musings on the gun control issue

Discussion in 'Cast & Blast' started by Alex MacDonald, Jan 31, 2013.

  1. Roper Idiot Savant

    Posts: 4,317
    Glenraven Ranch
    Ratings: +797 / 1
    No, I'm sure no one in DC plays politics, that's just a rumor spread by Tea Baggers.:rolleyes: If you're truly worried about even one child "being slaughtered" check and see how many Canadian children died today in drunk driving "accidents". Then see how light the punishment is for killing an innocent child that way. Gonna give up your booze? Your car? But it's not on your gun scared radar is it? I say bullshit...every bleeding heart gun scared weenie out there thinks the government is gonna make life safer. Ha! The US government is now the largest weapons dealer in the world. How many Afghan children have died as collateral damage from drone strikes? What does the DHS need hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition for? Target practice? Not the high performance ammo they're buying. There's a lot of questions you need to investigate before you get all warm and fuzzy about the US Government. And if you think for a minute this shit won't spill over into Canada, you're nuts. Stick with what BC folks know best, growing dynamite bud...oh, wait, that's illegal....:confused:

    http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safedrivers-impaireddriving-smashed-index-580.htm
    here's a little reading for you, see anything skewed here? Like driving smashed is laughable among friends. Cultural issue on both sides of the border here...let's have a drink and talk about gun control.

    Nothing worse than talking out of both side of ones mouth...
  2. Islander Steve

    Posts: 2,182
    Langley, Wa..
    Ratings: +184 / 6
    Gun control is like trying to eliminate drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to get cars.
  3. speyfisher Active Member

    Posts: 1,067
    State of Jefferson U.S.A.
    Ratings: +139 / 3
    The second Amendment is not negotiable!

    If you don't think there there is a conspiracy to get rid of guns, why is it that Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Shumer, Micheal Bloomberg, and the like have been promoting gun control for years? Many of them have openly admitted their goal is to ban private ownership of all fire arms.

    Did not every member of Congress, as well as the President & VP take an oath to protect & defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, both foreign & domestic? If trashing any part of the Bill of Rights fails to qualify as "domestic enemy" I don't know what does. They should all be hung for treason!
  4. freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Posts: 4,151
    Edgewood, WA
    Ratings: +796 / 1
    Blaming a gun for a shooting is like blaming a pencil for a misspelled word... balderdash! No one in their right mind condones the violent acts of the very relative few, any more than we condone shamelessly taking advantage of situations to promote an agenda.
  5. Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Posts: 3,336
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Ratings: +896 / 0
    First, liberal politicians like pelosi and shumer like to throw into the "innocent children" pot all the little gangbangers that get popped. Their stats extend the term "child" to age 26. For my money, they can cap each other all they want, and I don't give a shit! Second, gun violence needs to be addressed in a completely logical and intelligent manner, NOT with emotion. That gets us nowhere. Third, It's probably a stretch to grasp the vehemence of the debate given the cultural history of the British Commonwealth. The force behind this debate comes not from wanting to completely eliminate any child being killed, but rather the very real concern that politicians will eliminate private ownership of firearms. The 2nd amendment is about POLITICIAN control, as in pelosi control, or obama control. There are some politicians, including the above mentioned (if in doubt, just READ THEIR STATEMENTS over the years on this issue) who'd really like to feel safe while completely screwing over the American public). That's why this is so important an issue. Defense of one's life and property actually are secondary, but more frequently called into play.

    Do I feel there's some sort of conspiracy to take firearms? Absolutely. Do I feel something needs to be done to reign in the kooks from getting guns? Hell yes! But I see truth in the NRA saying background checks are a joke-they ARE! Felons who try to buy guns need to be prosecuted and jailed, but so few of them actually are, background checks are useless for what they're designed to do. The NRA's position is that if you're gonna have them, put some teeth into them, follow through, and jail these guys! What's so fucking hard about this? We have all these stupid laws on the books, but allow them to be plea-bargained away. That needs to stop. Also quit pissing about worrying about "intent" with the exception of determining accident vs. "meant to do it". Accident then needs to revert to civil court, while the other results in immediate hanging if it's determined that you actually DID do it. No exceptions, no "mitigating circumstances", no bullshit. Just a short drop and a long stop. And no "20-year wait", either.

    in the Newton case, come on; the mother knew this kid was screwed up; she allowed him access to the weapon, and everyone KNEW he was dangerous right from the start, but why isn't she getting raked over the coals for her inability to parent (other than the fact that he killed her, too)? You're required to have a license to drive a car, maybe you should be required to take a test, and demonstrate through a practical exam that you can handle a kid, too! Otherwise, you don't get to have one. Just sayin`!

    Nope, this isn't a hardware issue, but a cultural one. And it won't be "fixed" by anything these incompetent politicians can come up with. Simply look at California, where my Anschutz 1847 Fortner Biathlon target rifle's a felony-easily detachable magazine, and (GASP!!) a pistol grip!!! These morons think it's an "assault" weapon. Nope, in order to even begin the discussion, we require hard facts on who's shot, with what, under what circumstances. Then we need to determine the why of this. Once these two things are in play, we can begin to work to solve the issue.

    AS to the "why" part, over the weekend in our local papers, there was a letter to the editor from some guy who's in charge of a Yakima mental health "outreach" program decrying the possibility of the mentally unstable being labeled as such. He claims mental stability was an issue in only a handful of these incidents. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... They ate too many twinkies. Maybe we need to reign these idiots in, first?
  6. speyfisher Active Member

    Posts: 1,067
    State of Jefferson U.S.A.
    Ratings: +139 / 3
    I agree with everything you said with the exception of: who is shot, with what, under what circumstances, & why. These ***** politicians somehow feel their lives are more important than ours. BS! Dead is dead. What difference does it make who is dead, whether it was a baseball bat or a .50 cal fragmenting bullet, or why? "Thou shalt not kill" includes no exceptions! PTSD, PMS, screw loose, nothing. Hang the SOBs in full view of the public, and leave them for the crows to pick at for a week as a reminder of the consequences! And as far as I'm concerned, if you "reached out" to these whacko's by turning them loose on society, you should be held accountable.
    Flyfishing Dad likes this.
  7. Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Posts: 3,336
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Ratings: +896 / 0
    I like the "crows" idea! But if you capped some shitbag who tried to carjack you, or rape your daughter, for example, you should be praised rather than included in the "no" column. I view that as part of the solution, not part of the problem. But I gotta say, Speyfisher, that your thoughts on dealing with those pinheads "reaching out" to scum, well, my hat's off to you, sir!!! I'll give that thought at least five thumbs up!!!!!
    speyfisher likes this.
  8. speyfisher Active Member

    Posts: 1,067
    State of Jefferson U.S.A.
    Ratings: +139 / 3
    Well yeah, that's called justifiable homicide. :D
  9. Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Posts: 3,336
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Ratings: +896 / 0
    It should be open season with no bag limit on scumbags, and I'll also throw the current crop of politicians into that category: pond scum's where you find it!
    speyfisher likes this.
  10. freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Posts: 4,151
    Edgewood, WA
    Ratings: +796 / 1
    Excellent...and, as an added bonus, we can use toxic, eco-insensitive ammo :D
    Alex MacDonald likes this.
  11. Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Posts: 3,336
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Ratings: +896 / 0
    Nah, not necessary; I've always found that a round through the headlights tends to "leave a lasting impression". Usually just one. You listen to the bunch with their panties in a wad, it's like every round ever fired is eco-insensitive. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about their feelings, so I'm ok with lead. After all, where'd the stuff originally come from, Planet X? Just try not to eat it.
    speyfisher likes this.
  12. Ron Eagle Elk Active Member

    Posts: 1,742
    Yelm, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +110 / 0
    I was buying a pistol at the Lacey Cabela's store, nice little Smith and Wesson 22A so I could teach my wife to shoot pistols without frightening her. When I was filling out the forms on the computer I asked the clerk what prevented people from lying on the form. He said "it's against the law". Laws are for the law abiding, and the law abiding only. Stripping our rights to own a firearm that we deem suitable to protect family, home, and country from those who would do harm to them is a slap in the face to the founding Fathers of this country. Never again will a potential invader warn against such a foolish act because there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

    If a felon gets a 20 year sentence for a crime, then they should do 20 years, not be out in 7 for good behavior. No easy time served either, work their asses off even if it's making small rocks out of big rocks. Yes, I'm a fan of Sheriff Joe.

    Alex, like you I've found that 155 grains of lead (I prefer mine jacketed) between the headlights or through the blood pump suffices to end all hostile intentions. Okay, with my 1911's it's 230 grains.
    ribka and speyfisher like this.
  13. freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Posts: 4,151
    Edgewood, WA
    Ratings: +796 / 1
    When I was kid in Florida, we use to see them in striped overalls cutting the saw-grass along the turnpikes...left an indelible impression on us youngsters. But them came the ACLU and the statist's hell bent on making America better...so far so good :rolleyes:
    speyfisher likes this.
  14. wadin' boot Donny, you're out of your element...

    Posts: 2,046
    Wallingford, WA
    Ratings: +1,623 / 0
    Alex I don't see it as a cultural issue, it's a health one. Folks bring up the drunk driving parallel like it's a knockout blow, it's not. Road fatalities are declining due to laws, liability, safety standards,education and enforcement. In our own State of Washington Firearm deaths now outnumber road and traffic fatalities and have done so for several years. But there is little application of any of those same principles to firearms that have led to decreased road fatalities. Why not?

    I for one am annoyed to have to pay for all the idiotic waste that follows gun morbidity. I already pay for it as do all of you through increased health premiums, Medicare, SS. We pay for it through lost productivity and lives cut short, for disability and chronic health costs.

    Two out of three gun fatalities are suicides. By the gun owners or their family members...you guys are cool with that? You guys cool with subsidizing your fellow owners bad judgement and health costs? I'm not.

    Jack up the liability, require competency testing and re-test it. Hold owners and manufacturers liable for the mess you and I pay for...

    There's a huge bubble of baby boomers heading towards dementia. 50% of em will be there by age 85, demented that is. Paranoia's a calling card there. Paranoia and guns, a great combination for bad decisions...
    flybill likes this.
  15. Dorylf Oregon Member

    Posts: 109
    Salem, OR
    Ratings: +61 / 0
    if someone wants to kill him/herself, taking away a gun isn't going to fix it. People simply find another method. Example: they don't have guns in Japan, but look at their suicide rate.
  16. freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Posts: 4,151
    Edgewood, WA
    Ratings: +796 / 1
    "Why not?"

    Because many of us are really tired of those that want to legislate every GD aspect of life. Driving a car is not a constitutional right...owning and using a firearm is. I for one do not support any changes that infringe on that right whatsoever.

    No argument from me on spending more emphasis on treating mental health; folks not right in the head and driving around in congested neighborhoods and at freeway speeds... also not a good combination.

    As for subsidizing fellow (gun) owners bad judgement...we've been doing that for years in the auto and home insurance sector and no one seems to give a shit. Hell, they hand out drivers licenses to folks who can barely manage a bowel movement. I'm curious why you would suggest singling out gun owners? How about parents who let kids handle fireworks which result in thousands of trips to emergency rooms, or participate in contact sports...also adding to costs. And, let's not forget to add more legislature and punitive costs to those cannabis users who WA state saw fit to endorsed :rolleyes:
    Flyfishing Dad and speyfisher like this.
  17. wadin' boot Donny, you're out of your element...

    Posts: 2,046
    Wallingford, WA
    Ratings: +1,623 / 0
    Because 2/3 gun fatalities occur in the home of the gunowner. Because the risks of having a gun in your house jeopardizes everyone under your roof. Your conscious decision to bring a gun into your house raises the risk of sudden death or morbidity to anyone in your house. These are your people that are hurting themselves or their own. Should that occur, we all pay for it. I don't want to have to pay for other people's risky hobbies and the accidents that come with them.

    Costs change behaviors. A principle of capitalism in a first world society is to monetize risk. We do it for car insurance. We do it for cigarettes, we do it for alcohol. We do it for entrepreneurs. We don't do it for guns. Why shouldn't we? Nothing in the second amendment about monetizing risk jeopardizes the right to own firearms. The first amendment lists a freedom to peacefully assemble, why should my freedom to peacefully assemble involve subsidizing others decisions to jeopardize that? If folks can't understand statistics on the risk they put their spouse and children in by bringing a gun into their house, then government by the people has every right to ask that their illiteracy on risk is monetized. Amazingly there is no constitutional right to drive a car (the dangers of constitutional amendments and rights are that sometimes they miss out on really valuable rights (to drive places) and substitute ones that are not so valuable ( just one example here, the 27th amendment for instance- prevents Congressional salary from taking effect until the beginning of the next session of Congress) and yet, amazingly, you are allowed to drive one so long as you comply with licenses, renewals, fees, traffic laws, insurance, and liability agreements.


    We are on the same page with drunkards, potheads, meth abusers, contact sports, parental stupidity on fireworks use, (presumably poachers too) (Let's see how the NFL responds over the next few years as the dementia lawsuits roll in re rule changes..). Seems to me like you have an inherent understanding of the costs of risk taking, and yet guns are somehow taboo? I have a hard time understanding that dichotomy.

    I know what you're saying. Alls I had to do to get a driver's license in Memphis was to turn right four times in a series of abandoned streets, I did this fully continent. But incontinence isn't the same as judgement. Fecal and urinary incontinence may not impair ability to drive a vehicle. On the other hand demonstrated neurological and visual impairments have pathways to revoke licensure. Not the case for gunowners. You could be demented, paranoid, blind and covered in stool and urine and you can buy a gun, you can buy and use ammunition. Particularly if your background checks out. That's not reassuring. What's even less reassuring is , many others don't support "any changes that infringe on that right whatsoever" not even tests of cognitive competency.

    Why not?

    I'll say it again, 50% of 85 year olds will have some degree of dementing illness. What's the fastest growing demographic in the US? The oldest old...that's a lot of demented folks with firearms we have to look forward too. That's reason enough for me to have folks re-certifying and paying for the privilege of shooting, just like we pay for the privilege to fish WA waters...


    Dorylf I get that folks will try to off themselves however they can. I understand in Japan there are cultures, longstanding ones, of honorable suicides deeply tied up with notions of hierarchy and shame. It doesn't make it any less a tragedy there. But here in the US, where men preferentially use guns to kill themselves, It's a lot harder to salvage a gunshot wound than knife or OD attempts.

    It changes things when it's your son, wife, daughter or old man that offs themselves with your gun. I am not OK with 17-year-olds shooting themselves, let alone their cross town rivals. Similarly I am not OK with you guys shooting yourselves, or your kids getting into your guns and offing themselves, or their sister or whatever other ridiculous combination of your family that got, as Oscar Pistorius put it "mistaken for a prowler...."
    flybill likes this.
  18. Dorylf Oregon Member

    Posts: 109
    Salem, OR
    Ratings: +61 / 0
    I've said it before: I don't think anyone wants gun violence; I know I don't. So, we agree on that.

    I'm merely suggesting that the very heart of your argument is flawed. First saying 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide and second saying that 2/3 of gun deaths occur in the home = an obvious correlation: suicides.

    Yes, Japan has cultural differences, but the point remains that if someone wants to kill themselves they find a way. The cost to society remains and in some cases is greater.

    For example, taking a bottle of Tylenol will not kill instantly, but wipes out the liver and kills slowly over an extended time during which medical costs add up. Or, death by train, that's no less expense to society. The list could go on.

    I worked on a suicide hotline for several years. What I found was that when someone was ready to go as lethal as a gun, they had a plan B.

    I completely agree with some ancillary points you make. Example: yes, absolutely, gun owners should responsibly store thier guns to avoid accidents in the home (i.e. assure guns are kept away from young children).

    Bottom line for me remains that with the number of guns in our country, laws are only going to disarm law abiding citizens and most of the laws being proposed are feel good measures that won't stop the headline-making attacks.

    They will, though, take away rights of a heck of a lot of people who enjoy target shooting or hunting: basic rights we have enjoyed in this country since before we were a country.
    Flyfishing Dad likes this.
  19. Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Posts: 3,336
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Ratings: +896 / 0
    OK, Boot; here's where you and I have a major difference. First, I actually don't care if you want to off yourself (that's the generic "you", not you personally). That leaves what, according to your stats claim: two thirds less murders than show up in accurate stats? Suicide isn't homicide. Humans aren't an endangered species; we can lose some, and it won't be a big deal. Don't float the "what if it's one of your family members" approach to me, either-doesn't apply. Second, please tell me what grounds your demand to hold someone, and the company that made the object, responsible when some little shit steals your pickaxe from your (locked) home, an whacks some other little shit over the head with it. Why is it MY responsibility, and what does any manufacturer have to do with this? What philosophy permits you to hold somebody else responsible for acts done by somebody he has absolutely NO control over?

    Finally, and this puts you squarely in my figurative crosshairs. You want liability and competency testing? Fine! Let's also demand that people who vote for idiots are required to pay liability if the figures they vote for are crooks, like Jesse Jackson Jr., and his "cashmere capes" (the term "pimp" comes to mind). But wait!! Why stop there? Require LITERACY competency tests of voters, and before every election, retest them??

    You tell me, especially given the fact that keeping and carrying firearms in this nation is a civil right, why you feel it necessary to restrict MY Right, and not yours? This bullshit's already been tried, after the civil war by the Klan. They passed literacy laws, Poll taxes and firearms laws, directed at blacks and the poor. Is this how you view us, like the southern democrats viewed blacks? There's over 85 MILLION gun owners in this nation. Denying the civil rights of blacks might have worked after the civil war, because few of them owned weapons, but with us "uppity gun owners", probably not a good idea.

    I know you're a decent, smart guy, but get real! If you can't see where this gun control issue's headed, you're head's in the sand.
    Flyfishing Dad likes this.
  20. Upton O Blind hog fisherman

    Posts: 2,171
    out of state now
    Ratings: +221 / 0
    Regarding suicide: the research is clear that immediate access to firearms, usually handguns, results in suicide actions and an huge increase in successful suicide attempts. And here is my experience having dealt with several hundred individuals (at least) who were suicidal at some point in time during their treatment for chemical dependency and/or depression and/or PTSD:

    Going through treatment means "things" are going to get worse before they get better. Addressing trauma experiences, withdrawal from substances, wreckage of the past, failed marriages, damaged or destroyed relationships with partners, children, parents, friends, etc is incredibly painful. This is magnified by the individual not having functional coping mechanisms (booze/drugs have quit working) and there comes a time when the individual feels helpless (overwhelmed), hopeless (no coping skills) and alone (no one knows what I'm going through and there is no help). This is the time they reach for the gun. If the gun isn't there, they are more likely to seek help.

    I would ask my clients to give up their firearms (give them to family or good friends) or at least give up the ammunition if they weren't willing to give up their firearms. (Combat vets don't like to go through life without at least a couple of handguns) Not having ammunition handy means time must pass between the urge to kill themselves and their acquiring more ammunition, plus getting out to get the ammo seems to help alleviate the "helpless" sense. At the same time they would be in one of my treatment groups and talking about their suicidal thoughts. Hopefully they would agree to a short inpatient stay to get stabilized.

    How well did this work? I had one client make a non-firearm suicide attempt (pills), no other client (or their family member) ever reported any attempts.

    In other words, get the guns (or ammo) away from them VOLUNTARILY, get them working in a combat vet group, prescribe certain meds, monitor them closely, and there is a much greater treatment success

    Many of my clients retrieved their firearms/ammo later as we had agreed and had no further need for self harm.

    By the way, the Army, in its archaic approach to mental health treatment, is currently experiencing an average of one successful suicide per day.