Gun control and loners

[Timtheskeptic]

Here's the thing, i believe in having the right to bear arms as is in the constitution, but i also believe that if there is a country (which there is) that can have less crime and less gun violence, we should adopt their strategy to reducing crime and gun control. But how does the other country did it and how can we do it?

Also, do you agree or disagree with the idea of gun control? Some people thinks it's cowardly to own guns. I don't think so, but i never owned a gun. I did once own an airgun but it was for my protection. I never needed it because i never once was threatened at all. I have went to California and to Oregon on my own and never got any trouble from anyone. That isn't to say it won't happen, it wasn't too common.

I think guns are basically are not regulated because people can easily obtain guns that are not your standard personal protection; a handgun.


I sometimes hear about people who are "quiet, shy, loners are the ones you have to watch out for." I am a shy, quiet loner, but i'm not a threat. I do feel irritated by people, but i wouldn't want to do harm. I personally think it is not the "shy, quiet, loner" that made people to be killers, i think it was more psychological and more about what they believed.

were they mentally ill? Was it something they were brought up? Was it something else? I don't know. The only reason i'm a shy, quiet loner was because i'm hearing impaired and i can't hear people well. That isn't to say i don't occasionally get into conversations, i do.

Also, i never believed i was ever liked or wanted in my school or at home. It was low self esteem and self hatred, but i never want to hurt anyone. I don't like the idea of someone painting lonely, quiet and shy types with the same brush. I don't know these people, but i sure wouldn't want to do harm.

[Nick]

Good point.  Imagine the Lone Ranger without a gun.

[Kimberly]

I've never formed an opinion on gun control. ::gasps:: How unamerican right?

I don't honestly think I could get past my own prejudices to ever form an opinion so I just haven't. All weapons scare me, I hate them all with a passion. But I also was raised with constant domestic violence and my ex was also violent. So that's where I think my prejudices come in.

I would not bat an eye if I lost my right to bear arms. I honestly couldn't care about my right to do so. I will never buy a gun and I don't want them in my house. But then again we've never been to great at this prohibition thing, so outlawing guns altogether would prob not work.

I saw something on Facebook today and I thought it would be a good alternative but people seem to be rather insulted it by it:

[Backspace]

Tim,  How do you define gun control? Some limits on sales, complete confiscation of all private weapons, or something in between? Just curious.

[Timtheskeptic]

Tim,  How do you define gun control? Some limits on sales, complete confiscation of all private weapons, or something in between? Just curious.

I don't know how i can define it, it's not really my thing. It's just that i think if gun control can be just about how sales can be made, ok, but i think some people think gun control might mean no guns in the hands of civilians. But i can be wrong.

[Red McWilliams]

Finding a way to limit or eliminate straw purchases would be a good start, I think.

At gun shows, someone who is not legally permitted to purchase or own a gun can walk up to a dealer, discuss and handle various weapons, decide which one he wants, then have someone else come up to the table to effect the transaction.  That seems like a problem to me.

Also, if you buy 6,000 rounds online (as the Aurora shooter did), you should probably have to sign some kind of document or otherwise acknowledge your transaction to the authorities.  I mean, all kinds of websites are monitored by the feds for 'potential terrorist threats' and you'll bring serious scrutiny upon yourself if you buy more than a few pounds of fertilizer at one time.  Hell, just making a cash deposit of over $10,000 gets a note to the FBI.  Shouldn't buying gobs of ammunition warrant similar attention?

[Red McWilliams]

From The Rude Pundit:

An Older Aurora Story Might Help Us Understand the Current One:
Here's another Aurora, Colorado story that at first seems to have nothing to do with the horrific massacre/terrorist act at Theater 9 in the first minutes of Friday:

Aurora resident Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested on January 23, 2012 for providing material support to terrorists. The FBI started spying on Muhtorov because he had begun to frequent a website run by the Islamic Jihad Union, which is designated as a foreign terrorist organization. They have, in fact, done some bad shit. Not against the United States, but still, bad shit. But this isn't about the IJU. Let's focus on Muhtorov. It seems he used a few words that triggered alarm with the FBI, including "wedding." That's code that was used by previous terrorists to mean that something was being planned. By February 2011, the FBI was eavesdropping on Muhtorov's phone calls and tracking his movements, online and off. They heard a phone call where he told his daughter he would never see her again on earth. In January, he was en route to Istanbul, Turkey, when he was arrested on a layover in Chicago.

When you read the affidavit, you can see that the FBI had Muhtorov completely under surveillance, from his emails to the websites he visited to his phone calls to his activities at work. The material support for terrorism was himself, his body, his life. "Agents allege Muhtorov planned to travel overseas to fight on behalf of the IJU. No attacks appear to have been planned in the U.S." He faces 15 years in prison and a quarter million in fines.

Now, again, this isn't about the activities of the IJU. It's not really about Jamshid Muhtorov. It's about the fact that Muhtorov and others like him are arrested without having committed any crimes other than those that are limitations on the First Amendment. Should one be free to cruise jihad websites without being spied on? Should one be allowed to write to those websites? Should one be allowed to even go so far as to seem as if one is planning violence? And where is the line between free speech and crime? Criminalized speech seems like par for the post-9/11 course, and it happens with barely a peep from members of Congress who are not Bernie Sanders or Ron Paul. Indeed, the very act that allows such surveillance and criminalizes much activity is called "Patriot."

While we argue all the time about what limitations on speech and press, the freedoms of which are laid out in the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights are "reasonable," short of things like bazookas and missile launchers and certain explosives, we're not allowed to talk about reasonable limitations on the 2nd Amendment.

The idea that the crazed James Holmes was able to purchase 6000 rounds of ammunition online, legally, without triggering any kind of alarm bells is obscene. But, for the most part, law enforcement officials at every level are barred by state and federal laws from investigating almost any suspicious gun activity. Indeed, there's very little that is even allowed to be called "suspicious." That's how successful the NRA has been in strong-arming our legislators. Guns are more sacred than speech.

We're not talking here about a ban on assault weapons and high capacity gun clips (even though a sane nation wouldn't have to because a sane nation would have banned them a long time ago). We're talking about what is more dangerous to Americans and more deserving of our monitoring resources: some jerkoff who knows how to google "jihad"? Or someone who has purchased an AR-15, big ass clip, and 6000 bullets?

In the abstract, putting the massacre aside for a moment, who do you fear more?

Links to additional info contained on that site.

[Death over Life]

Part of the deal with guns and the 2nd Amendment is the fact that History needs to be taken into account when talking about them. In general, a right to bear arms was the right to own a gun, that shoots one bullet, that takes 1-3 minutes just to reload, and fire one bullet again, maybe with a bayonet on it. In addition to that, they did have Pistols and they did have Revolvers.

In addition, when you compare damage, pistols tend to not be as damaging as people think. So, when it comes to gun control laws, people are assuming we are going to lose small arms and short-ranged weapons like pistols and shotguns.

I'm not fearful of guns in general, afterall, living in the south here so we have to put up with crazy redneck gun-toters and I'm still alive and well. However, despite the bearing arms, we do need a heavy crackdown on it. As Kimberly's poster puts it, we are far more careful with who owns a car than who owns a gun.

The beginning of proper gun ownership and proper use of our right to bear arms must begin with the removal of the NRA imhaho. I think when it comes down to it, we need to be extremely strict on who owns a gun and who does not, yet we heavily check on and with reasonable suspician, like thousands of rounds of ammo owning, to investigate why somebody owns so much ammunition and guns.

I honestly really see where the gun controllers are talking about, and I support heavy gun control, but not gun rights removal, and the reason for such is this. I also understand the gun rights activists as well, because they do have evidence of what they are talking about working, like Switzerland for example. I hear over there, everybody and their dog owns a gun, yet have far less violence and crime over there than we do. So, I don't think the problem is necessarily in the guns themselves, but the types of guns is a problem, and the ammunition counts as well.

And being devil's advocate here, Mexico has a far greater strict gun control law than most countries, but look who controls Mexico, and part of why so many immigrate here instead of staying there?

In Politics, law and civil rights however, there is no solution to this problem until we eliminate the NRA.

[Timtheskeptic]

As Kimberly's poster puts it, we are far more careful with who owns a car than who owns a gun.

maybe so, but i kept nearly getting hit by cars so many times it's a miracle i survived them all. I don't think we're being careful with drivers as we think. I'm talking about simply walking on crosswalk where it's my turn to cross and someone just barrels through like I'm some moving target. I work at a grocery store and have to collect carts from the lot and people just keeps driving into me or starts pulling out of the parking spot without carefully paying attention to who might be behind them. Also, some drivers just don't care about pedestrians and thinks that we should be killed too. Gah! Because of people like them, i don't want to own a car. If i nearly got killed by drivers in parking lots, i really, really, really, really, really would hate to see what happens if i drive!!

[Death over Life]

As Kimberly's poster puts it, we are far more careful with who owns a car than who owns a gun.

maybe so, but i kept nearly getting hit by cars so many times it's a miracle i survived them all. I don't think we're being careful with drivers as we think. I'm talking about simply walking on crosswalk where it's my turn to cross and someone just barrels through like I'm some moving target. I work at a grocery store and have to collect carts from the lot and people just keeps driving into me or starts pulling out of the parking spot without carefully paying attention to who might be behind them. Also, some drivers just don't care about pedestrians and thinks that we should be killed too. Gah! Because of people like them, i don't want to own a car. If i nearly got killed by drivers in parking lots, i really, really, really, really, really would hate to see what happens if i drive!!

I agree with this. Hell, I almost got into an accident because some asshole cut me off turning in front of me while I was driving straight. I do mention as well, this asshole was pulling out from their megachurch I had to pass by. I don't believe in it, but rhetorically, I can admit karma since I did flip the church off one time when driving to work. The only person who could have seen it was god.

Anyways, I do agree, but that just shows just how much more lax we are on guns and gun control.

As for your idea, the best bet may be to go Amish, but that is a very heavily frowned idea in modern society. On the plus side, although I myself can't stand that lifestyle or culture, at least the worst I'd have to worry about is somebody cutting my beard off!

[Timtheskeptic]

well i prefer walking as i always do. But Arizona isn't a place for walking. I think Washington or Oregon might be.

Edited: ro? gag me!

[Death over Life]

well i prefer walking as i always do. But Arizona isn't a place for walking. I think Washington ro Oregon might be.

Fair enough! 

[Backspace]

Also, if you buy 6,000 rounds on line (as the Aurora shooter did), you should probably have to sign some kind of document or otherwise acknowledge your transaction to the authorities.  I mean, all kinds of websites are monitored by the feds for 'potential terrorist threats' and you'll bring serious scrutiny upon yourself if you buy more than a few pounds of fertilizer at one time.  Hell, just making a cash deposit of over $10,000 gets a note to the FBI.  Shouldn't buying gobs of ammunition warrant similar attention?

Define "gobs".  I have a pistol I enjoy shooting at the range several times a month[1]. I buy ammo in bulk on line because it's cheaper and more convenient than buying it piecemeal at Walmart every week or two, and I'll sometimes shoot 500 rounds in a month.  I have a few friends that own several guns of different calibers, and buying several thousand rounds of various shapes and sizes every few months is a regular occurrence for them, because they enjoy shooting.

I don't want to make excuses for the Aurora CO shooter, but a signature documenting the purchase of a gun or ammunition will not reveal the mental state of the signer.

1.	I am not a member of the NRA

[Frank]

like Switzerland for example. I hear over there, everybody and their dog owns a gun, yet have far less violence and crime over there than we do. So, I don't think the problem is necessarily in the guns themselves, but the types of guns is a problem, and the ammunition counts as well.

And being devil's advocate here, Mexico has a far greater strict gun control law than most countries, but look who controls Mexico, and part of why so many immigrate here instead of staying there?

In Politics, law and civil rights however, there is no solution to this problem until we eliminate the NRA.

Switzerland having a small population has a tiny army so to make up for it most able bodied men are in the army reserves and keep their weapon at home in case of a sudden call up due to invasion. So the Swiss are trained to use guns properly. Check it out.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1566715.stm

Also Switzerland is a very rich country and the gerneral standard of living and education is very high. There is almost no poverty, unemployment or deprivation hence almost no crime.

As for Mexico. If it bordered Canada instead of America it would be a very different country. Guns come across the border from America in huge amounts. How many gun shops are there on the border? It is also a third world nation with extreme poverty right next door to a very rich country. If you were in their shoes what would you do?

A ruling by a US judge on tracking the sale of high-powered firearms in states on the southern border is a step forward for authorities trying to legislate against the flow of guns into Mexico.

Federal Judge Rosemary Collyer upheld an order made last year by the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The ATF asked more than 8,000 gun dealers in Arizona, Texas, California and New Mexico to report sales of multiple semi-automatic rifles to one individual within five business days, reported Reuters.

http://www.insightcrime.org/insight-latest-news/item/2098-us-gun-dealers-on-mexico-border-must-report-multiple-sales

Calderon’s comments came in response to a reporter’s question about the ongoing drug wars in Mexico, in which, according to STRATFOR’s 2010 annual report on Mexico’s drug cartels, more than 11,000 people were killed in 2010 alone. Could American and Canadian tourists count on a reduction in the violence? He responded by pointing his finger directly at the United States.

http://www.billpressshow.com/2012/04/06/mexicans-pull-the-trigger-we-supply-the-guns/

American gun sellers are fueling a drug war that has cost the lives of thousands. The second amendment doesn't only affect America.

Here's an interesting little factoid for you

In July 2010, Chaska, Minn., Police Chief Scott M. Knight told the House Subcommittee on Crime: “Since 1963, more Americans have died from gunfire than perished in combat in the whole of the 20th century.” The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (www.bradycenter.org) estimates that we lose more than 30,000 Americans every year to gun violence. Yet our political leaders do nothing. Democrats are afraid to raise the issue of gun control. And Republicans would rather ban the pill. How many more have to die before we do something about guns?

So you have lost more Americans that in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam. They're your countrymen not mine.

BTW. Check out the brady site www.bradycenter.org It'll really open your eyes.

[LoriPinkAngel]

I like the idea of training being a condition of licensure.  Also maybe certain guns such  as  military type weapons should have to be  kept in storage at a gun club or something.  Even in the military you don't keep your rifle on you during peacetime when you're not using it... it's locked up in the weapons room.  I suppose that's stomping on people's rights though...

[nogodsforme]

If we could only get the so-called right-to-life people to take on the gun lobby....why don't they picket gun shows and pawn shops with pictures of children killed by guns? 

[LoriPinkAngel]

@ Red -- that really stinks about that Arab guy, also Holmes was able to get his automatic weapon & lots of ammo but I have show my driver's license and sign a paper to buy one package of Sudafed!!!

[Death over Life]

Switzerland having a small population has a tiny army so to make up for it most able bodied men are in the army reserves and keep their weapon at home in case of a sudden call up due to invasion. So the Swiss are trained to use guns properly. Check it out.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1566715.stm

Also Switzerland is a very rich country and the gerneral standard of living and education is very high. There is almost no poverty, unemployment or deprivation hence almost no crime.

No disagreements here. This is actually tackling some of the points I was attempting to make in my last post.

As for Mexico. If it bordered Canada instead of America it would be a very different country. Guns come across the border from America in huge amounts. How many gun shops are there on the border? It is also a third world nation with extreme poverty right next door to a very rich country. If you were in their shoes what would you do?

Immigrate obviously, but it’s completely negating the fact that with there being no guns at all, except in the government’s hands, since the Mexican government is heavily corrupt, think GOP/Tea Party from the USA on extreme steroids, and from this perspective, I think a handgun for protection is at least a little bit reasonable at this point.

American gun sellers are fueling a drug war that has cost the lives of thousands. The second amendment doesn't only affect America.

You posted a bunch of links that made a point, and now are using it to make a point that has nothing to do with the links and quotes you posted.

I agree with your links that we need to make sure guns are heavily tracked. I agree that we should not be allowed to export guns, to any nation. It is all fuel to the fire to the point that I made. Just because we have corrupt gun owners and gun shops (as I mentioned before, the NRA) does not mean that ALL gun owners or shops are at fault. You are using the guilt by association fallacy here. Despite this, I can get behind your call to heavily regulate guns.

So, what exactly are you disagreeing with me?

So you have lost more Americans that in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam. They're your countrymen not mine.

No. I have not lost more American lives than in WW1, WW2, Korea, and/or Vietnam. As I said, guilt by association here. I HATE the NRA! I’m heavily FOR gun regulation, gun control, and systems set up for tracking firearms AND for going through long and tedious processes to obtain this privilege like cars and driving. I as well have a 0% murder rep. So, no Frank, I have not cost any lives at all. Nice try trying to make me feel guilty over something that happened when I didn’t even exist.

In addition, this is why people think you are anti-American. It’s because of your nationalistic statements like:

They're your countrymen not mine.

They are as every bit as your people, as they are mine. Either accept them as your own instead of being nationalist, or you have just revoked your right to say anything on the matter of MY countrymen!

Either way, nobody is my countryman, just as nobody is yours. We are not slave masters, we are individuals, so I really don’t appreciate the nationalistic rhetoric.

BTW. Check out the brady site www.bradycenter.org It'll really open your eyes.

What about the site is supposed to open my eyes, and about what? I already agree with the majority of what was said here.

The only thing I mentioned that I possibly see your objection is that I agree with the original poster and the founding fathers of the USA on the right to bear arms. If this is so, then let us argue on that point rather than acting that I’m an NRA toter since I’m an NRA hater.

[Red McWilliams]

Define "gobs".

Well, that's kinda the issue isn't it?

You have to jump through a few hoops to buy Sudafed and you can't buy cases of it every month.  I don't know what the right number would be, but it doesn't seem too crazy to have similar limitations on ammo.  There are lots of potentially harmful products that we regulate stiffly.  I just wonder why bullets don't fall under that category.