NYS Gun Laws

[Mr Tonka]

I do hope that the people who are intent on preserving our entire bill of rights, specifically the current hot topic of the 2nd amendment, plan on doing do out side of this small forum.

Providing a logical, reasonable argument to the hand full of people in this forum who comment in these threads is fine but this does not replace your civic duty to uphold those rights out in the world.

Please contact your representatives and make your voice heard. Contact them on a weekly basis to make sure your voice is heard. Join the NRA, donate to the NRA-ILA specifically.

These rights, within our Constitution are intended to protect all citizens of this nation. As citizens, we need to ensure the protection of those rights.

[andrew777]

This is such a ridiculous discussion. It plays on peoples emotions. Some little kids writes to Obama that guns are dangerous and they killed his friend. OMG lets ban guns! Guess what, food is dangerous too. You can eat to much, become morbidly obese and die. Let's ban food! All we need to do is run a smear campaigns and play to the sentimentality of the masses.

Statistics show that in states where people own more guns and can carry unconcealed weapons you have much less gun violence. Banning guns for law abiding citizens will only strengthen the position of criminals who don't obey laws.

[reelop19]

Your food rant is already reality. Smear campaigns are/were ran against all types of foods and drinks, especially within schools and fast food joints. I believe Michelle O is on top of this

[MonkUSMC]

Banning guns, yep, that is going to stop people with determination to kill another, what ever the cost. Speed limit signs are there because they provide a safe speed for the road, it's illegal to go above that, but people do it anyway.

Banning the source IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE ANYTHING. Do we ban cars for breaking speed limit and getting into crashes because some people can't control themselfs? No, but we try hard to enforce the rule. The same has to go for gun control. They are going to be around, so why don't we just increase security to help prevent some nut case from accomplishing his mission.

Look at airport security. It has dramatically increased since 9/11. There have been COUNTLESS terrorist threats stopped because of this. You won't hear about it, because people will not fly anymore.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

Join the NRA, donate to the NRA-ILA specifically.

Unless, of course, you support the efforts of any one of the 141 organizations listed below.

(take your time, the list covers an extremely large scope; almost every major religious denomination and ethnic group is represented, as well as almost every medical association you can think of.)

These groups have all made the NRA's official enemies list.
http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

I can't tell if the feeling is reciprocal; oddly enough, these groups dont seem to have made room on their websites to list their enemies.

But remember, the NRA is not just an advocate for the gun manufacturers, it serves the people*.

*the people who derive no benefit from the work done by any of those organizations. As long as you've never set foot in a hospital or church of any kind, then joining the NRA probably doesn't put you at risk of being a hypocrite.



AARP
AFL-CIO
Ambulatory Pediatric Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Civil Liberties Union
American Academy of Ambulatory Care Nursing
American Medical Women’s Association
American Medical Student Association
American Medical Association
American Association for the Surgery of Trauma
American Trauma Society
American Federation of Teachers
American Association of School Administrators
American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities
American Medical Association
American Bar Association
American Counseling Association
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association for World Health
American Ethical Union
American Nurses Association
American Association of Neurological Surgeons
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
American Firearms Association
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Jewish Committee
American Trauma Society
American Psychological Association
American Jewish Congress
American Public Health Association
Americans for Democratic Action
Anti-Defamation League
Black Mental Health Alliance
B’nai B’rith
Central Conference of American Rabbis
Children’s Defense Fund
Church of the Brethren
Coalition for Peace Action
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
College Democrats of America
Committee for the Study of Handgun Misuse & World Peace
Common Cause
Congress of National Black Churches, Inc.
Congress of Neurological Surgeons
Consumer Federation of America
Council of the Great City Schools
Council of Chief State School Officers
Dehere Foundation
Disarm Educational Fund
Environmental Action Foundation
Episcopal Church-Washington Office
Florence and John Shumann Foundation
Friends Committee on National Legislation
General Federation of Women’s Clubs
George Gund Fun
Gray Panthers
H.M. Strong Foundation
Hadassah
Harris Foundation
Hechinger Foundation
Interfaith Neighbors
Int’l Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union
Int’l Association of Educators for World Peace
Jewish Labor Committee
Joyce Foundation
Lauder Foundation
Lawrence Foundation
League of Women Voters of the United States*
Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Manhattan Project II
Mennonite Central Committee-Washington Office
National Safe Kids Campaign
National Association of Police Organizations
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Black Nurses’ Association
National Association of Chain Drug Stores
National Network for Youth
National Assembly of National Voluntary Health & Social Welfare Organizations
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Counties*
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners
National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement Officers
National Education Association
National Association of Elementary School Principals*
National Association of Public Hospitals
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Association of Social Workers
National Association of Children’s Hospitals and Related Institutions
National Association of School Psychologists
National Council of La Raza
National Center to Rehabilitate Violent Youth
National Commission for Economic Conversion & Disarmament
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA
National Council of Negro Women
National Association of Community Health Centers
National People’s Action
National Education Association*
National League of Cities
National Council on Family Relations
National Council of Jewish Women
National Organization for Women
National Political Congress of Black Women
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Peace Foundation
National Urban League, Inc.
National Parent, Teachers Association*
National Urban Coalition
National SAFE KIDS Campaign
National Organization on Disability
National Spinal Cord Injury Association
NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Ortenberg Foundation
Peace Action
People for the American Way
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Police Foundation
Project on Demilitarization and Democracy
Public Citizen
SaferWorld
Society of Critical Care Medicine
Southern Christian Leadership Conference
The Council of the Great City Schools
The Synergetic Society
20/20 Vision
U.S. Catholic Conference, Dept. of Social Development
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Unitarian Universalist Association
United States Catholic Conference
United Methodist Church, General Board & Church Society
United Church of Christ, Office for Church in Society*
United States Conference of Mayors
War and Peace Foundation
Women Strike for Peace
Women’s National Democratic Club
Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND)
Women’s Int’l League for Peace and Freedom
World Spiritual Assembly, Inc.
YWCA of the U.S.A.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Unless, of course, you support the efforts of any one of the 141 organizations listed below.

(take your time, the list covers an extremely large scope; almost every major religious denomination and ethnic group is represented, as well as almost every medical association you can think of.)

These groups have all made the NRA's official enemies list.
http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

I can't tell if the feeling is reciprocal; oddly enough, these groups dont seem to have made room on their websites to list their enemies.

But remember, the NRA is not just an advocate for the gun manufacturers, it serves the people*.

*the people who derive no benefit from the work done by any of those organizations. As long as you've never set foot in a hospital or church of any kind, then joining the NRA probably doesn't put you at risk of being a hypocrite.

First off, the NRA doesn't have an "Official Enemies List" on their website. The have a list of corporations, organizations and individuals who are either Ok with or and advocate of stripping away american citizens' gun rights. In the NRA's words it's a list of "National Organizations With Anti-Gun Policies". Not a dramatic... "Official Enemy List".

Second, thank you for further illustrating my point that gun owners need to act if they want to keep their rights. The list above is just the organizations, Al didn't list the corporations or individual celebrity list. There are only but a few organizations, corporations and individuals with the same resolve to preserve our gun rights, so support the few that do.

As a concerned citizen, i try to be aware of what companies i do business with. I would rather do business with companies who advocate the same american ideals i do. This isn't only in regards to gun rights. I try to not do business with companies who were known to donate to Obama's campaign etc... Do you not do the same in some respect?

However it needs to work is fine with me. If representing the gun manufacturer's interest creates a by product that preserves my rights to keep and bare arms, then so be it. It's not like there are another 141 organizations even remotely fighting for my constitutional rights.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

There are only but a few organizations, corporations and individuals with the same resolve to preserve our gun rights, so support the few that do.

True. The NRA list contains those who are "in opposition with NRA goals", how about I put it that way. That list has 141 entries, but it's not companies, it's organizations. Each organization has thousands of members who are involved in different entities and companies.

If it's really about reasonable interpretations of constitutional rights, I wonder why it's so hard to find a bigger list of entities who are friendly to the cause?? Or, to put it another way, why is it so easy to compile such a wide-ranging list of entities who are unfriendly to your cause?

That seems like the kind of battle that would easily enjoy a majority of support, especially among the educated, analytic professionals who are disproportionately represented in their list.

Originally Posted by MP0WER

I try to not do business with companies who were known to donate to Obama's campaign etc... Do you not do the same in some respect?

Yes, and fortunately the list of entities there is much more limited, so I can still avoid them as a practical matter, and conduct my life.

The NRA list is so encompassing it would be hard to find someone who has no association with the list if you want to avail yourself of the services of any lawyer, or doctor, or nurse, or pastor/priest/religious leader, or even police officer. Hell, even the American Firearms Association is on their list. I'm sure it's because they support background checks.

If everyone else is not your friend, what does that say ? Everyone is marching out of step but my son John.

[Eagle1oh7]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

The NRA list is so encompassing it would be hard to find someone who has no association with the list if you want to avail yourself of the services of any lawyer, or doctor, or nurse, or pastor/priest/religious leader, or even police officer. Hell, even the American Firearms Association is on their list. I'm sure it's because they support background checks.

If everyone else is not your friend, what does that say ? Everyone is marching out of step but my son John.

This kind of behavior is why we have such a division within the country, you don't agree with somebody's particular world view, you're as good as dead to that person. It's ridiculous, but that's more or less what it's about. Like Glen Beck's "Independence Town" or whatever the hell he called his delusional fantasy of a tightly controlled community.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

True. The NRA list contains those who are "in opposition with NRA goals", how about I put it that way. That list has 141 entries, but it's not companies, it's organizations. Each organization has thousands of members who are involved in different entities and companies.

If it's really about reasonable interpretations of constitutional rights, I wonder why it's so hard to find a bigger list of entities who are friendly to the cause?? Or, to put it another way, why is it so easy to compile such a wide-ranging list of entities who are unfriendly to your cause?

That seems like the kind of battle that would easily enjoy a majority of support, especially among the educated, analytic professionals who are disproportionately represented in their list.

Most don't like the NRA because they take a hard stance when it comes to the erosion of the 2nd amendment rights. Be it for the contributions the weapons makers give them or because that's what their members want. That's the stance they take. On one hand i fully agree that my rights should not be infringed upon in any way shape or form because of a very few who abuse those rights. On the other hand i want to give a little to save a lot. But this may be what anti-gun politicians want. This no give stance is why some don't like them and why they don't like some.

I personally don't think that the list of pro-gun people, companies and organizations would be that small. It would however be difficult to compile. Just like with gay and straight people. Many companies proclaim to be pro gay or gay friendly. But you don't see companies shouting that they are pro-straight. This is because they would be perceived to be anti-gay. It seems that your opinion and many like yours view anyone who is pro-gun to be anti-peace. Clearly this isn't the case.

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Yes, and fortunately the list of entities there is much more limited, so I can still avoid them as a practical matter, and conduct my life.

The NRA list is so encompassing it would be hard to find someone who has no association with the list if you want to avail yourself of the services of any lawyer, or doctor, or nurse, or pastor/priest/religious leader, or even police officer. Hell, even the American Firearms Association is on their list. I'm sure it's because they support background checks.

If everyone else is not your friend, what does that say ? Everyone is marching out of step but my son John.

I hope that the rest of the world doesn't make the same assumptions you make based on limited sample of information. Sadly, many of the sheeple eat up anything the media and politicians tell them.

I see things differently. I know many pastors, from multiple churches, who shoot for sport and hunt regularly. I have 3 Dr. friends who own and shoot regularly. Nearly all my manufacture sales reps have firearms and shoot regularly. My insurance agent, the contractors i deal with, my bankers, my financial advisor, my dentist, my real estate agent, my landscaper, my auto mechanic, the guy that owns the performance shop i get tires and parts from, even my pool cleaner all own and shoot firearms for sport or hunting. My personally attorney, everyone in his firm and many of the firms in town sponsor sporting clay charity events rather than golf events.

On a side note, my family has long been involved with fund raising for a few different charities. My mother has been a part of several golf fundraisers and the very first sporting clay fund raiser she did garnered 6x that of her best golf event. One because there was a HUGE turn out, two because the owner of the sporting clay facility donated 100% of the facility use. Not once has a golf course offered to do this. Read into that what you will be i see this kind of generosity among shooters every time i encounter them.

Back on point, in my real world i am surrounded by people who own firearms for sport or hunting and protection. This was not by design either. I've done business with many of these people, attended their church, procured their services well before i knew of their love for shooting. In fact, the majority of the people i know, interact with, buy stuff from, sell stuff to, ect... own guns. Maybe if pro-gun people weren't perceived as gun crazed, trouble making, war mongers, more people might be more vocal about it. I'm not sure though....I think that a more feasible reason is because the type of people who own firearms simply don't feel the need to have everyone be the same as them. IE... they don't need to force other people to do things they don't want to or keep people from doing what they want in order to make them feel ok. If you don't want guns, that's fine. But don't think that because you don't want guns, i can't have them.

[Id]

I'm a gun owner. Grew up around them. Farming community. Still enjoy pig, goat, rabbit, fox, kangaroo hunting.

We had stricter gun controls brought in after port Arthur in 96. You know what changed? Nothing. Weapons that replaced skill with quantity were either outlawed or harder to get. Thats it.

Let go of the paranoia. I still have guns. I still shoot. It's just that nutters have a harder time getting access to guns. That's it.

[Mr Tonka]

I don't know about the process in which your country was founded. This one was founded by throwing off an unjust government and starting new. During this start the founders penned a constitution with a bill of rights that ensures the peoples freedom. It was the intent that the constitution was not to be infringed upon. This means that laws which violate the constitution are not to be passed. It's not paranoia, it's our rights.

Below is an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal. Maybe you've read it as it details the cause and effect of gun control in the UK and your nation. Take it for what it's worth, but what i get is that you punish the majority for the actions of few. If the article below and the sources in which these findings came from all said that gun violence disappeared in the UK and your country after the new laws, many Americans would like to follow suit. However, even if gun violence did vanish completely in Australia and the UK, it wouldn't likely work that way in America. The vast number of gun related homicides in this country are due to inner city violence. Again, i'm not as well versed in the culture of Austrailia and the UK but i'm going to guess that what ever drug problem there is in your neck of the woods pales in comparison with the drug problem in America. This is the seed in which the vast majority of gun violence stems.

I have owned firearms since 1994. I have not brandished my weapon at anyone, i have not fired at anyone and i have certainly not shot anyone. My weapons are secure when not in my hands and the people in my home are educated and proficient in regards to handing weapons. So you tell me what's more nutty. Me, wanting to continue doing what i've been doing for the past 19 years. Or my neighbor telling me to give up my guns, that she never knew i had, in order to make her feel safe?

I follow the laws and regulations in place. I go beyond that with regards to keeping my weapons out of the hands of others. I have no history of violence or mental instability. There are about an additional 150,000,000 Americans that do the same. But because there are about 10,000 to 14,000 who don't we're going to take guns from the 150,000,000 who do. This is supposed to make sense?

When our government doesn't have the time to enforce the laws that are currently in place. Why does adding more laws make sense?

By JOYCE LEE MALCOLM

Americans are determined that massacres such as happened in Newtown, Conn., never happen again. But how? Many advocate more effective treatment of mentally-ill people or armed protection in so-called gun-free zones. Many others demand stricter control of firearms.

We aren't alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.

In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.

Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life.

Enlarge Image

David Klein
Since 1920, anyone in Britain wanting a handgun had to obtain a certificate from his local police stating he was fit to own a weapon and had good reason to have one. Over the years, the definition of "good reason" gradually narrowed. By 1969, self-defense was never a good reason for a permit.

After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns—the last type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a third in the chamber.

Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.

The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.

Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: "In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant." Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A public outcry eventually won his release.

In November of this year, Danny Nightingale, member of a British special forces unit in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sentenced to 18 months in military prison for possession of a pistol and ammunition. Sgt. Nightingale was given the Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had been training. It was packed up with his possessions and returned to him by colleagues in Iraq after he left the country to organize a funeral for two close friends killed in action. Mr. Nightingale pleaded guilty to avoid a five-year sentence and was in prison until an appeal and public outcry freed him on Nov. 29.

***
Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Martin Bryant, an Australian with a lifelong history of violence, attacked tourists at a Port Arthur prison site in Tasmania with two semiautomatic rifles. He killed 35 people and wounded 21 others.

At the time, Australia's guns laws were stricter than the United Kingdom's. In lieu of the requirement in Britain that an applicant for permission to purchase a gun have a "good reason," Australia required a "genuine reason." Hunting and protecting crops from feral animals were genuine reasons—personal protection wasn't.

With new Prime Minister John Howard in the lead, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. The government also launched a forced buyback scheme to remove thousands of firearms from private hands. Between Oct. 1, 1996, and Sept. 30, 1997, the government purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 of the banned guns at a cost of $500 million.

To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.

According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.

In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.

Ms. Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School, is the author of several books including "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," (Harvard, 2002).

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

It seems that your opinion and many like yours view anyone who is pro-gun to be anti-peace. Clearly this isn't the case.

I dont think that pro-gun = anti-peace. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any post of mine which says that. I have observed, over and over, that pro-gun often (but not always) goes hand-in-hand with paranoia and fear-driven ideology. They are quick to condemn those who want some additional controls or checks in the system as leveraging fear and emotion to support their cause, when the NRA is just as guilty, if not more so, than any other group. The whole 2nd amendment argument is based entirely on the creation of fear and paranoia (remove the checks and balances on Monday, and tyranny will follow on Tuesday)

Originally Posted by MP0WER

I hope that the rest of the world doesn't make the same assumptions you make based on limited sample of information. Sadly, many of the sheeple eat up anything the media and politicians tell them.

Same assumptions that I make?!? You know that I am not the NRA webmaster, right? People like me are not the NRA's biggest public relations problem, the NRA itself is. The NRA is the group who is painting large groups of people with the same brush on their own website. Lots of organizations have self-serving agendas, but how many outside of the NRA (and politician attack ads), list the people and entities which they deem to be unfriendly to their cause? And do so in such a manner to indiscriminately include such large groups ?

All your doctor/lawyer/clergy aquaintences who enjoy guns, I'd bet at least some of them are card carrying members of the NRA.. It would be interesting to ask them what they think about the NRA calling out another group they belong to on their website, and painting them as the enemy.

I cant help but wonder what the NRA was trying to acheive by suggesting that such a large and diverse group of organizations are all enemies of the cause, and thus create the suggestion that their respective members are no friend of the NRA either. The only goal it seems to serve is to advance the idea that "you are either with me, or you are against me". Show me someone who thinks the politics of division actually works, and I'll show you someone who hasnt been paying attention the last 4 years.

Originally Posted by MP0WER

If you don't want guns, that's fine. But don't think that because you don't want guns, i can't have them.

I dont think that because I dont want guns, that you can't have them. Conversely, I hope that you dont think that just because you dont want them to do something, that means they wont do it.

When they took away your right to buy a new automatic rifle in 86, I was not the mastermind of that. If they further restrict your ability to buy additional weaponry going forward, be it magazine capacity, or whatever it is, that wont be my doing either.

If I had guns and wanted to keep them, I wouldnt advocate supporting an organization which has such an incredibly poor ability to read public sentiment. You need to appeal to the average moderate to win (neither gun lover nor gun hater). The average moderate does not see the NRA as the rational voice of reason, and crazy lists on their website dont help that.

I'm not pro-ban, but I am pro-Regulation. (you know, the R word that actually appears in the 2nd amendment wording?) Having said that, I cringe every time Piers Morgan opens his mouth. He does my cause no favors, just like the NRA does nothing to sway the fence sitters onto your side, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

If the article below and the sources in which these findings came from all said that gun violence disappeared in the UK and your country after the new laws, many Americans would like to follow suit. However, even if gun violence did vanish completely in Australia and the UK, it wouldn't likely work that way in America.

Why must everything be absolute? I dont understand the argument that unless an action reduces the risk of something to zero, it should not be undertaken at all. Massacres are not zero in these places, but regardless of that article, there are a ton of metrics will all suggest that gun fatalities per 100K people in the USA are much, much higher than these other places. If 10 thousand die per year, then reducing it to zero would be ideal of course, but isnt reducing it to 5000 better than leaving it at 10000 ?

The Australian gun murder rates post-Port Arthur massacre have fallen, but not a factor of 10 or anything. However, they werent in the same ballpark as American gun fatalities before that. They had less room to fall. They went from having few guns and some controls, to even fewer guns and even more controls. If you were to implement some more controls here, since there is so much more room for improvement, the results would be more dramatic.

Originally Posted by MP0WER

The vast number of gun related homicides in this country are due to inner city violence. Again, i'm not as well versed in the culture of Austrailia and the UK but i'm going to guess that what ever drug problem there is in your neck of the woods pales in comparison with the drug problem in America. This is the seed in which the vast majority of gun violence stems.

Yup, DOJ stats prove that inner city gangs skew the numbers. So, then you would support legalizing pot and a variety of other contraband to stop the gang wars then ? After all, we know the violence caused by prohibition, and how that didnt work.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

I dont think that pro-gun = anti-peace. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any post of mine which says that. I have observed, over and over, that pro-gun often (but not always) goes hand-in-hand with paranoia and fear-driven ideology. They are quick to condemn those who want some additional controls or checks in the system as leveraging fear and emotion to support their cause, when the NRA is just as guilty, if not more so, than any other group. The whole 2nd amendment argument is based entirely on the creation of fear and paranoia (remove the checks and balances on Monday, and tyranny will follow on Tuesday)

The whole 2nd amendment thingy was written by a group of men who as far as i can see are MUCH smarter than the group of jack asses running this country now. And those words aren't mine or the NRA's, those words were spoken by some of the greatest men to grace our government offices.

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

All your doctor/lawyer/clergy aquaintences who enjoy guns, I'd bet at least some of them are card carrying members of the NRA.. It would be interesting to ask them what they think about the NRA calling out another group they belong to on their website, and painting them as the enemy.

I still don't know where you're getting this enemy jargon. It's just a list of organizations who are openly anti-gun. It's just a list, they don't implore you to do anything about this list, they don't call them names, they don't order hits on their officers, it's just a factual list. Do with it as you please and get over it. You don't think they know that you could also use that list as a "who to support" if you're anti-gun yourself?

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

When they took away your right to buy a new automatic rifle in 86, I was not the mastermind of that. If they further restrict your ability to buy additional weaponry going forward, be it magazine capacity, or whatever it is, that wont be my doing either.

In 86 i was in 6th grade. I wasn't aware my rights were being eroded at that point in my life. I can't help to think that's part of the plan. In one generation take away some rights. A few generations later and they are used to not having those rights; so it's easy take away some more rights. A few generations more and those rights are all gone.

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

If I had guns and wanted to keep them, I wouldnt advocate supporting an organization which has such an incredibly poor ability to read public sentiment. You need to appeal to the average moderate to win (neither gun lover nor gun hater). The average moderate does not see the NRA as the rational voice of reason, and crazy lists on their website dont help that.

I personally don't care what the average moderate thinks about them. The average moderate who doesn't have a hard stance on the issue typically doesn't own a firearm and certainly won't join the NRA. The NRA's mission (what ever their motivation) is to lobby for the preserve our constitutional freedoms within the bill of rights. It is not to sway people who are on the fence.

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

I'm not pro-ban, but I am pro-Regulation. (you know, the R word that actually appears in the 2nd amendment wording?) Having said that, I cringe every time Piers Morgan opens his mouth. He does my cause no favors, just like the NRA does nothing to sway the fence sitters onto your side, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.

I could get on board with more regulation in regards to registration, licensing, etc... IF i trusted the government. I don't think you trust the government fiscally and neither do i. I also don't trust them to act rationally with regards to the preservation of my rights weather related to guns or otherwise.

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Why must everything be absolute? I dont understand the argument that unless an action reduces the risk of something to zero, it should not be undertaken at all. Massacres are not zero in these places, but regardless of that article, there are a ton of metrics will all suggest that gun fatalities per 100K people in the USA are much, much higher than these other places. If 10 thousand die per year, then reducing it to zero would be ideal of course, but isnt reducing it to 5000 better than leaving it at 10000 ?

The Australian gun murder rates post-Port Arthur massacre have fallen, but not a factor of 10 or anything. However, they werent in the same ballpark as American gun fatalities before that. They had less room to fall. They went from having few guns and some controls, to even fewer guns and even more controls. If you were to implement some more controls here, since there is so much more room for improvement, the results would be more dramatic.

It doesn't have to be zero, i was making a point. I didn't write the article but i don't disagree with it either. I do think in order to deny the rights of many for a few, the results had better be drastic though. And the bolded statement is speculation at best. The differences between the UK and Australia are vast in regards to social culture and gun culture.

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Yup, DOJ stats prove that inner city gangs skew the numbers. So, then you would support legalizing pot and a variety of other contraband to stop the gang wars then ? After all, we know the violence caused by prohibition, and how that didnt work.

I'm not sure, i would guess so in regards to pot. Not sure about other things. But i don't drink, smoke or do any drugs; never have. So i don't see the draw to it. But i understand from social interaction and history (prohibition) that people want their drink. It's not unrealistic to say that our country could be in a very different state if the government didn't attempt to control citizens' rights they shouldn't have been controlling. Major crime as we know it was born in this era due to the government knowing what's best for us. I can't help to think what may change over the next 50 - 75 years from now if the government ever gets to an all out ban on firearms or even one similar to that of the UK.

[OldArmy]

How about we poll all criminals to see what they think?

Ok, so, like, uhhh, you criminals out there....are you more likely to obey new laws or are you happy just breaking the ones we already have?

I'm still waiting for a clear definition of the problem to be solved followed by a clearer linkage between proposed new regulations and solving that problem.

p.s. I'm up to about 40 years and counting of gun ownership with not a single accident, incident or violation of the law. So what was it again that you think I need to do differently?

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

I could get on board with more regulation in regards to registration, licensing, etc... IF i trusted the government. I don't think you trust the government fiscally and neither do i. I also don't trust them to act rationally with regards to the preservation of my rights weather related to guns or otherwise.

I dont trust the government fiscally. When I see them do things that I think are self-destructive, or very damaging in a long-term view, I dont think they are being done to intentionally bring the country down, I think they are being done because the folks in charge incorrectly believe they are doing good instead of harm.

I'm a big fan of the statement "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetance".
Has my personal life experience led me to believe that someone trying to help may end up harming me ? Sadly, yes.
Do I think harming me is their intended goal? No.

That's the difference between cynical and paranoid. The NRA comes across as the latter to a lot of people.

When I have to deal with someone causing me harm, I find it's MUCH easier to achieve progress if I approach them with the tone of someone who is seeking to correct their well-intentioned, yet misinformed opinions, rather than someone who is aggressively seeking to crush their subversive, intentionally malicious attack.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

p.s. I'm up to about 40 years and counting of gun ownership with not a single accident, incident or violation of the law. So what was it again that you think I need to do differently?

And these other, modern, western democracies are all up to 200+ years of gun controls, with not a single tyrranical government taking them over and oppressing their people. What was it again they need to do differently to create a deterrent?

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

And these other, modern, western democracies are all up to 200+ years of gun controls, with not a single tyrranical government taking them over and oppressing their people. What was it again they need to do differently to create a deterrent?

Try to stay on topic. You want big amorphous, undefined change here, be specific and roll out your ideas. Then show how they will change anything.

What do you want me to do differently and to what end?

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

I dont trust the government fiscally. When I see them do things that I think are self-destructive, or very damaging in a long-term view, I dont think they are being done to intentionally bring the country down, I think they are being done because the folks in charge incorrectly believe they are doing good instead of harm.

I'm a big fan of the statement "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetance".
Has my personal life experience led me to believe that someone trying to help may end up harming me ? Sadly, yes.
Do I think harming me is their intended goal? No.

That's the difference between cynical and paranoid. The NRA comes across as the latter to a lot of people.

When I have to deal with someone causing me harm, I find it's MUCH easier to achieve progress if I approach them with the tone of someone who is seeking to correct their well-intentioned, yet misinformed opinions, rather than someone who is aggressively seeking to crush their subversive, intentionally malicious attack.

This IS a major part of the problem. I don't currently fear that the government will come to my house and take all my firearms. I DO believe that is a very real possibility this could happen in my life time. Every time either good or evil intentions take away or right or even a portion of a right we get closer to that end.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. -Thomas Jefferson

Surely these people are wiser than you or i when it comes to this subject. No?

There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. -Charles de Secondat

But constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go. -Charles de Secondat

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. -James Madison

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. -Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -Thomas Jefferson

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

Surely these people are wiser than you or i when it comes to this subject. No?

I would concede that they were among the wisest of their generation, but we today enjoy a hugely significant unfair advantage over them: the benefit of 20/20 hindsight over the past few hundred years. As a result, blindly adopting their dogma without a critical eye today is foolish. We routinely discard medical practices from the 1700's as well, without casting aspersions upon the brightest medical minds of that time.

The writings of the founders contains a common theme; the second you take the muzzle off the gov, they will turn around a bite you. Not, they MIGHT do so, but they WILL do so. Perhaps painting them as paranoid is a tad harsh as they were a product of the political environment of their time, and had no crystal ball. However, as you can see today from places like Canada, UK, Australia, many Scandanavian countries, etc., you can have a democracy without the deterrent of a heavily armed populace, and the gov, despite the absence of the muzzle, did not abuse that. They are too smart to bite the hand that feeds them. Nor do they seem to be inevitably approaching such a state in any great hurry. It's hard to argue that Canada or Sweden today are closer to tyranny than they were 100 years ago, for example. (obviously I'm not including places like Iraq or Syria, that's comparing apples to oranges)

I personally cannot fathom how one could harbor the idea of American exceptionalism, the "greatest country on Earth" and all that, while honestly fearing that their own elected officials, fellow American citizens, cannot be trusted to be let off their leash while citizens of other western democracies have been able to place their trust in their gov to behave, and have not been hurt by doing so. I cant grasp how those two sets of ideas can logically coexist in the same brain.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

Try to stay on topic.

It is entirely on topic; we're talking about the legitimacy of this "imminent threat" that people are using to justify the need to interpret the 2nd amendment in a way that was more appropriate for times when bloodletting was condsidered a useful medical practice. If you cant see that, you need help that cannot be delivered via a discussion forum.

Way too many times lately, people have maturely tolerated such lame attempts to distract by those who can no longer support their own argument (ie: those who ask me questions out of left field such as "what is a flash suppressor", and when I patiently humor them and answer it, I'm told my responses are going all over the place; or people refusing to answer a simple question in the pumping up liberalism thread, when they were the ones who injected "blasphemy" in the discussion in the first place) I'm happy to have a discussion, but my appetite to enable those to play that game has been exhausted. I'd go work in a daycare if I was interested in that.

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

It is entirely on topic; we're talking about the legitimacy of this "imminent threat" that people are using to justify the need to interpret the 2nd amendment in a way that was more appropriate for times when bloodletting was condsidered a useful medical practice. If you cant see that, you need help that cannot be delivered via a discussion forum.

Way too many times lately, people have maturely tolerated such lame attempts to distract by those who can no longer support their own argument (ie: those who ask me questions out of left field such as "what is a flash suppressor", and when I patiently humor them and answer it, I'm told my responses are going all over the place; or people refusing to answer a simple question in the pumping up liberalism thread, when they were the ones who injected "blasphemy" in the discussion in the first place) I'm happy to have a discussion, but my appetite to enable those to play that game has been exhausted. I'd go work in a daycare if I was interested in that.

Trying one more time--What exactly do you want me to do differently and how exactly will that change fix anything?