All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Chat about non-hiking topics. The least serious of the forums on the site!
User avatar
Crusak
Posts: 3607
Joined: August 6th, 2009, 7:33 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by Crusak » May 24th, 2013, 8:41 am

Every new gun law that has been proposed recently does nothing to prevent criminals from committing gun crimes. The only people affected are/would be law abiding citizens like me, who don't need to be further regulated or restricted. That's what frustrates me to screaming tears. :lol:

We need better enforcement of current laws. We need to treat the mentally ill. Confiscation won't work (because no criminals will turn in guns... Only a few law-abiding citizens would).

When all this madness started last year I decided to do my own research. Spent hours pouring over FBI stats. Read John Lott's book ('More Guns... Less Crime'). Did you know that more people get murdered with hammers than with rifles? That includes all rifles! And they wanted to ban semiauto rifles? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Every LEO I know is against any new gun control. Same with current or former military members I know. Anyone read the news story about the lady in Josephine County who called 911 because her ex-boyfriend was at her door and about to wail on her (again!)? Dispatcher told her that no police officers were available. She was advised to just ask him to go away. That didn't work out so well.

We cannot rely on law enforcement for protection. I get phone calls every day from people who want police to assist them with a problem by "being there just in case something happens" - but that's not what law enforcement does. LEOs are not private security.

That's why I'm a big proponent of gun ownership. Responsible gun ownership. Following the rules of gun safety. Teaching kids gun safety (instead of teaching them only to fear guns).
Jim's Hikes

Solvitur Ambulando

User avatar
xrp
Posts: 505
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 10:26 am

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by xrp » May 24th, 2013, 8:42 am

Peder wrote:
Chase wrote:Peder, the reason the 18th was reversed had to do with the fact that it was ineffective. It was a law that enforcers found impossible to enforce. Many of the enforcers broke this law themselves.
I am well aware of the above Chase - Mexico suffers ample violence due to our refusal to legalize other "drugs" and the simplicity of smuggling assault weapons from the US into Mexico. I will be without my computer until Monday, as I am going to the beach without a PC. I will enjoy ignoring this debate for the next 60 hours until I reconnect with the world. Meanwhile, a heartfelt "thank you" to all involved for keeping the tone very civilized.
Of course it is easy, the US Government itself was facilitating it. :roll:

User avatar
Chase
Posts: 1264
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by Chase » May 24th, 2013, 9:08 am

Koda wrote:
Updated, yes. Xrp's list of quotes does not trump this point. Koda's point about the National Guard is overruled by the larger argument in Peder's paragraph. Peder wins this one.
I dont see how the use of the National Guard overrules or redefines the 2A? Didnt Kep point out the grammatical usage, in either wording 'the right of the people...' is its own clause!


Fair argument, but I'm not convinced. Sorry.

*Gun enthusiasts seem to hate auto death and gun death comparisons
Thats because no one is voting to take away cars. IMO every gun control law today is merely a prohibition on law abiding citizens. None of today's gun control laws affect criminals, its been another felony for a felon to possess a gun for years.

Maybe the problem is the gun community isn't able to exercise their rights. If we wanted a gun free country, we should have prohibited them at its beginning. Now its too late. If your going to have an armed citizenry then you must not prohibit the law abiding who chose to exercise their rights.

Actually, much has been done to take driving privilidges away from unsafe drivers. I don't think very many people want a "gun-free country". People want a country where 30,000 lives are not lost to firearms. Most people (I think) have no problem with people like Koda or Cruzak owning a gun. Most people (I think) have a problem with John Hinkley or Dylan Klebold acquiring firearms.

We should do same with guns. Don't talk about making them illegal, educate people and enforce a few reasonable laws regulating them.
I agree about education. I think if we took all the money wasted on gun control prohibition and put into gun education there would be a much different picture in the right direction. Stop making guns taboo, weapons have been a part of mankind since the beginning.
These are wonderful steps in the right direction. What are some additional ideas you might have to prevent lives from being taken by firearms? (I'm guessing this question will be ignored)

User avatar
Crusak
Posts: 3607
Joined: August 6th, 2009, 7:33 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by Crusak » May 24th, 2013, 9:32 am

Chase wrote:What are some additional ideas you might have to prevent lives from being taken by firearms?
That's the million dollar question. I've had a difficult time finding a comparable situation that works. For instance, in the auto industry, we've enhanced safety with seat belts and airbags. But guns are designed to take lives... cars are not.

I think one place we could start at is to examine who is killing who with guns, and why. Gang-related violence is a big part of the gun violence issue. Suicides are another. Tackling gun safety and gun violence might not involve anything directly related to firearms at all, but rather tackling the issues in our society that are prompting people to take their own lives, or the lives of others.

I'll have to think on that a while and respond later... ;)
Jim's Hikes

Solvitur Ambulando

User avatar
xrp
Posts: 505
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 10:26 am

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by xrp » May 24th, 2013, 11:23 am

Crusak wrote: But guns are designed to take lives... cars are not.
Sounds like both should be recalled until they perform as designed, right?

No cars shall be used until they take no lives.
No guns shall be used until they take lives.

See how absurd the argument is?

There are over 300,000,000 guns in the USA and 100,000,000 gun owners. Despite this, 300,000,000 guns weren't used to take lives today. 100,000,000 gun owners didn't kill anyone today.

User avatar
Crusak
Posts: 3607
Joined: August 6th, 2009, 7:33 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by Crusak » May 24th, 2013, 1:45 pm

xrp wrote:
Crusak wrote: But guns are designed to take lives... cars are not.
Sounds like both should be recalled until they perform as designed, right?

No cars shall be used until they take no lives.
No guns shall be used until they take lives.

See how absurd the argument is?

There are over 300,000,000 guns in the USA and 100,000,000 gun owners. Despite this, 300,000,000 guns weren't used to take lives today. 100,000,000 gun owners didn't kill anyone today.
I was struggling to find something to compare guns and gun usage to, and yes I agree, the car analogy doesn't fit. My intent was to find something outside the realm of firearms that had been dealt with in a sensible manner and draw solutions from there, if that makes sense. Sort of 'thinking outside the box' in a way. I think the overwhelming majority of firearms in the U.S. are just collecting dust and rust in storage and not getting much attention most of the time. :)

From the FBI's website - a table that shows the type of murder weapon and the number of people killed with it

For those of you that would rather not click the link, here's a screenshot:
expanded homicide data table 8.jpg
Compare the number of homicides to the type of weapon used. The numbers are telling. The FBI's page for murder stats is HERE - lots of tables and information to pour over. One thing that really stands out to me is that in the more heavily populated parts of the country you are much more likely to be murdered. The big cities aren't very safe. In rural areas the murder rate per 100,000 people is much lower.

I'm still giving Chase's question a lot of thought... :idea: :idea: :idea:
Jim's Hikes

Solvitur Ambulando

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 13159
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by retired jerry » May 24th, 2013, 2:24 pm

"Anyone read the news story about the lady in Josephine County who called 911 because her ex-boyfriend was at her door and about to wail on her (again!)? Dispatcher told her that no police officers were available. She was advised to just ask him to go away. That didn't work out so well."

I want the police to come when I call 911

Didn't Josephine County just vote down a tax increase for more law enforcement?

Don't those rural counties have unreasonably low property taxes? Or is that just propoganda from people that want to raise taxes.

You should be able to own guns though

If society is such that we have to baricade ourselves in our houses, that's not a society I want

User avatar
Koda
Posts: 3437
Joined: June 5th, 2009, 7:54 am

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by Koda » May 24th, 2013, 2:47 pm

+1 xrp

Chase wrote:Actually, much has been done to take driving privilidges away from unsafe drivers. I don't think very many people want a "gun-free country". People want a country where 30,000 lives are not lost to firearms. Most people (I think) have no problem with people like Koda or Cruzak owning a gun. Most people (I think) have a problem with John Hinkley or Dylan Klebold acquiring firearms.
And much has been done to take away gun rights from criminals. The difference between the two comparisons is they actually enforce DUI laws way more rigorously. Will they be out on force checking for drunk drivers this weekend, yes! Do they prosecute felons who fail a NICS check, no?
These are wonderful steps in the right direction. What are some additional ideas you might have to prevent lives from being taken by firearms? (I'm guessing this question will be ignored)
Aside from an education and safety campaign, the first thing they need to do is get rid of these 'gun free' zones. Not only do these not work, they are a target for mass shootings.

(my next idea is something I need to learn more about myself, but think there is an essential element here that has been largely ignored in our culture....)
Another thing that I think has an impact is educating the public, especially families and young adults to recognize symptoms of criminals especially in highschool and young adults. I find it hard to believe the Sandy Hook shooter did not display symptoms. I also think to a small extent bullying has an impact on mass shootings... anyways, I cant imagine what events in Lanza's short life led him to commit such an act. We need to figure out what those are, identify them, prevent them, educate others to report them, create ways to lawfully act on them without intruding on the rights of others.

So these ideas feel good and all, but watch how much of this gets addressed in the future. none. Instead, they were replaced by a huge campaign of gun control laws only affecting the very people that don't commit crimes, law abiding citizens..... The law abiding gun owners that xrp references. So lets ban the AK's, AR's, high capacity mags, "barrel shrouds".... and leave the psychotic behaviors alone to fester because we all know that guns are the only way, just ask Timothy McVeigh.
xrp wrote:There are over 300,000,000 guns in the USA and 100,000,000 gun owners. Despite this, 300,000,000 guns weren't used to take lives today. 100,000,000 gun owners didn't kill anyone today.
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

User avatar
forestkeeper
Posts: 1291
Joined: July 23rd, 2011, 8:31 pm
Location: Oregon City
Contact:

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by forestkeeper » May 24th, 2013, 6:45 pm

:) Chase: That was quite the experience you had while hiking in Canyonlands. Not a very pleasant feeling when you are just trying to have a good time. I really commend you on trying to get the Grumpies to have one too. Usually, I only open carry my .38 Special semiautomatic revolver when I am working in the illegal target shooting areas of the forest or when I'm at least three or more miles into the boonies with no people around. Especially when I'm on Wildcat Mountain. Since that nine foot long cougar was tracking me last year, I have had the need to carry something for protection. I'm still waiting to accidentally hike in on an illegal grow operation. Last year, while working a specific section of the forest for about a month, a large selection of BMW's, Audi's, Jaguar's and Hondas drove by, heading somewhere up in the hills. That's why I think hiking off trail or on lonely, unused trails seems to be more dangerous than hiking on well used trails such as Eagle Creek or Larch Mt. But I always hike alone. If I were with the Loonies, who needs guns for protection? Mayhem has a eerie Sasquatch howl, Crusak carries a cannon and Tom/Roy would just talk the bad guys to death. Dustin could body slam them, EP could sing and I could just take my shirt off. ;)

User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6406
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by kepPNW » May 24th, 2013, 9:50 pm

Koda wrote:
Chase wrote:Updated, yes. Xrp's list of quotes does not trump this point. Koda's point about the National Guard is overruled by the larger argument in Peder's paragraph. Peder wins this one.

I dont see how the use of the National Guard overrules or redefines the 2A? Didnt Kep point out the grammatical usage, in either wording 'the right of the people...' is its own clause!
Okay, two things...
  • Yes, I believe grammarians call it a dependent clause, to be precise. That is, its meaning is dependent on, and subordinate to, what precedes it. IOW, my point was exactly the opposite -- it's a fallacy to think that clause stands alone.
  • Following my saying I hadn't intended to ridicule anyone in this thread, xrp chose to ridicule the entire gun movement by demonstrating a very modest cut-n-paste proficiency, followed with a four-word nearly-monosyllabic ad hominem. What a sorry spectacle that was. I'm saddened to see such childish nonsense in a thread that most of the Internet could otherwise take a good example from. :roll: It's irresponsible, unthinking, absolutist trollery like that which leads many, and more daily, to conclude the only answer is repeal of the 2nd, so we can all start over and talk about this like adults.
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

Post Reply