Ya I’m sure the criminals will make sure all their “non-compliant” guns are dutifully turned in to the nearest police department.Btw Thanks Pops for letting me know how many bullets “should be enough” so I can protect my family.The Land of the Free is quickly disappearing.
Yeah… right… that’s the problem… The worst part is that it has been done before and nothing changed. Regulating the instrument doesn’t change anything. The instrument is not the problem.
Most homicides are committed by people without previous criminal records, but many by people with known and diagnosed mental problems, and that is particularly true of the rampage killings that have become so frequent in the US in recent years. More effective means are needed to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of people like Adam Lanza. Any disagreement on that? If the weapon is not the problem, and liberty means arming yourself in any way you please, then why are hand grenades not available at Walmart? How about nerve gas? Stinger missiles? Land mines? Should they be available freely to anyone with the money? Or are there weapons that ought to be banned and kept out of the hands of civilians? Any disagreement on that? There ought to be a consensus that effective measures ought to be in places to keep some kinds of weapons out of the hands of civilians, and most kinds of weapons out of the hands of maniacs. Many people have a legitimate need for firearms, either for hunting (for food or against pests and predators) or self-defense. (No one should interfere with that.) The only other reason for anyone to have a gun is to practice a hobby. Historical re-enactment. Collecting guns as some collect stamps. Target shooting for fun or in competition. Hunting as a sport. Or, pathetically, because it makes the gun owner feel big and strong and powerful, and able to take down his neighbors, the police, the army, and the Marine Corps when civilization and democracy collapse. The last group is the scary one: that’s rather on the borders of paranoia. I have no doubt that many a crime has been thwarted by a good person with a gun. But how many times has it taken a semi-automatic rifle with a 30-round magazine to do it, when an ordinary shotgun or hand gun would not have been sufficient? Just wondering. It would be wrong to confiscate people’s property. But to require a special and very expensive permit to purchase powerful weapons would certainly lower the demand for them, reduce their sales, discourage their manufacture, and eventually reduce the number in circulation. Even criminals normally have to buy their weapons on a black market and are subject to the laws of supply and demand. (Except when the harmless law-abiding gun owner involuntarily supplies the criminal with his gun, as Nancy Lanza did her son.) There are any number of “best practices” out there that, if required of all gun owners, might be effective. If Nancy Lanza had kept her guns in a sturdy gun safe with a combination lock, she and a lot of kids might be alive today. There are very good reasons, even apart from the Constitution, to allow citizens to keep and bear arms. There are very good reasons, never considered in violation of the Constitution, to limit that possession to certain classes of weapons and not others, and to carefully regulate the possession of still others, like fully automatic weapons. And there are many types of gun control that do not restrict ownership, but only things like storage and sales. Most of the arguments made by rabid gun-nuts are bogus, attacking straw men of their own devising or based on paranoid delusions. (And some from anti-gun nuts are just as paranoid.) -- This should be considered as a question of public safety, period, and what laws are most conducive to public safety when it comes to weapons, whether explosives, chemical weapons, or firearms.
The tobacco industry continues to feed business to the healthcare industry via “coffin nails”. The tobacco lobby has fed cash to our reps in Washington for years to facilitate this irrational costly exchange. Toles shows how this works with other industries as well.
In the state of Wa. you don;t need to register guns. The Gov. has no business knowing what and how mny I have. And by the way Tom, did you know more people, the very vast majority of gun deaths are Suicides? Take away the gun, they will choose something else. Oh, how many deaths by cars do we need before we ban cars, or put in a governor to keep it from going over 55mph. Guns are not the problem, mags are not the problem, PEOPLE are the problem.
@ Night Gaunt – If a person hasn’t hit a target in 10 shots, the deer/bird is gone, or one needs to reload and adjust the sights on the weapon at the range. Btw, have been enjoying a lot of your posts over the last days. Keep it up.@ ConservGov – Libs will not use violence to take your guns away. They will circulate petitions and vote for anti gun advocates, and try to pass laws, but NO ONE IS COMING TO YOUR DOOR TO TAKE YOUR GUN. You, Rightisright, and a few other conservs are scarey. Right’s comments that a revolution is way over due makes me feel I need to go buy a M4 and high capacity clips so I can help local law authorities when your militias start your revolution. Some of you sound as if you’re on the brink. Saw the Piers Anthony interview with Alex Jones, I don’t watch Piers, but Jones was, like you and Right, scarey I have pity for people who are so afraid of their neighbors as to feel they need weapons of war in order to protect themselves from an illusion of their own creation. When you look out your window, do you see neighbors, or enemies? There is no large group of people wanting your guns, we just want fewer bullets fired before you have to reload, and 100% background checks in order to prevent the “mentally ill” or other inappropriate purchasers from buying the guns. Stronger consequences for straw purchasers would be good too. So much hate, Gov. Not good for your digestion.@ Michael WME – My 20 gauge Browning has an odd piece of wood, almost looks hand carved, that can be removed to increase the capacity from 3 rounds to 5. When skeet shooting, I have removed the plug, but before leaving the field, reinstall it.@ James Wolfenstien – as is the case with many bills, by the time it has gone through committees, examined and tweaked by lobbyists, and diluted by special interests at legislators home districts, the end result is a conversational success, but a legislative piece of….uselessness. Hold your legislators to a standard and write to them. Send a $10 donation to ppl running against them, not because it will necessarily get a person elected, but because it makes both sides think. Remember, we have the best gov’t money can buy. ick. just ick.Tigger – Laws banning drinking and driving, punishing bars for letting patrons leave drunk, lowering the legal limit for intoxication, etc have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Why can’t we see if lowering the legal limit of bullets in a gun would help? Why can’t we punish gun sellers for selling guns to people they can’t identify as legal buyers? Why is it wrong to ban bullets that can kill a police officer wearing bulletproof armor? ConservGov and RightisRight might say we need to be able to kill the police who come to enforce laws that violate the 2nd Amendment. We’re talking about Apples, and sometimes Oranges…you’re talking about Applejack(the liquour), and Orange Triple Sec.You don’t like liquor, we get it. How do you feel about guns?Respectfully,and a bit nervous,C.
“Cigarettes? Alcohol? Distracted driving thanks to electronic gadgets is a fast up and comer”All of these, as you must have heard by now, are heavily regulated, with ramped up enforcement penalties for unlawful use or distribution.The NRA ‘free rein’ has run its course. It’s time to talk about sensible regulation.
Oh, Right, I forgot- because it wasn’t designed to kill, it isn’t as bad. Works about as well as “I didn’t mean to kill”“I meant to kill” – Murder. Illegal.“I didn’t mean to kill” – Manslaughter. Also illegal, but lesser penalty.The purpose of both laws is to reduce the numbers of unnatural killings of one person by another.
@ Billy Sargent – saw a pic of some feral hogs on my mom’s land. You have a valid point. But I am pleased you qualified your comment to me about specialized application. Clips can be changed out quickly, but when bullets fly, seconds save lives. Good comments, and great tone. Thank you.@ Fredgold – I have nearly every book Piers ANTHONY has written. Thank you for the correction. X(an)th? His Space Tyrant series had some interesting political insight too, don’t you think?C.
Annual FBI crime statistics show that NO ONE in America was killed with a hand grenade. Because they’ve been banned for civilian use for a long time, despite the second amendment. The same will happen with assault weapons as they get rarer, and the price gets to the point where total losers won’t be able to buy them, collectors will keep close tabs on them, and owners will lock them up the way they do their cocaine stash.
“Obviously, regulation isn’t the only answer.”True. But reasonable regulations are one of the answers. And they’re coming, so you better decide which ones you can live with.Some of the bills introduced since Newtown include: background checks for all gun sales including gun shows; ending online sales of ammunition; banning high-capacity magazines; and/or banning the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 firearms.
“a NY man killed his grandmother with his bare hands over an argument”Yes, but he wasn’t able to kill 20 children & 6 adults in 10 minutes. Difference of degree.
“More regulations aren’t the answer; enforcement of existing ones is the place to start. Tidying the system is desperately needed. A national standard & database for background checks including mental health screenings.”This sounds reasonable.
“The 4th amendment didn’t stop the patriot act, so why should the 2nd stop the disarmament of citizens?”I don’t think anyone is talking about ‘disarmament of citizens’. If they are, they’re extremists. We’re talking sensible regulation.Re the Patriot Act . . . I agree with you on the hypocrisy. And I would be interested to see if the NRA has ever denounced the Patriot Act (which is an assault not just on the 4th, but by procedure the 5th, 6th 7th and 8th amendments also).
My 870 came with a rod in the tube to limit the number of rounds, taking it out, except for law enforcement use, is illegal. My .45 holds 8 rounds. My rifles hold 5. More than enough for “legitimate use”. Also, as Colorado and several other cases showed, most folks in a “tense” situation take longer than 3-5 seconds to change magazines. That is in fact how Gabby Gifford’s attacker was taken down by unarmed people, when he was attempting to reload. Even flipping taped clips on a M-16, then manually sliding the bolt to load a new round takes most folks more than three seconds. "Speed loading’ requires expertise most of these shooters do NOT possess.
Billy Sargent said, “More regulations aren’t the answer; enforcement of existing ones is the place to start. Tidying the system is desperately needed. A national standard & database for background checks including mental health screenings.”*I agree. Unfortunately, the NRA doesn’t. Imagine the NRA’s response to a law that REQUIRES a mental health screening IN ADDITION to a background check when buying a gun.
Your earlier comments deserved a polite reply. And I got one in return. We may be on opposite sides of the political center, but I’m glad that is not preventing us from having a respectful, adult conversation.
" . . . legislation, once in place, is harder to get rid of than a condo or herpes.“lol. Agreed. In fact, I was vocally opposed to the Patriot Act when passed in 2001 for this very reason – once given a power, the successor – whoever he might be – will most likely keep it. And sure enough, Obama has extended Patriot Act twice now.”fair value of my firearms & ammunition, & I’ll gladly trade them in . . ."What do you think of ‘gun buy-backs’? I’m seeing more news about these lately . . .
From Wikipedia:- "Those seeking to close the ‘Gun Show Loophole’ argue that it provides convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers (i.e., domestic abusers, substance abusers, those who have been adjudicated as “mental defectives,” etc.) with opportunities to evade background checks, as they can easily buy firearms from private sellers with no accountability or oversight." – “Use of the ‘Gun Show Loophole’ has been advocated by terrorists.” – “33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.”However . . . – “Gun rights advocates . . .claim there is no ‘loophole,’ only a long-standing tradition of free commerce between private parties that heretofore has not been restricted in the context of secondary, intrastate firearm sales. – Furthermore, they argue that the term ‘Gun Show Loophole’ is misleading, as private firearm sellers are not required to perform background checks regardless of location—whether they are at a gun show, a flea market, their home, or anywhere else.”
ConserveGov over 11 years ago
Ya I’m sure the criminals will make sure all their “non-compliant” guns are dutifully turned in to the nearest police department.Btw Thanks Pops for letting me know how many bullets “should be enough” so I can protect my family.The Land of the Free is quickly disappearing.
James Wolfenstein over 11 years ago
Yeah… right… that’s the problem… The worst part is that it has been done before and nothing changed. Regulating the instrument doesn’t change anything. The instrument is not the problem.
Doughfoot over 11 years ago
Most homicides are committed by people without previous criminal records, but many by people with known and diagnosed mental problems, and that is particularly true of the rampage killings that have become so frequent in the US in recent years. More effective means are needed to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of people like Adam Lanza. Any disagreement on that? If the weapon is not the problem, and liberty means arming yourself in any way you please, then why are hand grenades not available at Walmart? How about nerve gas? Stinger missiles? Land mines? Should they be available freely to anyone with the money? Or are there weapons that ought to be banned and kept out of the hands of civilians? Any disagreement on that? There ought to be a consensus that effective measures ought to be in places to keep some kinds of weapons out of the hands of civilians, and most kinds of weapons out of the hands of maniacs. Many people have a legitimate need for firearms, either for hunting (for food or against pests and predators) or self-defense. (No one should interfere with that.) The only other reason for anyone to have a gun is to practice a hobby. Historical re-enactment. Collecting guns as some collect stamps. Target shooting for fun or in competition. Hunting as a sport. Or, pathetically, because it makes the gun owner feel big and strong and powerful, and able to take down his neighbors, the police, the army, and the Marine Corps when civilization and democracy collapse. The last group is the scary one: that’s rather on the borders of paranoia. I have no doubt that many a crime has been thwarted by a good person with a gun. But how many times has it taken a semi-automatic rifle with a 30-round magazine to do it, when an ordinary shotgun or hand gun would not have been sufficient? Just wondering. It would be wrong to confiscate people’s property. But to require a special and very expensive permit to purchase powerful weapons would certainly lower the demand for them, reduce their sales, discourage their manufacture, and eventually reduce the number in circulation. Even criminals normally have to buy their weapons on a black market and are subject to the laws of supply and demand. (Except when the harmless law-abiding gun owner involuntarily supplies the criminal with his gun, as Nancy Lanza did her son.) There are any number of “best practices” out there that, if required of all gun owners, might be effective. If Nancy Lanza had kept her guns in a sturdy gun safe with a combination lock, she and a lot of kids might be alive today. There are very good reasons, even apart from the Constitution, to allow citizens to keep and bear arms. There are very good reasons, never considered in violation of the Constitution, to limit that possession to certain classes of weapons and not others, and to carefully regulate the possession of still others, like fully automatic weapons. And there are many types of gun control that do not restrict ownership, but only things like storage and sales. Most of the arguments made by rabid gun-nuts are bogus, attacking straw men of their own devising or based on paranoid delusions. (And some from anti-gun nuts are just as paranoid.) -- This should be considered as a question of public safety, period, and what laws are most conducive to public safety when it comes to weapons, whether explosives, chemical weapons, or firearms.
Odon Premium Member over 11 years ago
The tobacco industry continues to feed business to the healthcare industry via “coffin nails”. The tobacco lobby has fed cash to our reps in Washington for years to facilitate this irrational costly exchange. Toles shows how this works with other industries as well.
BillWa over 11 years ago
In the state of Wa. you don;t need to register guns. The Gov. has no business knowing what and how mny I have. And by the way Tom, did you know more people, the very vast majority of gun deaths are Suicides? Take away the gun, they will choose something else. Oh, how many deaths by cars do we need before we ban cars, or put in a governor to keep it from going over 55mph. Guns are not the problem, mags are not the problem, PEOPLE are the problem.
chazandru over 11 years ago
@ Night Gaunt – If a person hasn’t hit a target in 10 shots, the deer/bird is gone, or one needs to reload and adjust the sights on the weapon at the range. Btw, have been enjoying a lot of your posts over the last days. Keep it up.@ ConservGov – Libs will not use violence to take your guns away. They will circulate petitions and vote for anti gun advocates, and try to pass laws, but NO ONE IS COMING TO YOUR DOOR TO TAKE YOUR GUN. You, Rightisright, and a few other conservs are scarey. Right’s comments that a revolution is way over due makes me feel I need to go buy a M4 and high capacity clips so I can help local law authorities when your militias start your revolution. Some of you sound as if you’re on the brink. Saw the Piers Anthony interview with Alex Jones, I don’t watch Piers, but Jones was, like you and Right, scarey I have pity for people who are so afraid of their neighbors as to feel they need weapons of war in order to protect themselves from an illusion of their own creation. When you look out your window, do you see neighbors, or enemies? There is no large group of people wanting your guns, we just want fewer bullets fired before you have to reload, and 100% background checks in order to prevent the “mentally ill” or other inappropriate purchasers from buying the guns. Stronger consequences for straw purchasers would be good too. So much hate, Gov. Not good for your digestion.@ Michael WME – My 20 gauge Browning has an odd piece of wood, almost looks hand carved, that can be removed to increase the capacity from 3 rounds to 5. When skeet shooting, I have removed the plug, but before leaving the field, reinstall it.@ James Wolfenstien – as is the case with many bills, by the time it has gone through committees, examined and tweaked by lobbyists, and diluted by special interests at legislators home districts, the end result is a conversational success, but a legislative piece of….uselessness. Hold your legislators to a standard and write to them. Send a $10 donation to ppl running against them, not because it will necessarily get a person elected, but because it makes both sides think. Remember, we have the best gov’t money can buy. ick. just ick.Tigger – Laws banning drinking and driving, punishing bars for letting patrons leave drunk, lowering the legal limit for intoxication, etc have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Why can’t we see if lowering the legal limit of bullets in a gun would help? Why can’t we punish gun sellers for selling guns to people they can’t identify as legal buyers? Why is it wrong to ban bullets that can kill a police officer wearing bulletproof armor? ConservGov and RightisRight might say we need to be able to kill the police who come to enforce laws that violate the 2nd Amendment. We’re talking about Apples, and sometimes Oranges…you’re talking about Applejack(the liquour), and Orange Triple Sec.You don’t like liquor, we get it. How do you feel about guns?Respectfully,and a bit nervous,C.
corzak over 11 years ago
“Cigarettes? Alcohol? Distracted driving thanks to electronic gadgets is a fast up and comer”All of these, as you must have heard by now, are heavily regulated, with ramped up enforcement penalties for unlawful use or distribution.The NRA ‘free rein’ has run its course. It’s time to talk about sensible regulation.
corzak over 11 years ago
Oh, Right, I forgot- because it wasn’t designed to kill, it isn’t as bad. Works about as well as “I didn’t mean to kill”“I meant to kill” – Murder. Illegal.“I didn’t mean to kill” – Manslaughter. Also illegal, but lesser penalty.The purpose of both laws is to reduce the numbers of unnatural killings of one person by another.
chazandru over 11 years ago
@ Billy Sargent – saw a pic of some feral hogs on my mom’s land. You have a valid point. But I am pleased you qualified your comment to me about specialized application. Clips can be changed out quickly, but when bullets fly, seconds save lives. Good comments, and great tone. Thank you.@ Fredgold – I have nearly every book Piers ANTHONY has written. Thank you for the correction. X(an)th? His Space Tyrant series had some interesting political insight too, don’t you think?C.
corzak over 11 years ago
“China, Same day as Sandy Hook. You’re welcome.”No one was killed in the China attack. No one.
ARodney over 11 years ago
Annual FBI crime statistics show that NO ONE in America was killed with a hand grenade. Because they’ve been banned for civilian use for a long time, despite the second amendment. The same will happen with assault weapons as they get rarer, and the price gets to the point where total losers won’t be able to buy them, collectors will keep close tabs on them, and owners will lock them up the way they do their cocaine stash.
corzak over 11 years ago
“Obviously, regulation isn’t the only answer.”True. But reasonable regulations are one of the answers. And they’re coming, so you better decide which ones you can live with.Some of the bills introduced since Newtown include: background checks for all gun sales including gun shows; ending online sales of ammunition; banning high-capacity magazines; and/or banning the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 firearms.
corzak over 11 years ago
“a NY man killed his grandmother with his bare hands over an argument”Yes, but he wasn’t able to kill 20 children & 6 adults in 10 minutes. Difference of degree.
corzak over 11 years ago
“More regulations aren’t the answer; enforcement of existing ones is the place to start. Tidying the system is desperately needed. A national standard & database for background checks including mental health screenings.”This sounds reasonable.
corzak over 11 years ago
“The 4th amendment didn’t stop the patriot act, so why should the 2nd stop the disarmament of citizens?”I don’t think anyone is talking about ‘disarmament of citizens’. If they are, they’re extremists. We’re talking sensible regulation.Re the Patriot Act . . . I agree with you on the hypocrisy. And I would be interested to see if the NRA has ever denounced the Patriot Act (which is an assault not just on the 4th, but by procedure the 5th, 6th 7th and 8th amendments also).
echoraven over 11 years ago
“Limit to 10 bullets per clip. Should be enough unless you want to go on a murder spree.”
Actually the easiest solution would be to make murder illegal… ‘cause everyone obey’s the law, right?
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
My 870 came with a rod in the tube to limit the number of rounds, taking it out, except for law enforcement use, is illegal. My .45 holds 8 rounds. My rifles hold 5. More than enough for “legitimate use”. Also, as Colorado and several other cases showed, most folks in a “tense” situation take longer than 3-5 seconds to change magazines. That is in fact how Gabby Gifford’s attacker was taken down by unarmed people, when he was attempting to reload. Even flipping taped clips on a M-16, then manually sliding the bolt to load a new round takes most folks more than three seconds. "Speed loading’ requires expertise most of these shooters do NOT possess.
Marty Z over 11 years ago
Billy Sargent said, “More regulations aren’t the answer; enforcement of existing ones is the place to start. Tidying the system is desperately needed. A national standard & database for background checks including mental health screenings.”*I agree. Unfortunately, the NRA doesn’t. Imagine the NRA’s response to a law that REQUIRES a mental health screening IN ADDITION to a background check when buying a gun.
Marty Z over 11 years ago
Your earlier comments deserved a polite reply. And I got one in return. We may be on opposite sides of the political center, but I’m glad that is not preventing us from having a respectful, adult conversation.
Rickapolis over 11 years ago
A home run.
corzak over 11 years ago
" . . . legislation, once in place, is harder to get rid of than a condo or herpes.“lol. Agreed. In fact, I was vocally opposed to the Patriot Act when passed in 2001 for this very reason – once given a power, the successor – whoever he might be – will most likely keep it. And sure enough, Obama has extended Patriot Act twice now.”fair value of my firearms & ammunition, & I’ll gladly trade them in . . ."What do you think of ‘gun buy-backs’? I’m seeing more news about these lately . . .
corzak over 11 years ago
From Wikipedia:- "Those seeking to close the ‘Gun Show Loophole’ argue that it provides convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers (i.e., domestic abusers, substance abusers, those who have been adjudicated as “mental defectives,” etc.) with opportunities to evade background checks, as they can easily buy firearms from private sellers with no accountability or oversight." – “Use of the ‘Gun Show Loophole’ has been advocated by terrorists.” – “33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.”However . . . – “Gun rights advocates . . .claim there is no ‘loophole,’ only a long-standing tradition of free commerce between private parties that heretofore has not been restricted in the context of secondary, intrastate firearm sales. – Furthermore, they argue that the term ‘Gun Show Loophole’ is misleading, as private firearm sellers are not required to perform background checks regardless of location—whether they are at a gun show, a flea market, their home, or anywhere else.”