Shoot a camera, not a gun

[Jubb Jubb]

A person has a right to defend themselves and their property, and to kill, if necessary.

And this is why your deaths by gun rate will continue to be so high.

 

[JamesLee]

I personally wanted to make you understand that the right to bear arms meant much deeper than self protection , it also meant that the citizen had a right/duty to stand against their own govt if they threatened their freedom and life.

 

[frank-grumman]

Hesitant as I am to break it to you, 'LOL' does not constitute a rational argument.

The idea is to try to refine our understanding of what is and isn't realistic. Prejudices don't change. Intelligent understanding of the consequences of those prejudices may, however, be another matter for anyone whose mind is not completely closed.

Cheers,

R.

As I said: LOL

 

[Roger Hicks]

As Roger states, we are perhaps letting people who know nothing of the subject to define the laws that govern it...

This is perpetually my point. Unless those of us who own and want to keep guns can put forward a view that is comprehensible to the anti-gun lobby, never mind acceptable,we will be inviting the terminally ignorant to write the laws. Intransigence and denial will not suffice.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JamesLee]

I object to the word 'excuse' and suggest 'reason' is a better choice. 🙂

Bear in mind the US Constitution. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the rights of people to own firearms. The law does not require any reason.

Having a personal firearm of a citizen is the last resort. Takes about 2-6 minutes for the police to arrive on location on avg and it takes 1 sec to take away someones life.

Imagine a life threatening situation , where you need protection and the police just won't come soon enough , it's not hard.

 

[JamesLee]

This is perpetually my point. Unless those of us who own and want to keep guns can put forward a view that is comprehensible to the anti-gun lobby, never mind acceptable,we will be inviting the terminally ignorant to write the laws. Intransigence and denial will not suffice.

Cheers,

R.

But yours is different. You enjoy guns and shoot them as an hobby.

I don't use it as a hobby and keep it locked away some where. I keep it with me all the times as a last resort for safety. I hope I never get to shoot my gun , you enjoy shooting yours (no harm).

 

[Roger Hicks]

I personally wanted to make you understand that the right to bear arms meant much deeper than self protection , it also meant that the citizen had a right/duty to stand against their own govt if they threatened their freedom and life.

Your point about standing against government is superficially legitimate but in real terms meaningless. First, the US government is not (except in the fantasies of the tinfoil-helmet brigade) imposing its will on its citizens via firefights -- or do you expect a civil war?

Second, in Tibet before the Chinese invasion, 'firearms control' was simple: if you could afford it, you could have it. I know at least one family who owned an LMG (Light Machine Gun) for 'self defence'. When I asked HH Dalai Lama specifically about 'the right to keep and bear arms', his reply boiled down to "There's nothing you can keep at home that's much use against heavy artillery, tanks and an air force." This is from someone who's been there, done that...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jubb Jubb]

If you don't, your upbringing has been dangerously restricted. When you know even a little more about the subject, come back and argue some more. .22 short was commonly used in fairground attractions, and it is risible to refer to it as 'a weapon of war'.

Cheers,

R.

How has my upbringing been restricted? Guns are not allowed here in Aus.
We don't have access to weapons like that, especially not in department stores like wallmart. And since strict licensing on guns has come into effect here, the death by gun rate is minimal.

Learn something from this, you don't need guns in your lives, no matter what calibre they are.

 

[JamesLee]

OK so let's say all that is suddenly in place.

Law abiders we don't have to concern ourselves with.

That leaves the law breakers. How many of those people are going to follow these new transaction laws?

How does this stop a legal gun owner from having their guns stolen and used in a crime, as at Sandy Hook?

I really wish I could be more positive about what you posted.

How exactly are the numbers of guns reduced by tracking transactions and using registration? Changing ownership does not remove them from existence.

Having to draft wording so that there will be' confiscation of guns after one commits a violent crime' doesn't really protect the victim or prevent the event does it?

Don't forget that Columbine happened right in the middle of the so-called Assault Weapons ban...

it was a gun free zone also. Please look at my first post in this topic for your questions.

Freedom has a cost , let's not make the sane law abiding citizens pay for it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

But yours is different. You enjoy guns and shoot them as an hobby.

I don't use it as a hobby and keep it locked away some where. I keep it with me all the times as a last resort for safety. I hope I never get to shoot my gun , you enjoy shooting yours (no harm).

Sure. And we BOTH need to advance our arguments, in the awareness that we are talking to people who know less than nothing about guns used or held for either purpose, and who are unreasonably terrified because of their ignorance.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JamesLee]

Your point about standing against government is superficially legitimate but in real terms meaningless. First, the US government is not (except in the fantasies of the tinfoil-helmet brigade) imposing its will on its citizens via firefights -- or do you expect a civil war?

Second, in Tibet before the Chinese invasion, 'firearms control' was simple: if you could afford it, you could have it. I know at least one family who owned an LMG (Light Machine Gun) for 'self defence'. When I asked HH Dalai Lama specifically about 'the right to keep and bear arms', his reply boiled down to "There's nothing you can keep at home that's much use against heavy artillery, tanks and an air force." This is from someone who's been there, done that...

Cheers,

R.

No one is saying the government is taking all my freedoms away , taking my house , killing my children or abusing any powers on me where as i am unconfertable.

I say I can't predict the future and therefor I will always have a firearm for protection if the government does threaten me and does wrong. and you say it's fantasy.

You don't know what the future holds for us in 30 years. You are not god.

 

[JamesLee]

Sure. And we BOTH need to advance our arguments, in the awareness that we are talking to people who know less than nothing about guns used or held for either purpose, and who are unreasonably terrified because of their ignorance.

Cheers,

R.

I completly agree. You are right there is an ignorance for the weapons.

I suggest Jubb Jubb understands that the best way we can solve this issue , is that the government focuses in depth to the mentally-ill , rather then gun restrictions to everyone.

The lady had 22 assault rifles in a state that banned assault rifles in 93 or 94.

 

[Roger Hicks]

How has my upbringing been restricted? Guns are not allowed here in Aus.
We don't have access to weapons like that, especially not in department stores like wallmart. And since strict licensing on guns has come into effect here, the death by gun rate is minimal.

Learn something from this, you don't need guns in your lives, no matter what calibre they are.

Anyone who doesn't know that .22 (5.6mm in new money) is probably the smallest common calibre (apart from .177/4.5mm for air guns) has clearly never read very much fiction or indeed non-fiction, or alternatively, has not noticed what they have read.

Learn this: preaching at people, especially from a holier-than-thou stance, has probably caused more deaths than firearms. Learn too that there's a big difference between 'strict licensing' (with which I have very few problems) and bans (with which I have quite a problem).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

No one is saying the government is taking all my freedoms away , taking my house , killing my children or abusing any powers on me where as i am unconfertable.

I say I can't predict the future and therefor I will always have a firearm for protection if the government does threaten me and does wrong. and you say it's fantasy.

You don't know what the future holds for us in 30 years. You are not god.

Highllight: Very true. On the other hand, any US citizen who (a) believes they WILL have to fight the US government in the next 30 years or do and (b) believes they WILL BE ABLE TO fight the US government in the next 30 years or so is not living in the same reality as most of us.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jubb Jubb]

Why is the ban such a problem to you?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Why is the ban such a problem to you?

(Assuming this is addressed to me)
Because I have the quaint, old-fashioned notion that children grow up and become adults. Infantilization -- such as the raising of the drinking age to 21, the banning of guns, the idea that 18-year-olds are 'children' and need to be at school -- strikes me as a fundamental affront to human dignity and a craven acceptance of slavery.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jubb Jubb]

slavery... righto.

I guess we here in Australia are slaves then as we aren't allowed to have guns without a strict licensing review.
I guess thats also why we are the seventh safest country to live in the world...

 

[JamesLee]

Highllight: Very true. On the other hand, any US citizen who (a) believes they WILL have to fight the US government in the next 30 years or do and (b) believes they WILL BE ABLE TO fight the US government in the next 30 years or so is not living in the same reality as most of us.

Cheers,

R.

I am sorry Roger. I hope I never have to fight against my Gov as I love my land and the people here , I am optimist about it but not certain. But I simply do not know what will happen in the future. It may just be a police officer that might threaten my life or my loved ones and not a govt at its entirety.. I simply won't know. Long story short one of my old neighbors who moved in awhile back told me they had to give up their land because of a terrible ordeal caused by a bunch of mischiefs whose one of the members was a nephew of the sherif there. This included loitering , disrespect (calling the lady the N word) and verbal threats. I do not think this was a case where a gun was needed and maybe they have done the right thing , I don't know the whole story. IT could always be worse.There are much worse examples. Evil exists in this world and bad things can happen to good people.

Unfortunately some cops hide behind the badge and betray our trust and use the law enforcing for their own individual gain even to this day of big centralized govt.

 

[hteasley]

OK so let's say all that is suddenly in place.

Law abiders we don't have to concern ourselves with.

That leaves the law breakers. How many of those people are going to follow these new transaction laws?

How does this stop a legal gun owner from having their guns stolen and used in a crime, as at Sandy Hook?

I really wish I could be more positive about what you posted.

How exactly are the numbers of guns reduced by tracking transactions and using registration? Changing ownership does not remove them from existence.

Having to draft wording so that there will be' confiscation of guns after one commits a violent crime' doesn't really protect the victim or prevent the event does it?

Don't forget that Columbine happened right in the middle of the so-called Assault Weapons ban...

You have to start beginning to find out where the guns are, so tracking transactions is the first place to do it. Being able to track guns means being able to hold links in the chain accountable.

The first folks that will follow tougher transaction laws will be FFLs. If there's a 1 gun/month limit nationally, and FFLs have tougher requirements for accounting for inventory, that reduces the flow of weapons. If there are severe penalties for not being able to produce a weapon that is linked directly to you transactionally, you can start thinning the population of straw purchasers.

My understanding is the criminal world requires a steady flow of new weapons, given that possession of a weapon implicated in a crime is a problem for folks trying to stay out of jail. So if you reduce the flow to a trickle, and criminally-used weapons remove themselves from circulation with some regularity, you will start to see a drop in the number of guns out there.

If criminal gun violence goes down, law-abiding folks might buy fewer guns for self-defense. The buyback programs might be worth it for many folks. The overall population of guns goes down. Fewer guns correlates extremely strongly to fewer gun deaths, as I've said repeatedly.

As I said before, about 10-15% of guns used in crimes are stolen, according to what I have read. Theft is a problem, but it can be dealt with. If it becomes more of a problem, you can require gun safes or some other behavior from gun owners to make them responsible to some degree for attempting to prevent theft. Like I said earlier, though, that gets into a harder area, and I wouldn't think you have to start there.

But not having an immediate answer for those guns doesn't stop me from saying I have proposed a solution for 85-90% of the guns used in crimes, and I have to think that's worth something.

 

[JamesLee]

Roger I do not think Jubb Jubb will look at the issue from the other side of the issue by a bunch of text displayed in pixels.

I keep repeating it and can't stress it enough but I hope he could understand having a in depth look at the mentally-ill and addressing that issue would be much more effective then simply having a nationwide weapons ban.

I don't think I have much more to contribute to this thread anymore.

I want to thank Roger Hicks for keeping a intelligent and well reasoned discussion here and keeping me in level , and Jubb, I feel your need for concern that was projected by this tragedy , I feel the most outmost genuine emphaty towards you.