is that of an outsiders, supplied by the web. I'm far more inclined to listen to someone who is a hunter/shooter than someone from another country whose knowledge is based on been there, done that, got the T shirt.

Seldomfitforpurpose 22nd Dec 2014 19:40

Upper hand, good grief. I mention that your annual gun accident rate runs at something like 2 to 3 times your annual gun death rate and apparently that's me 'getting the upper hand'...... Sheesh

If you were to ask your hunter/shooter colleagues for their thoughts on that suggested figure what do you think their reaction would be?

West Coast 22nd Dec 2014 20:15

How would I know what thier reaction would be? I do note you've choosen not to try and back your claim though.

The US census data for the latest census shows 282 million hunting days a year. The numbers of accidental deaths are nowhere close to what you've offered (but not substantiated), but rather less than a 1000 per year. Contrast the two and you have a statistically insignificant number.

Each accidental death is horrible and likely preventable. Hunter safety courses address weapons and hunter safety, as do state regulations. I'd say this combination has done a pretty goid job when you compare the number of hunting days against the number of accidental deaths. This local knowledge is where google doesn't provide you the insight you need to offer an educated opinion.

Now you can continue to hold up whatever case you want as some "classic" example, nothing I can do about that. There's far to many accidental deaths even when the number is below a 1000/yr, but to hold up one dumbass as a "classic" example show a lack of understanding of what the problem is.

pigboat 22nd Dec 2014 22:21

I want one! :ok:


West Coast 22nd Dec 2014 22:45

I wonder if its too late to ring Santa and ask for one of those?

con-pilot 22nd Dec 2014 22:56

Man, I have to get one of those. :ok:

galaxy flyer 22nd Dec 2014 23:21


The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.

Herbert Spencer
Those who believe can protect ourselves from ourselves should consider Spencer's observation. Any gun is an inanimate object without free will or agency. The blame for its use attaches to the user, not the object.

GF

Flying Lawyer 23rd Dec 2014 00:14


Any gun is an inanimate object without free will or agency. The blame for its use attaches to the user, not the object.

GF


Next contestant, Mrs. Sybil Fawlty from Torquay. Specialist subject - the bleeding obvious.

Basil Fawlty

________________

Seldomfitforpurpose 23rd Dec 2014 00:20


Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 8794055)
Those who believe can protect ourselves from ourselves should consider Spencer's observation. Any gun is an inanimate object without free will or agency. The blame for its use attaches to the user, not the object.

GF

Absolutely, now think Mrs Lanza and her son, then ask yourself how smart it was letting her have guns :ok:

West Coast 23rd Dec 2014 00:38

Or how about giving a drivers license to the nutter in France who mowed down people. Shouldn't have put a license (literally) to kill in his hands.


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:06.


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