|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 10, 2013, 11:44 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
|
From the Bloomberg op-ed mouthpiece: here's the next front
http://www.dailycamera.com/editorial...-put-others-at
More research will, I'm sure, turn up more "dangerous elements" amongst the ciitzenry. Not sure if a 10 year ban is the goal for all of these new sub-sets of citizens, but this appears to be the new chisel for chipping away. Or maybe I am just way behind the curve. edit: Theohazard has asked for a bit more info (to avoid drive by status). Good point. The short summary is that this op-ed piece points out that besides the well-recognized groups of people that are banned from possessing firearms (e.g.: Felons), research shows that other behaviors are indicative of a high potential for violent behavior. One of the examples given: 2 drunk driving offenses within 5 years. The article suggests banning these people from possessing firearms for possibly 10 years. So, it appears that the next trenches of the gun debate will be fought by statistical analysis of behavior and demographics rather than crime stats. "Why 10 years? Do you have 20 years of data that shows that people with 2 drunk driving violations are potentially violent for the next 10 years?"
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time. Last edited by doofus47; December 11, 2013 at 02:31 AM. Reason: to avoid drive by status |
December 10, 2013, 11:57 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
|
One of the things I have hard time getting around is how gun violence is its own special category. If you are wounded or killed by some other kind of violence are you somehow less violated or dead?
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time. No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it. |
December 11, 2013, 12:15 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Doofus47, could you give a quick summary of the article? As it is now, your OP is pretty close to a drive-by and stands a good chance of being closed by the mods. Also, I'd rather not have to read the piece myself, as it will probably anger me enough that I'll end up ranting to my wife about it, and she's pretty tired of my anti-gun-control rants after the year we've had in the gun world!
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
December 11, 2013, 12:52 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
A bunch of fear mongering about things already prohibited that should be, but hints that they aren't. Violent misdemeanors, involuntary commitments, and so on.
|
December 11, 2013, 01:46 AM | #5 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Some group called the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy (I know anti-gun groups, and I've never heard of these guys) wants to establish a set of criteria under which people are subject to temporary (10 years by their suggestion) deprivation of the right to own guns. There's no indication of how they'll get around pesky things like due process.
Frankly, this should be enough to make any rational person reject their argument: Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
December 11, 2013, 02:40 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
|
Tom S:
Quote:
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time. |
|
December 11, 2013, 07:54 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 3,881
|
Looks like their goal is to have more citizens on a list that cannot own guns. They will chip away until everyone for one reason or another will not be allowed to own a gun. Seems like another form of gun control to disarm the citizens.
|
December 11, 2013, 08:27 AM | #8 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Good to some unbiased research from:
Quote:
The caps made me a gigggle a bit. Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
||
December 11, 2013, 08:29 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
|
10 years is not a temporary ban in my world. If the plan was to change the people the are permanently banned to 10 years I could probably support that. But in general I think once someone has served their time or had the case disposed of they should have their rights and privileges returned. There is no need to go looking for new and unfounded ways to ban more people.
That "reasonable" inch becomes more ridiculous all the time.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time. No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it. |
December 11, 2013, 08:35 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
|
Quote:
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time. No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it. |
|
December 11, 2013, 08:41 AM | #11 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
Is the increase in "Safety" worth the loss of more Freedom? No, and those who think so will, eventually, have neither. "Safety" is as bottomless and black a pit as "Need": you can sacrifice everything you have, and everything everyone else has, and it will never be filled in...... and you are left with nothing, and void remains. |
|
December 11, 2013, 10:47 AM | #12 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 27, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 932
|
Thank you, jimbob86, for turning the statement around so it now makes sense in English:
Quote:
And, thank you for: Quote:
Best, Will
__________________
Show me the data |
||
December 11, 2013, 10:57 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Reemphasize:
Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
|
December 11, 2013, 11:33 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
Seeing as Chicago politicians statistically have about a 30% chance of being convicted of a felony I'd recommend they be permanently banned from owning firearms.
|
December 11, 2013, 12:59 PM | #15 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
If that were the case, gun-control advocates could quote real statistics showing that the 1968 and 1994 laws reduced gun violence. They can't.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
December 12, 2013, 12:58 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Well if you guys go line by line of the people they want to give a 10 year ban to, it's mostly people already under a life-time ban. They work very hard to hint at classes of already Prohibited Persons not being prohibited. The "involuntarily committed" are Adjudicated Mentally Deficient for example. You could go 1 for 1 with every example they have, and find a 4473 question their hypothetical person can't answer honestly and pass the form.
Edit To Add: I haven't seen a study Tom, I doubt there is one, so it's causation/correlation right now, but there has been one part of the 93-94 omnibus stuff from Clinton's crime/gun package in effect for the full 20+ year homicide downturn. The AWB came and went. Grants for local police funding has probably come and gone with various funding levels. Background checks have been in place for pretty much the full time, and are probably here to stay |
December 12, 2013, 01:16 AM | #17 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,436
|
Quote:
The problem is violence. Guns are but one tool that can be used to perpetrate violence. When you focus solely on violence perpetrated with guns, you can't possibly hope to have much impact on violence in general. It's like trying to improve traffic safety by studying and responding ONLY to accident caused by burned out brake lights. Never mind bald tires, faulty brakes, cell phone abuse, drunk drivers, etc. -- we have to address the burned out brake light problem if we're going to reduce accidents. |
|
December 12, 2013, 07:54 AM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
|
Quote:
I know what you mean. To me, a person who beats somebody to death with his fists is far more violent, and mentally a greater threat to society than somebody who shoots someone. It takes a special kind of evil to kill somebody up close and personal. |
|
December 12, 2013, 08:24 AM | #19 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/gu...9bb30f31a.html Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
||
December 12, 2013, 10:13 AM | #20 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
So they want to remove the lifetime bans and replace them with 10 year bans? Do they think about the things they propose or just spout them out like they get paid per idea, dumb or not? That does make more sense than adding a ten year ban on top of the lifetime ban ..... but then again, these are the kind of people that brought us Life+x years in prison .... words are malleable with them ...... Lifetime + 10 years? So you can't buy a gun from your casket? ....and if you do posses a gun in the 10 years after your death, then it is still a felony, and you should be charged, and if convicted, and put on the Infinity year ban list ......... and if that does not work, we'll pass another law, to make gun possession even moar ......... illegallllllllllllllll............ er? Then, of course on to moar illegallest! Then, We'll just add meaningless suffixes! ....... Moar Illegallestishmentness! Silly, yes ...... but not as silly as the thinking of these people, who seem to believe that if they just have another study in support of passing a feel-good law, then people that are inclined to do violence to others will give 3 toots in a tornado that they are violating any law, let alone the laws that they are constantly dreaming up .... Laws only affect the Law-abiding. |
|
December 12, 2013, 10:24 AM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
I fully support any law preventing the dead from possessing firearms. |
|
December 12, 2013, 10:28 AM | #22 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
...... "Mama, put my guns in the ground, I can't use them, anymore ......"
|
December 12, 2013, 10:38 AM | #23 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,685
|
Quote:
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
December 12, 2013, 10:44 AM | #24 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
|
|
December 12, 2013, 12:00 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Gun related scholarship is driven for the most part by an antipathy towards firearms. There are a few neutral scholars or some who are or not gun friendly but will honestly analyzed the data.
The biases in science are now well documented across many fields. The pre-existing biases direct what is studied and what gets published. Eventually, the truth will come out but it is a hard process. I shudder to think what would have happened if Lott's work didn't come out as positive for gun usage but his methodology was the same. He would be damned by all the gun folk in the harshest language. I've seen a touch of that with my AR-15 study. Folks of lesser analytic minds have called me names - imagine that.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|