Reasonable Gun Restrictions by ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
People sometimes consider suicide without taking the time to come up with a method. When a gun is available it smooths the path.

Hello,

Well, when people contemplate suicide they usually imagine a variety of methods before settling on one. And guns are more effective. You might try a dozen times with pills before managing it, but a gun tends to be successful on the first try. But this still doesn't make suicide a 'gun violence' figure to my mind.

Quote:
But there's more to it than that. When guns figure in your thoughts, they become a focus of possibility. Have a difficult neighbor? Maybe you can get some respect. Problems at work? Put your gun in the trunk of your car. (happened where I work) Nagging wife? She needs to know who's boss. Sad and hopeless? There's an app for that in the closet. (a friend)

Well, a lot of this thinking you describe is the product of disturbed minds. You are talking about people obsessing with firearms and treating it as the solution to every problem. But you are not describing a healthy mind. You are describing someone fixated on violence. There is a big problem there independent of the firearm.

My family had guns everywhere from the time I was born till the time I left the house. Not one time did anyone solve a mundane problem using guns. (Or really any problem I can recall.) Guns never settled an argument, guns never figured into work disputes. The mere presence of guns does not cause people to obsess over them and factor them into every type of problem. There is something not normal about that kind of thinking.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 7:54 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"However, person to person sales wouldn't be able to be tracked under this method under current law."

Yep. But the last person on the record is 'it' unless they record a sale.

The gun mfgs are too smart to be stuck with the liability of being the owner of record which is why they make sure their sales are recorded. They've got no love for guns, they're just in it for the money and want it to be as legally painless and entanglement-free on themselves as possible.

And once Joe Brewski figures the same thing out, he too will want to make sure his sales are recorded.

BTW this whole USPATRIOT Act, NSA, drone murders, indefinite detention, illegal wiretaps, 'let's take away your vote' effort - your guns aren't going to fight that. Just FYI.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 8:34 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Well, a lot of this thinking you describe is the product of disturbed minds."

No, I'm talking about the mental rehearsal normal people do every day.

You do it yourself. You've done it all over this thread. What would I do if I had a gun and the government started rounding up people. What would I do with my gun if the government did a sweep of the neighborhood for me or my friends. What would I do with my gun if the neighbor starts getting agitated. What would I do with my gun if I heard noises in the house.

You - the general you - become focused on both the solutions involving guns and the potential problems you would solve with them. Guns become a focus of thought. And where thoughts go, action often follows.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 2:41 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Here ya go Geezer - knock yourself out.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=guns+united+states+ownership+crime
+&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C5]

Here ya go Kiki. Here's the data I mentioned earlier on murder rates by gun vs. ownership by state - in a convenient graphic form.

See any correlation?

ETA: Here's the links to the data I used. gun ownership by state, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownershi
p.html

and the murder rates by state, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/05/us-homicide-rates#
table1

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 3:44 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Well, a lot of this thinking you describe is the product of disturbed minds."

No, I'm talking about the mental rehearsal normal people do every day.

You do it yourself. You've done it all over this thread. What would I do if I had a gun and the government started rounding up people. What would I do with my gun if the government did a sweep of the neighborhood for me or my friends. What would I do with my gun if the neighbor starts getting agitated. What would I do with my gun if I heard noises in the house.

You - the general you - become focused on both the solutions involving guns and the potential problems you would solve with them. Guns become a focus of thought. And where thoughts go, action often follows.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

Hello,

You forgot 'what would I do with my gun if the wife gets uppity and I need to show her who's boss?' Which was nestled neatly in your list. Really, now, don't you think the government rounding up people for extermination and wanting to show my wife whose boss is two different things? Don't you think you're describing a disturbed mind?

Is this the way you assume normal people think?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Ahem - TROLL, your math is wrong. It's not 0.0000954% it's 100x higher than that. Try again.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

Hello,

For reference purposes, I'll post the actual figure so nobody has to figure it out.

0.0000954% x 100 =

.00954%

--Anthony

Which means that my figures on auto fatalities were also flawed. Auto fatalities comprise .01129% of the population of the US.

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:

31,513 fatalities works out to 0.0000954% of the population. Tragic, but hardly a motivating percentage. Compared to the 37,261 auto fatalities in 2008. Almost 6,000 more lives taken by those bloodthirsty killing machines. That's a whole 0.0001129% of the population. Truly a massive, non-governmental violent action.

Yet automobiles are quite highly regulated in this country, are they not? Licenses, registration, titles, insurance requirements...

Was the point you were trying to make the one where guns kill almost as many people in this country as automobiles do, so maybe they should be just as strictly regulated?

Thanks for the lead in. Let's see how it would be if you treated guns like cars.

You should be able to buy any firearm you want at any age, provided you can afford it.

You should be able to shoot your firearm at any age, provided you were on private property.

You should be able to take your firearm out in public at the age of 16, in any manner you choose.

Every 16 year old would be looking forward to the day when he could take the family revolver to school. The rich kids would get a high capacity semi-auto pistol on their 16th birthday.

High schools would have large gun lockers to store student's arms while they attend classes. Administrators would try to charge for the service to discourage teenagers from carrying guns to school.

Schools would have shooter's education classes to make sure the kids could pass the test.

Old people who can hardly see would still be permitted to carry in public because to disarm them would be to damage their self-esteem.

Legislators would refrain from criticizing armed old people because of the AARP's influence.

Congress would be debating alternative weapons systems for people who can't afford their own guns.

You could kill and injure people with your gun while drunk and still have your lawyer get your gun back because you need it for work.

Half the tax burden of the county and State would be dedicated to improving the shooting ranges and facilities.

You could carry in any State at any time because carry and possession of your gun is honored nationwide and is considered a basic American civil right.

You would see commercials on TV pushing the newest, latest guns which you could lease for just $25 per month subject to the fine print.

You could finance a fancier gun than you can really afford by taking a 5 year loan with approved credit.

We'd teach gunsmithing in vocational-education programs.

You could rent a gun at any airport if you are over 25 and have a credit card.

You'd have huge outcry in the Press and Congress over our dependence on cheap, imported, foreign ammunition.

You'd have huge eyesores where piles of guns are left to rust in the open at "Gun Junk Yards". They would charge you outrageous prices to go out back and pick off a hammer or sear which is probably also worn out like the one you want
to replace.

You'd have TV news crews going under cover with hidden cameras to ferret out "unscrupulous gun smiths." This story would be "old reliable" and works every year.

The Japanese would be trying, and succeeding, at taking over the market for efficient, reliable high-quality guns. The Koreans would be trying to sneak in at the low end of the market. The Germans would be selling premium brands based on better workmanship, longer life, and brand cachet. But their guns would require you to take it to a gunsmith every 3 months for a complete tear-down and dimensional inspection at outrageous labor rates. The Italians would paint their guns flaming red and they would have a reputation for being finicky. The State Department would be applying pressure to get Japan to allow more US-built guns into their country. The Japanese would resist the US by saying that Japanese shooters have extra-special safety requirements that only Japanese manufacturers can meet.

Competition would be carried on TV all day on Saturdays. The Daytona 500 would be round-count instead of miles. There would be speed contests, endurance contests, and off-range marksmanship events. NASGUN would create big heroes in the South and extravagant marketing opportunities.

Since I can buy a car that will do 200 mph, without being questioned as to why I need or want that capability. I should also be able to buy a firearm capable of firing 1,200 rounds per minute with no questions asked.

Since I can buy a Bugati Veyron if I can afford one and the gas to fuel it. I should also be able to buy a 155mm Howitzer if I can afford it and the ammunition to fire it.

You still think treating guns like cars is a good idea? Even with all these goodies tacked on, history will bear me out. Registration of guns is inevitably followed by confiscation. No deal.

Quote:

Quote:

Additionally, the figures for suicide can be removed from these statistics. Otherwise we'll need to outlaw rope, tall buildings, bridges, and drain cleaner. Homicides likewise occur from other causes, so it will be a never ending hunt until we all live in nice, safe, padded isolation rooms with no other human contact.

Okay, I'll stipulate that we can remove suicides from these statistics, if you'll further stipulate that we can remove self-defense from the reasons to carry a gun. After all, you can easily defend yourself WITHOUT a gun, and many, many, many people have done so in human history.

Deal?

A gun is merely one tool in my toolbox. It is not always the right tool for the job. But why give away a perfectly good tool?

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
http://intellectual-thoughts.com/Hurrican%20Katrina%20Gun%20Confiscati
o.htm

Hello Niki,

On the subject of the government breaking faith with law-abiding gun owners in the 21st century, this essay is instructive.

I suspect once you begin reading it, it will begin to sound familiar.

More responses to follow.

--Anthony

You may also want to consider that in the 1900's Germany was a center of European culture and enlightenment. 30 years later they were a totalitarian murder machine. Parts of their 1930's gun control act, a measure meant to disarm Jews, were incorporated into the US Gun Control Act of 1968. Senator Dodd, (the elder, not the current) had firsthand knowledge of this law and its intended use as he was a prosecutor at Nuremburg.

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NIKI:
What I mean by stockpiling is exactly what you described. Tho' I don't like it,in reality it's not that bad that ONE PERSON hss numerous guns, but a group of people collectively amassing the equivalent of five guns each, that's stockpiling in my opinion.

I have north of 20 firearms. Does this count as a stockpile to you? What exactly do you fear from my 20 firearms? Many of them are obsolescent designs. A few date from WW2. I have one rifle that served in both World Wars. They're mostly historical curiosities to me. How many of them do you think I can fire at once? How many of them do you think I can carry? Or is it merely an irrational fear?

If it is 20 people with 5 guns each, what would stop an unscrupulous person from distributing their guns to an unarmed social group? Maybe there's someone in the occupy movement with a vast stockpile that they're planning on arming all their non gun-owning peers?

You've got to be careful when you are talking about cutting into someone else's rights, or you'll find your own being curtailed.

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:32 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Maybe there's someone in the occupy movement with a vast stockpile that they're planning on arming all their non gun-owning peers?

You've got to be careful when you are talking about cutting into someone else's rights, or you'll find your own being curtailed.

Hello,

Based on Niki's feedback so far, and her unreachable ideal of a world with no guns, I'm sure she would find this abhorrent as well. I don't think she wants the occupy crowd to have stockpiles of weapons either.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The article you posted really says what I believe, Niki. These discussions, especially with Anthony have made me wonder just how dangerous a place America really is, especially when he expresses astonishment that not arming yourself for defence purposes could actually be an option.

What about you all?

I've had break ins over the years. I have been in more physical assaults than I can recall, most of which were at work. I have been carjacked. Since that time I've taken serious steps to ensure my safety. The first of which is keeping your head on a swivel, even when you are somewhere "safe". Yes, there's gun in those preparations, but I can't carry it everywhere. There's also a defensive knife and a flashlight bright enough to dazzle. I was already capable in physical self defense. To which I've added Tai Chi from a martial kwoon.

Shortly after that carjacking I bought a house in order to get a dog. Not for protection, but for early warning. Right now, I've got 3. Two are mine, one's a foster dog. I find that smaller dogs make more noise and are better early warning systems. The thing about dogs is, burglars don't want to deal with them. My dogs would have helped you load the truck if you had broken into my house to steal from me. But when the potential burglar is looking at the two, excited pit bulls in the bay window, they go looking for easier targets. To whit, my neighbors on either side of me who both use alarm systems, have been broken into when they were not at home.

I'm glad you've been able to live your life mostly free from harm. But coasting through life in "condition white" as Colonel Cooper would have called it, is relying on the charity of the rest of the world.

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
TROLL

"Kiki, the obvious flaw in your data is that if a gun deters a crime without use, i.e. merely brandishing the weapon causes the criminal to flee, does the attempted crime get reported?"

But if there were no guns then the crime rate would be 10x what it is now according to the NRA. That crime rate figure is literally not believable. So the claimed rate of crime prevention is not believable is not believable either.

"You are asking all citizens (and resident aliens) to voluntarily give up a right because of the actions of a relative few. "

Sigh. Find for me where I advocated getting rid of all guns. Take your time.

Putting limitations on a right is still infringing on it. Remember, the limitations have been going on since 1934, with only recent reversals. Maybe you'd be in favor of a 5 day waiting period on news, to prevent errors in reporting? How about only allowing approved and licensed houses of worship, along with an enforcement agency. Something along the lines of the Bureau of Printing, Broadcasting and Worship?

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 6:42 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

The Occupy crowd will never take up guns, in my opinion. That would go directly against our aims and our intentions. Yes, we want to work outside the system, but gun violence goes way beyond that.

Now the Black Bloc and Anarchists, that's another matter, but they'd be decried mightily by Occupy if they did so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:39 AM

Discussion of limitations may have just gone out the window.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133514-the-worlds-first-3d-printed-
gun

Quote:

An American gunsmith has become the first person to construct and shoot a pistol partly made out of plastic, 3D-printed parts. The creator, user HaveBlue from the AR-15 forum, has reportedly fired 200 rounds with his part-plastic pistol without any sign of wear and tear.

HaveBlue’s custom creation is a .22-caliber pistol, formed from a 3D-printed AR-15 (M16) lower receiver, and a normal, commercial upper. In other words, the main body of the gun is plastic, while the chamber — where the bullets are actually struck — is solid metal...

For those not in the know, it is perfectly legal for you to manufacture your own handgun or longarm. As long as you are not a prohibited person and you do not transfer it to another party. I'm not sure how BATFE intends to regulate this. Unless they're going to regulate 3d printers. They'd have to retroactively register an awful lot of old lathes and metal mills.

The rest of the components of this firearm can be purchased online and delivered via mail or private carrier directly to your house.

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:38 AM

FREMDFIRMA

While not really willing to comment on the topic - I must react with a bit of horror here, at the abomination displayed above.
Eyyyuiuaagghh!!

That is all.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 4:29 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

While not really willing to comment on the topic - I must react with a bit of horror here, at the abomination displayed above.
Eyyyuiuaagghh!!

That is all.

-F

Could be worse. Saw one of these at the gun show last weekend.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 4:32 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

While not really willing to comment on the topic - I must react with a bit of horror here, at the abomination displayed above.
Eyyyuiuaagghh!!

That is all.

-F

Could be worse. Saw one of these at the gun show last weekend.

Hello,

I wonder if gun control advocates would class that as an assault rifle.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:31 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Hello,

You forgot 'what would I do with my gun if the wife gets uppity and I need to show her who's boss?' Which was nestled neatly in your list. Really, now, don't you think the government rounding up people for extermination and wanting to show my wife whose boss is two different things? Don't you think you're describing a disturbed mind?

Is this the way you assume normal people think?

--Anthony

Are you claiming you don't rehearse what you would do with your gun - after stating you kept it within reach while you were in the shower?

Yes or no - have you ever mentally rehearsed how you would use your gun?

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:51 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Here ya go Geezer = something valid

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 6:27 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Hello,

You forgot 'what would I do with my gun if the wife gets uppity and I need to show her who's boss?' Which was nestled neatly in your list. Really, now, don't you think the government rounding up people for extermination and wanting to show my wife whose boss is two different things? Don't you think you're describing a disturbed mind?

Is this the way you assume normal people think?

--Anthony

Are you claiming you don't rehearse what you would do with your gun - after stating you kept it within reach while you were in the shower?

Yes or no - have you ever mentally rehearsed how you would use your gun?

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

Hello,

Oh dear, Kiki. Yes, it's called preparedness. I also mentally rehearse what to do in case of a fire. I mentally rehearse what to wear for work. I mentally rehearse what I might like to have for dinner.

I don't mentally rehearse how to show my wife who's the boss nor do I mentally rehearse how to employ a firearm for workplace disputes. That's sick thinking. Yet you equate it all.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 6:54 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

PEOPLE mentally rehearse. Even normal people. I presume you consider yourself normal. Even not so normal people. If they have a gun PEOPLE will mentally rehearse using it. Just like you have done. That makes PEOPLE more likely to think of using a gun before considering anything else.

Got it?

BTW, having a gun doesn't make PEOPLE feel more secure. Just like having a security system doesn't make people feel more secure. The simple act of rehearsing when, how, why you will use a gun; or of arming, disarming and preparing for a security alarm; causes people to remind themselves of the danger they think they're in. Over and over again. They end up feeling like the world is a more dangerous place after getting their gun, or security system, than they did before.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:

I'm glad you've been able to live your life mostly free from harm. But coasting through life in "condition white" as Colonel Cooper would have called it, is relying on the charity of the rest of the world.

How do you work that one out? Who am I supposed to be grateful to because I don't live in a crime riddled war zone?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 2:54 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Here ya go Geezer = something valid

Without listing the sources of your data, these are just pictures.

ETA:

I note that your original claim was concerning murders, which I graphed.

Now - aside from not providing any data sources - you're talking about all gun deaths, which would include suicide, accident, and justifiable homicide.

Way to change the playing field.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 3:54 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

PEOPLE mentally rehearse. Even normal people. I presume you consider yourself normal. Even not so normal people. If they have a gun PEOPLE will mentally rehearse using it. Just like you have done. That makes PEOPLE more likely to think of using a gun before considering anything else.

Got it?

Hello Kiki,

Your logic is flawed. All people rehearse = all people rehearse using a gun first in all situations. No. People who rehearse using a gun first to solve all of their problems are sick people. Do you dig it, Kiki?

It's like planning how you intend to drive without planning to drive over a crowd of pedestrians who get in your way. In fact, most people with cars plan NOT to do that. People who plan TO RUN OVER PEDESTRIANS WITH THEIR CAR are not the same as people who plan to go to work. They are sick.

In the same way, healthy people who mentally rehearse what to do with their guns if called upon to use them appropriately do not rehearse using the gun in inappropriate situations. People who do so are sick.

Quote:

BTW, having a gun doesn't make PEOPLE feel more secure. Just like having a security system doesn't make people feel more secure. The simple act of rehearsing when, how, why you will use a gun; or of arming, disarming and preparing for a security alarm; causes people to remind themselves of the danger they think they're in. Over and over again. They end up feeling like the world is a more dangerous place after getting their gun, or security system, than they did before.

I'll grant that you feel this way, and it may be why you may not carry or desire to carry a firearm. I assume you are speaking for yourself, and the terror you may feel upon activating your alarm system.

I moved to Arizona years ago, and after I did so, I only carried one time in response to a real and credible threat. I promise you that I didn't feel less secure with it on.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 5:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:

I'm glad you've been able to live your life mostly free from harm. But coasting through life in "condition white" as Colonel Cooper would have called it, is relying on the charity of the rest of the world.

How do you work that one out? Who am I supposed to be grateful to because I don't live in a crime riddled war zone?

Did you ever read the Aesop's Fable of the grasshopper and the ant? You are the grasshopper. Should violence happen, you have made no provision for yourself (except perhaps a dog). I'm not saying that you should live in a bunker. But from what you have said your only recourse to violence is to call the police. How long will it take for them to arrive?

By relying on the charity of the rest of the world I mean that you are trusting that EVERYBODY else will obey the rules. That doesn't happen. I don't know your living situation. Maybe you're isolated with no neighbors for miles. But it is my experience that as population increases in an area, so does the risk.

I know that living in Australia you don't have a right to own a gun. I don't know if you have the temperament to own one. Again, you haven't made mention of any provisions for your safety except your dog. I'm not expecting or wanting a fire to break out in my kitchen, but I have a fire extinguisher nearby, just in case.

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 5:32 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I'm not sure comparing her to the lazy grasshopper is the right analogy for changing minds.

If anything, her fable is more like the mouse and the lion. She is trusting that the lions of the world will not eat her as she goes about living a good life. I can't exactly fault the attitude, as I practice it myself. I just feel the need to carry some small sliver of a backup plan in case I am wrong.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 5:50 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

In Magons part of the world, she will most likely go through her entire life without ever meeting a "lion", much less an armed one. That's the differnce between here and there, or here and MANY other places in the world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 8:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:

Did you ever read the Aesop's Fable of the grasshopper and the ant? You are the grasshopper. Should violence happen, you have made no provision for yourself (except perhaps a dog). I'm not saying that you should live in a bunker. But from what you have said your only recourse to violence is to call the police. How long will it take for them to arrive?

By relying on the charity of the rest of the world I mean that you are trusting that EVERYBODY else will obey the rules. That doesn't happen. I don't know your living situation. Maybe you're isolated with no neighbors for miles. But it is my experience that as population increases in an area, so does the risk.

I know that living in Australia you don't have a right to own a gun. I don't know if you have the temperament to own one. Again, you haven't made mention of any provisions for your safety except your dog. I'm not expecting or wanting a fire to break out in my kitchen, but I have a fire extinguisher nearby, just in case.

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

I'm not really sure what you mean and in any event I don't see how the above explains me living off the charity of others.

I don't feel unsafe where I live mainly because the risk of having someone criminally endanger me is very low. If I felt unsafe given that low risk, I doubt any amount of weapons would make me feel safer, because seems to me to be about someones own psychology in that case. ie If I don't live in a cyclone prone area, then I would be a bit nutty if I took anti cyclone precautions.

Nevertheless, crime does happen here. So I secure my home, own a dog, have outdoor lights etc etc. The police will come if there is a situation and I have good neighbours who would intervene (as I would with them). seems pretty sane to me.

NB Guns are not illegal here, just restricted.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 8:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
In Magons part of the world, she will most likely go through her entire life without ever meeting a "lion", much less an armed one. That's the differnce between here and there, or here and MANY other places in the world.

And again, I've travelled in many parts of the world, unarmed. As do most people going about their normal business.

Being armed in your day to day life is not 'normal' behaviour, as far as I can tell.

Feeling fearful is kind of a mindset as far as I can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 2, 2012 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
The Occupy crowd will never take up guns, in my opinion. That would go directly against our aims and our intentions. Yes, we want to work outside the system, but gun violence goes way beyond that.

Now the Black Bloc and Anarchists, that's another matter, but they'd be decried mightily by Occupy if they did so.

She says with no supporting facts.

I suppose rape and assault do go with Occupy's aims and intentions? Just basing that statement on how much of that went on in their camps.

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 2, 2012 4:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

...NB Guns are not illegal here, just restricted.

Having the right to own a gun is different from the government allowing you to have one. If you have the right to own a gun the government cannot prevent you from owning one. If the clerk who handles your application for a permit to own a gun has a bad day, you can't own a gun. See the difference?

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 2, 2012 4:35 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
The Occupy crowd will never take up guns, in my opinion. That would go directly against our aims and our intentions. Yes, we want to work outside the system, but gun violence goes way beyond that.

Now the Black Bloc and Anarchists, that's another matter, but they'd be decried mightily by Occupy if they did so.

She says with no supporting facts.

I suppose rape and assault do go with Occupy's aims and intentions? Just basing that statement on how much of that went on in their camps.

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

Hello,

Troll, you are beginning to resemble your name.

How much of rape and assault went on in Occupy camps? Very little. When you get several thousand people together, any several thousand people, you will inevitably have some criminals mixed in.

What Niki is saying is that the philosophy of the organization does not suggest armed violence. She is saying that other breakaway groups might embrace such a philosophy, but she has not seen it in her group (nor do I believe she would want it.)

I'm not sure what the point of this comment was. You started off with a 'how would you like it if it happened to you' statement about weapons caches and now you've devolved into this.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 2, 2012 4:42 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

...NB Guns are not illegal here, just restricted.

Having the right to own a gun is different from the government allowing you to have one. If you have the right to own a gun the government cannot prevent you from owning one. If the clerk who handles your application for a permit to own a gun has a bad day, you can't own a gun. See the difference?

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

Hello,

I don't know what Australia's gun regulations are. But I doubt clerks having bad days is part of the process. I'm not sure the subjective attitudes of clerks figure into it at all.

Here, I found something on wikipedia...

Quote:
Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g., Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defence is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defence.[2]

Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category.
Firearms categories

Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories with different levels of control. The categories are:

Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.

Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart of "Genuine Reason" a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.

Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.

Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.

Well... I guess subjective attitudes may figure into this more that I suspected. Not only must you have an approved reason for wanting a firearm, but defense is not approved. It would appear people in Australia enjoy firearm ownership at the whimsy of government after all.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 2, 2012 5:22 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
The lawbreakers are not going to care what the law says. They will get their guns no matter what. Great Britain confiscates enough guns every year to remove half of the legally owned firearms from the country. But they keep coming in. They are an island nation with strict gun control that cannot stop guns from coming into their country. And that is an island nation surrounded by other nations with strong to strict gun control.

The US sees about 9000 gun homicides a year. The UK about 50. What exactly was your point?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:44 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Does it truly matter HOW you die ?

Chinese teen kills nine in knife attack: reports
http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-teen-kills-eight-knife-attack-reports-10
2629246.html

Again, to me this is a mental health issue, not a weapons issue.
But being completely drowned out by two "sides" shouting their agendas at each other has rendered discussion of the real problems and cases damn near pointless.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:57 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
I suppose rape and assault do go with Occupy's aims and intentions? Just basing that statement on how much of that went on in their camps.

Wow, that's a helluva reach. Thank you Anthony. And yes, the incidents you claimed were clearly shown to have nothing to do with Occupy...a long, long time ago. Pretending they didn't is deplorable, period, and typical of the mindset of people like you. Or perhaps you're not pretending, perhaps all you've ever heard was the propaganda from the right and don't know the facts...tho' I more tend to think you're doing like Raptor: bringing up something from the past and screwing with the facts.

As to guns, there is nothing in the Australian Constitution (do you have one, Magons?) that states they have the right to bear arms, as far as I know. You cannot judge another country by our Constitution; that is a totally fallacious argument. She was offering a fact that differs between our two countries; you have absolutely no argument against what Australia's laws are.

I don't consider it "whimsy" at all, personally. The ability to own a dangerous weapon is something most sane countries would take seriously. The fact that we don't is, in my opinion, mostly because of our mentality, the way our country came into being, and the propaganda, power and money of the NRA. I've forgotten most of what I knew about it's history, but I don't think Australia gained its independence through actual warfare, did it Magons?

As to a clerk having a bad day, that's a laugh. I'm pretty sure there would be complaints and the clerk might even end up being fired; after all, he's there to SELL guns, so that's a puny argument.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 2, 2012 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Well... I guess subjective attitudes may figure into this more that I suspected. Not only must you have an approved reason for wanting a firearm, but defense is not approved. It would appear people in Australia enjoy firearm ownership at the whimsy of government after all.

Last time I checked, the citizenry have a role in determining laws and the government are answerable to its citizens. Our respective countrys' laws around gun rownership estrictions are different due to how the citizenry see this issue.

As much as this may blow your mind, gun laws are not an issue in this country. There has been little controversy around the laws simply because on the whole most people did not own guns prior to the changes in the law in 1997. I can't even begin to try and impress how different the culture is and how alien the US appears to us in this regard. Generally toy guns for children are not even encouraged and if you were one of those parents who throught it was great that your kid owned replica weapons you'd probably be considered pretty crass in my circle at least. Admittedly there is a bit of a class divide on this and a bit of a rural/urban divide.

I know that I am never, ever going to convince you of this, but I do not see tyranny held at bay by the ownership of weapons, but by democratic and legal processes, active and independant media and most importantly the will of the people. seems to me that some of the greatest tyrannies have been accompanied by support of the general population. As much as I hate to invoke Godwin, Hitler was hugely popular with the German people who were rapt in his strong arm policies.

And as for the self defense, I believe that gun ownership results in more deaths than it protects. I feel safer knowing that people are much less armed and that if little Johnny has his flip out it will probably not result in mass deaths.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 2, 2012 7:14 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Just scanning through this thread I have go to say... TONY, hon, you have lost it. When you (of all people) have to resort to straw-manning and fabrication, that might be the time to realize that your ideas just aren't standing up to rigorous discussion.

IMHO this isn't a gun problem per se. But once TPTB have created a society based completely on sociopathic greed (rappy), righteous violence and vengeance (wulf), naked authoritarianism (hero), consumerism (geezer) and pathological individualism.... a "society" which refuses to take any responsibility for general well-being, and which tosses its mentally ill/ PTSD members on the street... eliminates any meaningful work... AND THEN adds guns to the mix, well. You've created the clusterfuck that is our current situation.

You can have gun ownership, and you can a completely dysfunctional society, but you can't have BOTH and expect to get anything other than what we've got right now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 3, 2012 5:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
I suppose rape and assault do go with Occupy's aims and intentions? Just basing that statement on how much of that went on in their camps.
Wow, that's a helluva reach. Thank you Anthony. And yes, the incidents you claimed were clearly shown to have nothing to do with Occupy...a long, long time ago. Pretending they didn't is deplorable, period, and typical of the mindset of people like you. Or perhaps you're not pretending, perhaps all you've ever heard was the propaganda from the right and don't know the facts...tho' I more tend to think you're doing like Raptor: bringing up something from the past and screwing with the facts.

So, occupy doesn't vet the people they allow into their demonstrations. They attract socialists, communists, nazis and all kinds of fringe groups. Yet you still cling to the belief that occupy won't resort to violence. Do you actually believe what you are spouting? Or every time I can show the presence of a fringe group are you going to deny that they are part of the "core" occupy movement? Nice way to fabricate a moving target.

Quote:

As to guns, there is nothing in the Australian Constitution (do you have one, Magons?) that states they have the right to bear arms, as far as I know. You cannot judge another country by our Constitution; that is a totally fallacious argument. She was offering a fact that differs between our two countries; you have absolutely no argument against what Australia's laws are.

I don't consider it "whimsy" at all, personally. The ability to own a dangerous weapon is something most sane countries would take seriously. The fact that we don't is, in my opinion, mostly because of our mentality, the way our country came into being, and the propaganda, power and money of the NRA. I've forgotten most of what I knew about it's history, but I don't think Australia gained its independence through actual warfare, did it Magons?

How about if I use their own history to demonstrate why they are supposed to have the right to possess arms? As a Commonwealth country the foundation of their law, and legal antecedents of those, Australian law is based from English common law. The Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights concede the right to bear arms. The celebrated English judge Sir Edward Coke said in 1610 that the crown cannot change any part of the common law. Indeed he went further and said that the crown cannot create any offence by proclamation (nowadays, by statute) that was not previously an offence under common law. So in England, since it was established that new rights can be conceded, but existing rights cannot be taken away. Of course English right to bear arms has been suffereing the death of a thousand paper cuts since 1903.

Quote:

As to a clerk having a bad day, that's a laugh. I'm pretty sure there would be complaints and the clerk might even end up being fired; after all, he's there to SELL guns, so that's a puny argument.

The clerk WHO IS ACCEPTING YOUR APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO PURCHASE A GUN. The clerk at the local government office, not the clerk at the gun shop. Permission. Do you understand that you have to ask PERMISSION to purchase a gun, because you do not have the RIGHT to purchase a gun. Maybe you'd like to ask for the government's PERMISSION to buy a book or use the internet? Since you could conceivably no longer have the RIGHT to free speech? Maybe you'd like to ask the government's PERMISSION to attend a church service, hold a sabbath, sabbat, esbat or khutbah? Since you could conceivably no longer have the RIGHT to religious freedom?

I am amazed at the number of people who do not understand the difference between rights and permissions.

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 3, 2012 7:34 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
IMHO this isn't a gun problem per se. But once TPTB have created a society based completely on sociopathic greed (rappy), righteous violence and vengeance (wulf), naked authoritarianism (hero), consumerism (geezer) and pathological individualism.... a "society" which refuses to take any responsibility for general well-being, and which tosses its mentally ill/ PTSD members on the street... eliminate any meaningful work... AND THEN add guns to the mix, well. You've created the clusterfuck that is our current situation.

You can have gun ownership, and you can a completely dysfunctional society, but you can't have BOTH and expect to get anything other than what we've got right now.

Yah, but nobody but you, me and Niki seem to wanna talk about THAT...

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 3, 2012 7:43 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
TONY, hon, you have lost it. When you (of all people) have to resort to straw-manning and fabrication

Hello,

???

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 3, 2012 8:15 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Geez, this old thing is still alive? Sigh..we should NEVER get started on guns, it's as much a waste of time as trying to debate global warming with those whose minds are locked into their beliefs.

Sig, spectacular (not the thing about Anthony, I have my own opinions on that--tho' they're not that far from yours). The rest of what you wrote, totally valid as it is, goes nowhere of course, because people only see black and white--either I own a gun or someone's gonna stop me from owning a gun, period.

Magons, I wholly agree, and yes, it doesn't surprise me we look weird to not only Australia but a lot of the rest of the world. If I were to try and explain JUST out attitude toward guns to an alien, I don't think I could do it. I'm not surprised the U.S. looks scary to you; it's pretty scary to a lot of US as well.

Troll, I don't know why I even both, but okay:

The Black Bloc is the only fringe group I know of, and yes, when you put together demonstrations and protests, there are always those who join in with their own agenda. We get "nutcases" every couple of weeks at our own little Saturday protests...not violent ones, but screwed-up people who go on and on rattling idiocies about their own particular issues. That's just the way it is.

As to Australia's laws, "supposed to" is your OPINION, not anything with any actual bearing. As Magons said,

Quote:
Last time I checked, the citizenry have a role in determining laws and the government are answerable to its citizens. Our respective countrys' laws around gun rownership estrictions are different due to how the citizenry see this issue.

That's all that needs saying

As to clerks at government offices, you'd have to show an example to make any kind of point. I don't buy it, personally. You can come up with all the imaginative scenarios you want; they have nothing to do with reality.

Your hangup on permissions and rights is illogical, and your arguments ridiculously dramatic over-reach. The Australians, and every other country, have the right to write their own laws irrespective of our wild west mentality making people like you believe they "should" have the right to own a gun. You know little or nothing about Australia, so what you believe is your opinion only. In my opinion, the Australians have it right more than we do.

And yes, Frem, it will always be impossible to discuss the real issue; when guns, politics and religion are concerned, people are seldom logical and virtually never change their minds or look at the more subtle but often more important issues.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 3, 2012 2:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:

How about if I use their own history to demonstrate why they are supposed to have the right to possess arms? As a Commonwealth country the foundation of their law, and legal antecedents of those, Australian law is based from English common law. The Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights concede the right to bear arms. The celebrated English judge Sir Edward Coke said in 1610 that the crown cannot change any part of the common law. Indeed he went further and said that the crown cannot create any offence by proclamation (nowadays, by statute) that was not previously an offence under common law. So in England, since it was established that new rights can be conceded, but existing rights cannot be taken away. Of course English right to bear arms has been suffereing the death of a thousand paper cuts since 1903.

Actually the English Bill of Rights says specifically "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

It also says "freedom from a peace-time standing army, without agreement by Parliament"

The Bill of Rights is on piece of legislation on which our laws are based, yours and mine respectively, and form the basis of modern democratic ideals.

A lot of the Bill of Rights was in response to the recent political unheavel experienced in that part of the world. A great deal of power had been wrested from the monarchy and handed over to parliament, and parliament wanted to keep it that way. They didn't want the monarchy to have a standing army and a population that could not raise a militia.

Here is some information on militias

"The obligation to serve in the militia in England derives from a common law tradition, and dates back to Anglo-Saxon times. The tradition was that all able-bodied males were liable to be called out to serve in one of two organisations. These were the posse comitatus, an ad hoc assembly called together by a law officer to apprehend lawbreakers, and the fyrd,[36] a military body intended to preserve internal order or defend the locality against an invader. The latter developed into the militia, and was usually embodied by a royal warrant.[37] Service in each organisation involved different levels of preparedness.[3

Sixteenth and seventeenth centuries

With the decay of the feudal system and the military revolution of the sixteenth century, the militia began to become an important institution in English life. It was organized on the basis of the shire county, and was one of the responsibilities of the Lord Lieutenant, a royal official (usually a trusted nobleman). Each of the county hundreds was likewise the responsibility of a Deputy Lieutenant, who relayed orders to the justices of the peace or magistrates. Every parish furnished a quota of eligible men, whose names were recorded on muster rolls. Likewise, each household was assessed for the purpose of finding weapons, armour, horses, or their financial equivalent, according to their status. The militia was supposed to be mustered for training purposes from time to time, but this was rarely done. The militia regiments were consequently ill-prepared for an emergency, and could not be relied upon to serve outside their own counties.

This state of affairs concerned many people. Consequently, an elite force was created, composed of members of the militia who were prepared to meet regularly for military training and exercise. These were formed into trained band regiments, particularly in the City of London, where the Artillery Garden was used as a training ground. The trained bands performed an important role in the English Civil War on the side of parliament, in marching to raise the siege of Gloucester (5 September 1643).

Except for the London trained bands, both sides in the Civil War made little use of the militia, preferring to recruit their armies by other means."

Bearing arms, both in the English Bill of Rights and explicitly in the 2nd amendment refers to the arming of militias.

Quote:

The clerk WHO IS ACCEPTING YOUR APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO PURCHASE A GUN. The clerk at the local government office, not the clerk at the gun shop. Permission. Do you understand that you have to ask PERMISSION to purchase a gun, because you do not have the RIGHT to purchase a gun. Maybe you'd like to ask for the government's PERMISSION to buy a book or use the internet? Since you could conceivably no longer have the RIGHT to free speech? Maybe you'd like to ask the government's PERMISSION to attend a church service, hold a sabbath, sabbat, esbat or khutbah? Since you could conceivably no longer have the RIGHT to religious freedom?

I am amazed at the number of people who do not understand the difference between rights and permissions.

You don't need the clerks permission, you need to satisfy the conditions of the law. A bit like getting your drivers licence or building permit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 4, 2012 4:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

TONY, I didn't have to go too far into the thread from either direction to find these gems...

Quote:
Well... I guess subjective attitudes may figure into this more that I suspected. Not only must you have an approved reason for wanting a firearm, but defense is not approved. It would appear people in Australia enjoy firearm ownership at the whimsy of government after all.

The gun laws in Australia apparently reflect the views of the people of Australia, so it is hardly a fair characterization to call it "government whimsy". (fabrication)

Quote:
But more importantly, I think you'll find that 'gun people' do not trust 'non-gun people' to know what the hell they are talking about in regards to guns. I think you'll find that 'gun people' rightfully worry that 'non-gun people' have knee-jerk reactions to guns and invoke law without any serious understanding of the subject matter. It's happened before, so don't dismiss this as a foolish worry

WHO are the "gun people" and "non gun people"? I own a gun, so does Mike, where does that put us? I think this is just a convenient way of dividing people up into mythical camps, and then putting arguments into the mouths of the mythical "they". (Insinuation, straw man.)

Also, I have to wonder about those times "before". WHAT happened, where, and when? (remarkably vague, insinuation)

I don't want to re-argue the whole thread, but just like you failed to address MY point, you also failed to address Mike's, HK's, Magon's, Kiki's, Frem's, Niki's and a whole bunch more. You've got that "cold dead hands" thing going, which is all emotion and not amenable to plain observation, so on this point a good deal of participants have wisely decided to stop trying to talk to you on the topic. I'm a Johnny-come-lately, but this is going to be MY last point too, as there is no use talking to someone who has a completely emotional stake in a subject.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 4, 2012 5:47 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Signy,

Quote:
The gun laws in Australia apparently reflect the views of the people of Australia, so it is hardly a fair characterization to call it "government whimsy". (fabrication)

The law appears to leave the decision about whether a gun request is valid or not (and whether ownership should be allowed) to the government, based on subjective criteria. I do not contest that the people of Australia chose this law. There have been similar laws in the United States that allow a law enforcement officer to determine the validity of a request. The desire of the people does not figure into whether or not requests can be denied based on subjective criteria. Frankly, the people of Australia can have any laws they want, even ones that give the government broad discretionary powers in issuing license. I was arguing with Troll and had to stop midstream when I found out that government whimsy was very much involved, albeit with the people's enthusiastic consent and faith in such determinations.

Quote:
WHO are the "gun people" and "non gun people"? I own a gun, so does Mike, where does that put us?

Only you know how much you understand about guns. The reason I put it in quotes is because it is a somewhat difficult to define group. But it's clear that 'non gun people' aka 'people who do not care or who do not understand firearms' have been responsible for some pretty terrible gun laws.

Quote:
Also, I have to wonder about those times "before". WHAT happened, where, and when? (remarkably vague, insinuation)

Not vague at all, since I've pointed out several times before where guns were selected for outlaw based on subjective, emotional, racist, classist, or otherwise illogical criteria. The Assault Weapons ban contained this phenomenon, outlawing guns based on superficial appearance. The melting-point restrictions are another example. I've talked about this so often that I'm surprised you consider this a vague insinuation.

It's possible to disagree with me, Signy, without calling me a fabricator.

Quote:
I don't want to re-argue the whole thread, but just like you failed to address MY point, you also failed to address Mike's, HK's, Magon's, Kiki's, Frem's, Niki's and a whole bunch more.

What is YOUR point and everyone else's? If you're talking about the sickness of society and mental health issues, I actually participated in a mental health thread someone started. What issue do you feel I'm ducking?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 5, 2012 12:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Throughout the rest of my life, there was only one time I actually felt that having a gun prevented a violent incident. It was after my neighbor threatened to kill my wife and shot at her. He was arrested and then released on bail. I never knew what evidence allowed the authorities to prosecute him. I can only imagine that some witness in the neighborhood corroborated the story, because there were no authorities present at the time, and it was very much a he-said/she-said situation. Perhaps he was still drunk when the authorities questioned him, and he managed to implicate himself.

In any event, it was many weeks before his conviction was complete and he was no longer a threat. This was the only time in my entire life that I carried a gun on my person in open carry. I carried it 100% of the time and it was even within reach when I showered. On the few occasions after the initial incident when my neighbor talked at me over the fence, I always spoke to him in a respectful fashion despite the fact that I was very upset at his threat to murder my wife. I did not want a confrontation. I never want a confrontation. No further confrontation ever happened.

You can class this as one of those claimed 'uses of a gun in defense' that really ISN'T a use of a gun in defense because the man didn't try to shoot me. You could also rightfully point out that HE was a lunatic with a gun, and that's part of the problem gun control is meant to address. Both would be valid points. My own opinion is that the man was a bully who went into rages when he got to drinking, and the only reason my wife and I are here today is because bullies don't enjoy the prospect of a fair fight.

I never did get organised to respond to this, Anthony. What a truly awful thing to have to go through. I can understand why you responded the way that you did.

I guess you have also described one of my issues with gun ownership that appears to me to be fairly unrestricted (although I do understand that there are restrictions and that they vary state to state).

It has been inferred and perhaps even suggested that I live in some cosy unreality of my own making on this thread, that I trust too much and that I even unconciously live owing my security to larger forces that secure my cosy world.
I don't feel that way at all and my world doesn't feel cosy to me, mostly because of my job. In my daily work, I hear the pain, emotional and physical that people heap on each other and on children too. I have learned that many people live chaotic lives, and respond thoughtlessly to stimuli that causes them anger and upset. I have learned that people can be deliberately cruel to one another, and can do dreadful things. I have also learned that people can be wonderful at self justification, blaming the other, alcohol, drugs, their upbringing when they have done something terrible. I have sat in the same room and spoken to murderers and child abusers.

And seeing and understanding all of this makes me glad that we don't have a lot of guns in circulation, because I knowing what I know, I truly believe it would simply mean more deaths and injuries, more threats and more fear.

You have described not feeling that you will ever have to use the gun, for self defence or for overthrowing tyranny. I'm glad you don't live with the kind of violence I sometimes imagine is endemic in the US due to what some of the posters here say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 5, 2012 3:02 PM

a rather long, but thought provoking article on mass shootings and gun control

http://overland.org.au/blogs/new-words/2012/08/when-the-burning-moment
-breaks-gun-control-and-rage-massacres/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 5, 2012 3:41 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So here we are: another day, another massacre. Are we really freer with a society awash with guns, or are we now just being terrorized by them? Yanno, if you think about it, guns have caused more deaths than 9-11 ever did.

So, what possible justification is there for our current arrangement? (Crazy society full of "rugged individuals" with lots of guns.)

There might be ONE reason, and that is the possibility of revolution. But it seems to me that the people most likely to own guns (In the USA) are also the ones least likely to foment revolution, because they are either criminals, or such individualists that they simply cannot coordinate/ cooperate with enough people to actually do anything effective. And if there is one thing that a successful revolution needs, it's at least 15% of a population willing to cooperate towards one goal (that's usually the percent of people needed for an effective guerrilla campaign).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 5, 2012 3:47 PM