| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| beaglebuddy wrote: | | Barry Hussein Soetoro was the name he used to go by but It seems people don't want to be reminded that he was born and raised a muslim. |
You can call him whatever you want, I'll call him Bull Marketman in Chief. Thanks Barry!!!
S&P 1556. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
johnl
Joined: 05 Jun 1994
Posts: 1330
Location: Hood River OR
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | | Johnl--The point I am making is that the loopholes created by the NRA are responsible for a flood of guns entering the market. That in turn drives the price of guns down. To be sure, criminals in Oakland can and do buy guns on the streets in West Oakland. Targeting the movement of those guns, from unregulated gun shows to secondary sales, is not impossible--or even that difficult. The law enforcement efforts are hindered by the gun show loophole and the Tiahart amendment, and by lack of funds. Registration of a weapon with a risk, while it should be legal, should also include reasonable fees to make sure that it is used in the legal manner. We require that of the producers of much less deadline substances--air and water pollutants discharged from industries and cities. So there ought to be fees on the use of guns and ammunition that reflect the cost of those materials, when abused, to the general public. The NRA has prevented that--because such measures would increase the price of guns and reduce their sales. The wing nuts contribution |
Mac, I didn't have an issue with your topic, just the closing. Oakland like many other cities is a city with a strong known violent criminal element. Quite frankly closing loopholes will do little to change that. BUT that doesn't mean I'm not against some more regulations. I don't have a problem with them closing private party sales and requiring all gun purchases to have a background check (I'm sure there is some way to have this available to private parties for a small fee). I think that is a reasonable step. I think much more effort should be put into solving the problem of WHY people feel the need to kill others NOT what weapon they happen to choose at the moment. I think that will go farther in reducing these mass shootings in public places.
However most other steps (smaller magazines, assault rifle bans, etc) I do not endorce in anyway and since they won't accomplish anything in the way of detering gun violence I think they are a waste of time. BUT they are something all politicians seem to target because they think this gets them support. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| beaglebuddy wrote: | | pueno wrote: | | beaglebuddy wrote: | | Barry Hussein Soetoro was the name he used to go by but It seems people don't want to be reminded that he was born and raised a muslim. |
So what if he was? |
So why get upset when you are reminded of this? I'm just calling him by his correct given name. |
I'm neither upset nor reminded of anything. That's why I said, "So what?"
But I am amused that your sole point was to disparage the president by pointing out that he might have been raised in a Muslim family, even though he's now a Christian.
It's worth noting that sources say his mother was Christian and his father, though raised a Muslim, was an atheist by the time Obama was born.
So, you're wrong on many fronts.
But don't let that tiny fact slow down your feces flinging.
Mikey's proud of you.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Some of these regulations would sound reasonable if they weren't coming from the same people and pressure groups that are trying to force all kinds of over reaching government controls down our throats such as socialized medicine which will eventually someday lead to forced abortions and euthanasia for the handicapped and elderly in the name of population control."
beaglebuddy, just curious about where you pick up these ideas. Some of the other ones you highlight are similarly dark in nature, particularly your last sentence. You know, I often see a lot of mentally ill folks out and about, and I know why. Nobody wants to properly care for them. In California, we can all thank Governor Ronald Reagen for that. But the idea that liberals are responsible is a bizarre conclusion. Again, where do you pick up these ideas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johnl, let me ask you this. Why make it super easy for folks to prepare for shooting off 15, 30 or more bullets without reloading? Outside of NRA statistics, or the lack of them, what are the positive reasons for marketing and selling high volume magazines without restriction? As a society, what do we gain by this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| beaglebuddy wrote: | Guns should be locked up in a safe, if they are stolen because they were left unsecure then used in a crime this should be a violation.
|
A gun secured in a safe, especially unloaded, is all but useless in a real home defense scenario by anyone less than a very experienced combat soldier or policeman. Even trained police officers have been caught saying their gun wouldn't fire in the heat of battle, when in fact they were trying to fire the tactical flashlight in their other hand. Many crap and pee their pants in a shootout. On top of that, try freezing your hands in an ice vat for two minutes just before trying to open a safe and load a gun ... IF your adrenaline-soaked mind can remember the combination. The physiology of armed combat is well documented and fairly thoroughly trashes every circuit, logic chip, sensor, and actuator in our body. Only totally ingrained processes have ANY chance of functioning even adequately, let alone well, under life-threatening attack. And the only way to ingrain everything from opening that safe to realizing you just fired all 30 rounds at that 10-yo kid in your hallway before you even knew you had fired at all is to go through the drill tens of thousands of times ... some SEALS do it millions of times.
That, or the guys who train the world's cops and soldiers are making it all up.
If my gun is in a safe, it will be loaded and chambered and the safe door will be open. Anything less and it's just a collector's item. Of course, there are never any kids or drunks in my home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Johnl--you've said a lot of sensible things here, so let's focus just on guns getting into the hands of criminals--because the ease with which that happens is one of the roots of the problems in Oakland. The other, ably demonstrated in The Wire, is the lack of economic opportunities--and hope--for the truly poor. Here from the February 4 Chronicle:
| Quote: | In the divisive debates over gun control, here is something all factions should agree on: Deadly weapons should be taken out of the hands of those who have been deemed a risk because of felony convictions or episodes of domestic violence, mental health conditions or drug addictions.
California is the only state that has the ability to cross-check records of gun registrations against the list of those who are legally forbidden to possess firearms.
State Attorney General Kamala Harris has been making a concerted effort to confiscate guns from those on the banned list, but it's a monumental task. At a legislative hearing last week, a representative from her Department of Justice said that about 20,000 registered gun owners in the state are ineligible to possess firearms - and that list is growing by about 3,000 a year.
That list includes the owners of about 1,600 assault weapons that were acquired before the current ban.
The department estimated that it would take an annual outlay of about $8 million to clear that backlog within three years.
It would seem to us to be money well spent, even within the spirit of fiscal restraint wisely being promoted by Gov. Jerry Brown.
The confiscation of firearms from felons and owners with court-certified issues with anger management, mental illness or addiction poses no danger to the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
The only real question is how to pay for this stepped-up enforcement, which would require adding about 50 positions to the Department of Justice. Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, has proposed legislation that would allow the attorney general to tap fees on background checks to cover the increase.
State legislators should move quickly to give the attorney general the resources to get these guns out of the hands of those who have lost their legal right to possess them.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Take-away-illegally-owned-guns-4250680.php#ixzz2NHsJlDqW |
It is true that you can easily--and cheaply--buy a gun in the streets of most big cities. Those guns are used almost reflexively both as part of the drug trade, but also by young toughs who feel they have been dissed. A fair number of the killings in Oakland were innocent bystanders who are too poor to move out of bad neighborhoods, or were just unlikely in being at the park at the wrong time.
If the registration, and gun show loopholes were eliminated, and if more money was made available for enforcement of penalties for illegal sales, the number of guns in circulation would drop and the price would go up. It is absolutely fair to fund those services by fees on guns and ammunition--it readily passes a nexus test. It doesn't threaten the ownership of guns by responsible gun owners. Anyone turning over a lot of guns to people of suspect qualifications is, by definition, not a responsible gun owner. Let's try that and allow the ATF to collect and publish statistics, and then see how well modest regulation has worked--and what seems to have worked the best.
To be sure, educating kids so they see a future outside the drug trade is an important part of this, and my primary volunteer activity. But I have seen kids with a thug in the life in the family, and teachers don't have a prayer. Some kids deserve better parents--lets make it a little harder for those criminally inclined to get their hands on a gun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnl
Joined: 05 Jun 1994
Posts: 1330
Location: Hood River OR
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| swchandler wrote: | | johnl, let me ask you this. Why make it super easy for folks to prepare for shooting off 15, 30 or more bullets without reloading? Outside of NRA statistics, or the lack of them, what are the positive reasons for marketing and selling high volume magazines without restriction? As a society, what do we gain by this? |
Okay let me throw it back. Why make cars that get less than 30mpg? Why make blue jackets? Why not have all organic foods? Why allow junk foods?
Because people in this country have freedoms and one of them is choice to pick what THEY choose, not what you think they should have.
I personally think that 12 rounds is the minimum that a gun should carry. If you are in a home defense use, you will want that many minimum. One shot does not stop or kill somebody despite what Hollywood shows you. Personally if I pull the trigger they are getting 4 rounds right off the bat BEFORE I reassess to see if more are needed. Add multiple assailants and low capacity magazines are a joke.
Plus if I want to walk into a mall with unarmed people, it really doesn't matter how many rounds I carry in my gun, I will have plenty of time to shoot at people as they run away from me. If I had a 6 round magazine in my gun and I wanted to kill unarmed people I would have about 10 magazines in my pocket. 2 seconds to change one. Plenty of time. So reducing the number of rounds in a magzine is a POLITICAL scheme to say they are doing something to stop violence which does squat. Assault rifles are the same thing. Take the number of assault rifle owners and take the number of people doing mass killing with them. A VERY tiny percentage. I would bet a larger percentage kill people with their cars while talking on cell phones.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnl
Joined: 05 Jun 1994
Posts: 1330
Location: Hood River OR
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | | Johnl--you've said a lot of sensible things here, so let's focus just on guns getting into the hands of criminals--because the ease with which that happens is one of the roots of the problems in Oakland. |
Of course did you expect less? 
| mac wrote: |
It is true that you can easily--and cheaply--buy a gun in the streets of most big cities. Those guns are used almost reflexively both as part of the drug trade, but also by young toughs who feel they have been dissed. A fair number of the killings in Oakland were innocent bystanders who are too poor to move out of bad neighborhoods, or were just unlikely in being at the park at the wrong time.
If the registration, and gun show loopholes were eliminated, and if more money was made available for enforcement of penalties for illegal sales, the number of guns in circulation would drop and the price would go up. It is absolutely fair to fund those services by fees on guns and ammunition--it readily passes a nexus test. It doesn't threaten the ownership of guns by responsible gun owners. Anyone turning over a lot of guns to people of suspect qualifications is, by definition, not a responsible gun owner. Let's try that and allow the ATF to collect and publish statistics, and then see how well modest regulation has worked--and what seems to have worked the best.
|
To go into why there is violence in cities goes way beyond the ability of the people here and quite frankly beyond the time we have before windsurfing season starts.  To look at a different problem. Take Palo Alto (I can't remember which one East or West, I think East) back a few years ago. It was the WORSE city for murders in Calif (I also think the US, but Calif anyway). What stopped it was increased police action by multiple agencies. They basically crushed the crime.
Now take Oakland. Well first of all it is in the East bay (west part) court system. Good luck getting convictions there. Second, the police department has been force to REDUCE staffing and enforcement. Guess what happens. Third it has always been a lower income city (not all, but a big portion within the boundaries) where people don't help the Police. Personally I didn't even like driving in the city to go get new uniforms from the Police Store much less anything else. I would NEVER choose to live there (or Berkeley either for that matter). Yet people do. Most stay because that is what they are used to despite the knowledge of the problems.
So honestly bringing big city crime (like Oakland) into a gun discussion really takes it off point.
I can't say this often enough. LOOK AT HISTORY! Everytime the US makes something illegal that a large portion doesn't agree to, it doesn't work. This has been proven time and time again. Yet for some reason the political bodies don't do this because it doesn't get/keep them elected. Instead they have to APPEAR to do something to solve a problem even if history has pointed out time and time again it does NOT work with our culture (so don't go bringing up other countries cause they are NOT the same as our culture).
That being said, I do agree that buying a firearm should be something that requres a background check. Whether new, used, or at a gun show. I do think this, if PROPERLY written is a proper step. But it should also be reasonable so people who make private gun sales can do it and not be forced to try to circumvent it.
On the other hand, I really don't like "The Government" knowing every gun I own. I think that is a step in the wrong direction. But Calif already knows I have an assault rifle (despite me no longer living there) and my handgun was also regestered in Calif, so I guess I'm screwed....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think I can boil down why there is violence and despair in the streets. Lack of mature fathers, lack of motivation, lack of perspective, lack of personal responsibility.
Our forefathers didn't have govt handouts. They lived in mostly stable homes, or with the ideal of a stable home and family. All the govt money in the world will not give someone self respect.
I'm all for a semi military style after school program that makes kids that don't pass their exams work for 2 hours after school, or go to work camps for the weekends. Plain and simple. No more BS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
