Gun Control thread (merged many)

Feuer Frei! · 03-19-13, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Sure, until the 346th thread on gun control

346th? And which one of them has provided the members with a link to the bill? As it stands before the Full Senate.
I understand what you're saying Steve, apologies beforehand on sounding defensive, or if i've misinterpreted your intent to post that.

The Topic may be saturated onto the forums (which is understandable with every new event, be it world event or US-based), but if 'new(er)' material or information comes to hand i think it is not unreasonable to assume and perhaps even expect a new thread about said subject, with not-previously released information included of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

You know, I've made my opinion on gun control abundantly clear in the last 125284786537 and 1/2 threads about gun control

Well, is it 346 or is it an almost infinite number of threads on this topic?

Quote:

but it certainly seems rathe strange that they would ban shotguns in an assault weapons ban.

Strange? No, it's Feinstein, remember?

Quote:

Also, in my opinion, the Government and NRA should be working together to find a solution to gun crime that everyone agrees on.

Working together? Not in a million years. If you remember my post on the NRA http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...=202410&page=8
you will get an insight into the motifs and reasons how the NRA 'operates', for lack of better word.
The NRA is a hypocritical Lobby at the best of times and to 'cut off the hands that feed it', meaning the gun manufactures, and working with the Government on a common ground? Fat chance.

Feuer Frei! · 03-19-13, 01:05 AM

And an update:

Quote:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on Monday that a controversial assault weapons ban will not be part of a Democratic gun bill that was expected to reach the Senate floor next month.
After a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, a frustrated Feinstein said she learned that the bill she sponsored — which bans 157 different models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — wouldn’t be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor. Instead, it can be offered as an amendment. But its exclusion from the package makes what was already an uphill battle an almost certain defeat.

SOURCE

Takeda Shingen · 03-19-13, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

346th? And which one of them has provided the members with a link to the bill? As it stands before the Full Senate.
I understand what you're saying Steve, apologies beforehand on sounding defensive, or if i've misinterpreted your intent to post that.

The Topic may be saturated onto the forums (which is understandable with every new event, be it world event or US-based), but if 'new(er)' material or information comes to hand i think it is not unreasonable to assume and perhaps even expect a new thread about said subject, with not-previously released information included of course.

When I start getting carried away with things, and we all do from time to time, I take one of my statements and tag on the words here, on this forum dedicated to video games. It tends to provide the overall context of importance and keeps me on the from turning preacher.

Sailor Steve · 03-19-13, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

346th? And which one of them has provided the members with a link to the bill? As it stands before the Full Senate.
I understand what you're saying Steve, apologies beforehand on sounding defensive, or if i've misinterpreted your intent to post that.

No, and you're right. Bringing the bill to light and questioning it is fine. It's just that when Oberon made his joke about the references he was so right on the money that I had to laugh, and make my comment. That got Augusts dander up, and he had get serious, which made it all the funnier.

Quote:

Well, is it 346 or is it an almost infinite number of threads on this topic? Strange? No, it's Feinstein, remember?

No, it's not even 34.6. I'm pretty sure it's more than 3.46, but you've been gone awhile and it seems like a new one crops up every week or so, but that's probably an exaggeration too. The point is a funny joke was made and I responded in kind. I apolgise if that's become a bad thing.

As for Feinstein, there have been some fun links to exchanges between her and her opponents, and I agree she's an idiot, and possibly a dangerous one. I just see that it's been said a lot, so there it is.

Ducimus · 03-19-13, 04:08 PM

I found an interesting article.
-----------------------------------

The gun debate is a culture debate
By Trevor Burrus

( Trevor Burrus is a Research Fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies )

Nearly three months after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, we are still debating the place of guns in American society. That debate is not just about statistics and laws—it is about culture.

In a recent appearance on PBS's "NewsHour," Vice President Joe Biden admitted an assault weapons ban would do little to stop crime, but argued the weapons should still be banned if they don’t have “real utility either in terms of any sporting or self protection needs[.]”

Here, Biden forgets a founding American principle: we permit the government to have guns, not the other way around. Citizens don’t need to justify owning an “assault weapon,” the government needs to justify taking it.

Biden should be applauded for his honesty, but this begs the question: If honest gun-control advocates know that laws they support are ineffective, why fight for them? Because the gun debate is fundamentally a cultural debate.

One cultural tradition believes government is a necessary evil, best kept small, contained, and subordinate to the people. The other tradition views government as a force for good that can often do better with fewer restraints.

One tradition views private gun ownership as important for resisting tyranny; the other views guns as, at best, a necessary evil, and at worst, something we should discard to become a fully civilized society.

Gun-control advocates scoff at the suggestion that personal arms can stand up to tanks and drones. But the anti-tyranny argument is not so much based on efficacy as it is on power: who has it and why.

In America, the government derives its power from the people. But the cultural divide goes deeper than the role of government.

Some Americans teach their children that gun ownership is a right a responsibility, and that guns are tools to respect and enjoy. Others discipline five-year olds for fashioning pretend guns out of pipe cleaners; they view guns with something resembling disgust.

Productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because the anti-gun movement gives little to no weight to the values of private gun ownership. That is because “gun disgust” engenders a bias against guns.

In 2001, the American Medical Association recommended that doctors ask patients about gun ownership during office visits. They did not recommend that doctors ask about swimming pools or bicycles, both of which are much more likely to result in accidental deaths than a gun. Yet gun-control advocates have no problem “allowing” private swimming pools and bikes because they understand how someone could enjoy biking and swimming.

Gun disgust is also one of the primary reasons gun-control advocates promote laws that have little to no effect on reducing gun violence. On many questions, the debate over the effects of gun-control laws on crime is surprisingly uncontroversial.

The National Academy of Sciences found that gun-control laws have had no measurable effect on gun violence rates. The study was not written by gun-rights advocates—in fact, all but one member of the committee were gun-control advocates. Programs ranging from gun buybacks, to the famous “assault weapons” ban, to “gun-free zones,” were all found to be ineffective at curbing gun crime.

Gun disgust certainly explains the persistence of “gun-free zones” as a proposed solution to tragedies like Sandy Hook. If guns are viewed as contaminants, then the suggestion that teachers should be allowed to carry weapons on school grounds is revolting.

What is truly revolting, however, is when mass-shooters ignore the polite request to leave their guns at the door and take advantage of a building full of defenseless victims.

When challenged on the effectiveness of their proposed laws, many gun-control advocates will say, “Well, it’s a start.” And here is where gun-rights supporters get understandably worried about what “a start” means. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) recently said in response to a question about whether the assault weapons ban is “just the beginning”: “Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns.”

When it comes to guns, the much ballyhooed red state/blue state cultural divide is real. If we want to have a productive discussion on guns we must find a way to cross this cultural divide.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...#ixzz2O1PfL4Yl

03-19-13, 04:08 PM	#5
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	I found an interesting article. ----------------------------------- The gun debate is a culture debate By Trevor Burrus ( Trevor Burrus is a Research Fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies ) Nearly three months after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, we are still debating the place of guns in American society. That debate is not just about statistics and laws—it is about culture. In a recent appearance on PBS's "NewsHour," Vice President Joe Biden admitted an assault weapons ban would do little to stop crime, but argued the weapons should still be banned if they don’t have “real utility either in terms of any sporting or self protection needs[.]” Here, Biden forgets a founding American principle: we permit the government to have guns, not the other way around. Citizens don’t need to justify owning an “assault weapon,” the government needs to justify taking it. Biden should be applauded for his honesty, but this begs the question: If honest gun-control advocates know that laws they support are ineffective, why fight for them? Because the gun debate is fundamentally a cultural debate. One cultural tradition believes government is a necessary evil, best kept small, contained, and subordinate to the people. The other tradition views government as a force for good that can often do better with fewer restraints. One tradition views private gun ownership as important for resisting tyranny; the other views guns as, at best, a necessary evil, and at worst, something we should discard to become a fully civilized society. Gun-control advocates scoff at the suggestion that personal arms can stand up to tanks and drones. But the anti-tyranny argument is not so much based on efficacy as it is on power: who has it and why. In America, the government derives its power from the people. But the cultural divide goes deeper than the role of government. Some Americans teach their children that gun ownership is a right a responsibility, and that guns are tools to respect and enjoy. Others discipline five-year olds for fashioning pretend guns out of pipe cleaners; they view guns with something resembling disgust. Productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because the anti-gun movement gives little to no weight to the values of private gun ownership. That is because “gun disgust” engenders a bias against guns. In 2001, the American Medical Association recommended that doctors ask patients about gun ownership during office visits. They did not recommend that doctors ask about swimming pools or bicycles, both of which are much more likely to result in accidental deaths than a gun. Yet gun-control advocates have no problem “allowing” private swimming pools and bikes because they understand how someone could enjoy biking and swimming. Gun disgust is also one of the primary reasons gun-control advocates promote laws that have little to no effect on reducing gun violence. On many questions, the debate over the effects of gun-control laws on crime is surprisingly uncontroversial. The National Academy of Sciences found that gun-control laws have had no measurable effect on gun violence rates. The study was not written by gun-rights advocates—in fact, all but one member of the committee were gun-control advocates. Programs ranging from gun buybacks, to the famous “assault weapons” ban, to “gun-free zones,” were all found to be ineffective at curbing gun crime. Gun disgust certainly explains the persistence of “gun-free zones” as a proposed solution to tragedies like Sandy Hook. If guns are viewed as contaminants, then the suggestion that teachers should be allowed to carry weapons on school grounds is revolting. What is truly revolting, however, is when mass-shooters ignore the polite request to leave their guns at the door and take advantage of a building full of defenseless victims. When challenged on the effectiveness of their proposed laws, many gun-control advocates will say, “Well, it’s a start.” And here is where gun-rights supporters get understandably worried about what “a start” means. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) recently said in response to a question about whether the assault weapons ban is “just the beginning”: “Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns.” When it comes to guns, the much ballyhooed red state/blue state cultural divide is real. If we want to have a productive discussion on guns we must find a way to cross this cultural divide. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...#ixzz2O1PfL4Yl