Gun Zones, Why they do not work.

[Pio1980]

I think there is a very real problem with whether the 2nd Amendment as written serves us now in making us safer, better, or more free.
I agree with the Supremes that it grants the right to armed self defense, I do not think granting by implication the unrestricted right to a private arsenal or tactical high capacity/ rapid fire weaponry serves any logical purpose beyond putting them in the unreliable hands of nut jobs and criminals thru sheer quantity and lack of accountability.
This issue was what finally drove me off the NRA membership.


Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[KutzlerTrans]

Good points guys,

The firearms used in most of these crimes are regular hand guns, but you are right in some situations..
It only take one well placed bullet to stop them.
If there is one thing that i would like people to understand is this,
I disagree with the NRA just being a mouthpiece for gun manufactures. The NRA is made of people. People in a group, just like us. We may not see things the same, but we are Audiokarma.
The nra consists of everyday ordinary people. Thousands of people that go to work everyday and have families.. Again, your not seeing everyday NRA members shooting people for no reason. The nra gets blamed all the time for this stuff, and if you see an attitude in my writing, its because i am the nra and i am sick of the shit too, but there is one big difference. We can defend ourselves and others in these situations.

If this country had no guns, we would be invaded in a heart beat. To make gun owners into an enemy is wrong thinking. Look into what has transpired in australia since they were disarmed. look at the UK and you will find sitting ducks. Don't take my word for it, Google crime rates in those countries since they were disarmed.

Yes, I can say that getting shot opened my eyes.
in my situation,Though a gun would have solved nothing, other than save taxpayers money.
The subject is Gun Zones.

If your child was next to be shot, Would you really wish that there was no one there to defend him or her??

Its a sobering thought, but one that is a fact for the next victim. I think getting rid of these safe havens for the messed up people will even the playing field. Every one of them picks these places because they are free to kill at will.
That is why i brought this up today. We as a whole, need to come together and accept ideas that work.

We have concealed carry in every state and so far the fears of people running around shooting other people has proven to be non existent.
Why, Because everyday people that carry firearms legally, have a totally different reason than you guys have been led to believe by our media.

They carry to save lives not to commit crimes as the media would like us to think.. The word is Legal. They respect the law.

there is no law that can be made, that will stop one of these lost souls from killing someone. They could care less about the law.
There is a huge difference between a criminal and a concerned gun owner. Please do not mix the two into the same pot, because it is wrong thinking.

I have to get a transmission rebuilt for a guy before the day is over, xmas has me backed up.

Thanks for your comments.

[Pio1980]

I honestly doubt private gun ownership is a deterrent to invasion, and crime minus the firepower is still crime, just less statistically deadly. There are reliable statistics on the distribution of firearms vs effective use as deterrent or protection vs hazard, I don't have them at hand at the moment. There are instances where they served well their intended purpose, but these are relatively rare in private hands.
I'm still not ok with the notion that putting the firepower of a rifle squad in the hands of a private individual is smart or justified. That most deaths are statistically by pistol is a matter of sheer quantity, the likelihood of a burglary scoring a handgun from a vehicle or home compared to a tactical weapon is quite high. Tactical weaponry is attractive to those who want the most casualties in the shortest time, nut jobs and 'bangers mostly. I'd rather that our policies not make it so easy to arm them.
If I was hunting dangerous prey as a matter of culling, high capacity / rapid fire is appropriate and imo should have the same restrictions as full auto, but that steed is long out of the barn and a recall and do-over is unlikely in the short term. In the long term, as firearm ownership diminishes is for the future as things now stand.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by KutzlerTrans

If this country had no guns, we would be invaded in a heart beat. To make gun owners into an enemy is wrong thinking. Look into what has transpired in australia since they were disarmed.

Wait! Australia has been invaded? How did I miss that? Who invaded them?

We have concealed carry in every state and so far the fears of people running around shooting other people has proven to be non existent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-face-charges/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/justic...ater-shooting/

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb...-dunn-20140211

http://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/...orge-zimmerman

http://nypost.com/2015/05/12/motoris...an-911-caller/

[donquixote99]

First of all, John, if you have indeed been wounded in a violent incident, I am certainly sorry that you underwent such traumatic pain and injury. You have my caring concern, and I wish you full recovery.

The whole issue area cannot be reduced to one little sub-issue, gun-free-zones or no.

What I want, first of all, is a world where we all take care of each other well-enough. By which I mean that people who might get so crazy that shooting up a school seems like the thing to do are noticed, and given effective help, before they ever get to the killing stage. Now I don't know just how to get there from here, but I think that focusing on being ready to kill people when they start shooting moves us in the exact wrong direction, in general.

I am not so prone to divide people up into the categories 'good people' and 'bad people.' Most people are middling good, prone to cheat if they're pretty sure they can get away with it, and subject to moods and impulses. They often attach great emotional meaning to conditions out of their control, and can be driven by emotional pain or elation to decisions way outside their usual sphere. So, it's hard for me to repose great trust in the idea of crowds of ordinary people with guns.

I think we move in the right direction if we make guns harder to get. The harder it is, the fewer will get them and do murder with them.

I refer you to this post for my current views on the second amendment: http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?p=286235

Some of the framers were of a revolutionary spirit that wanted 'the people' to be able to win a fight with 'the government.' Some thought such notions heedless of the need for order and the dangers of insurrection. The Second Amendment represents language unclear enough that both sorts could stand it. The basic thrust of what's in the constitution here and elsewhere is that the militia was supposed to always be much stronger than central government forces, except when the nation was mobilized for war. The federal army's funding required reappropriation every two years, which was thought a sufficient means to sharply limit it's size. The framer's could not imagine a House of Representatives that authorized the ruinous cost of a large peacetime army being re-elected. This pretty much worked as intended until after WWII....

Militias have a very checkered history, and it seems clear that the framer's faith in them was misplaced. Seems to me the notion of popular armament as the basis of the militia is obsolete.

I'm OK with pistols and shotguns for home defense, but I think we should draw the line at citizens routinely going about armed, absent special showing of need recognized by license.

But the Second, it seems to me, does guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear arms, as the courts in recent times have found. Restrictions as I suggest require a new amendment.

And this post outlines some thoughts on a way forward: http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?p=275640

Seriously, on gun control, we have a catch-22. There's no way we can disarm the criminals to any degree unless we disarm the general population. But we can't disarm the general population while there are hordes of armed criminals out there.

Jim, I've advocated what you advocate for a while, as far as background checks. They must include an in-depth psych evaluation. If you don't have one, you have to get one.

I'd also like to see a public service ad campaign that works long-term to stigmatize gun ownership. Make it a marker of low class status, like cigarette smoking has largely become. Do profiles of gun-obsessed people who are looser idiots.

Eventually, we may get opinion to swing in favor of repeal of the Second. The Second Amendment just hasn't worked out well. Like, how often have armed groups of civilians rallied as 'militia' and done anything good? Most of they time they've been shooting up black-town or lynching somebody, or fomenting violent tax evasion.

And once we do that, we can begin a process of eliminating a great amount of the guns out there, making it harder for criminals to get them. Couple that with an automatic 50 years for using a gun in a crime, and you'll get a lot of crooks to avoid using them. (I like 50 years better than 'life,' as a deterrent--it's more definite, more concrete.)

[finnbow]

As a gun owner for over 50 years (and erstwhile NRA Distinguished Expert, Hunter Safety Instructor and Range Safety Officer at my club), I find KutzlerTrans points to be unadulterated poppycock unworthy of a serious response.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

As a gun owner for over 50 years (and erstwhile NRA Distinguished Expert, Hunter Safety Instructor and Range Safety Officer at my club), I find KutzlerTrans points to be unadulterated poppycock unworthy of a serious response.

Hence my (mostly) unserious ones.

[bobabode]

In other 'gun' news, Virginia won't recognize CCW permits from 25 states whose rules and qualifications aren't in line the Old Dominion.
The NRA goes ballistic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...mepage%2Fstory

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Hence my (mostly) unserious ones.

I think most everybody here knows where I stand on guns.

But for anyone that doesn't, I am a liberal and as a liberal I favor guns laws like the most liberal state in the union has.

Vermont.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/verm...utional-carry/

That being said, this Kutsler Dude is full of shit.

Number one, the idea that Vladimier Putin doesn't send the Russian army over here to invade us because he's afraid of a bunch of knuckle dragging mouth breathing NRA Bubbas with guns is absolutely ludicrous. I think the deterent to invasion is more likely to be the United States Army Military. What do ya'll think?

As for the NRA being made up of ordinary people just like the rest of us, don't count me in that "rest of us". There is no way I want to be associated with that bunch of emotionally immature idiots who have the same attachment to their guns as a baby has to his Mother's tits.

And finally that ridiculous notion that a "good guy with a gun" is going to step up like John Fucking Wayne and save the day during a mass shooting. There have been good guys with guns at some of these shootings and what they have invariably done is hide somewhere just like everybody else and hope to shit they don't fall on the shooters radar. Which is probably a good thing because 99.99% don't have the skills or the training to effectively engage that shooter.

[KutzlerTrans]

So...Does this mean you don't love me anymore?