Colorado Gun Demand Jumps 41%

[Shuffler]

I just think it's a darn good thing guns are illegal in Mexico. For many of the anti gun folks they have a safe haven to go to should they so decide.

[guncrasher]

I just think it's a darn good thing guns are illegal in Mexico. For many of the anti gun folks they have a safe haven to go to should they so decide.

this is a lie.   I grew up there and we had legal guns.  it was just a matter of going to the store, no paperwork needed.  You were also allowed to carry one in your vehicle as long as it wasn't loaded.   I also remember old timers walking around with a gun, looking just like your normal cowboy.   they probably grew up in little towns where it was the norm.


Our secondary school teacher would bring one to school since he would cash all paychecks for the 40 or so teachers we had.

I also remember going up to a small town up in the mountains.   remember seeing a group of kids on a field trip walking up the mountain.   they had two rifles with them, they told me it was to get their lunch.   I still have a good laugh thinking about it.

semp

[TonyJoey]

That racial slur is so far over the line I hardly know what to say, except that there should be no place on this board for such insulting and derogatory terms.

I *think* its possible to have a discussion of race and violence if we stick to facts and avoid generalizations.   I also think its OK to say "Blacks" or African American.   But your choice of terms here is completely unacceptable.   

 

[Shuffler]

this is a lie.   I grew up there and we had legal guns.  it was just a matter of going to the store, no paperwork needed.  You were also allowed to carry one in your vehicle as long as it wasn't loaded.   I also remember old timers walking around with a gun, looking just like your normal cowboy.   they probably grew up in little towns where it was the norm.


Our secondary school teacher would bring one to school since he would cash all paychecks for the 40 or so teachers we had.

I also remember going up to a small town up in the mountains.   remember seeing a group of kids on a field trip walking up the mountain.   they had two rifles with them, they told me it was to get their lunch.   I still have a good laugh thinking about it.

semp

I'll tell the three guys I know that are from there. They'll be glad to know they can own firearms there now. snicker

[Jayhawk]

this is a lie.   I grew up there and we had legal guns. 

I'll tell the three guys I know that are from there. They'll be glad to know they can own firearms there now. snicker

Maybe you're both right and the law has changed!   

[Jayhawk]

At the core of these debates is what the cause of violence is.  I'm not naive enough to say the availability of weapons (not just firearms) has an effect, but I don't believe it is a causal effect.  People constantly throw out examples of high gun control/low violence populations, then someone shows a high gun control/low violence population, followed by a high gun control/high violence, followed by a low gun control/high violence.  That tells me that gun control has a very small (if any) effect on violence.  If your true goal is to reduce violence, then you'll be much better served spending your time and energy focusing on some of the causal effects of violence such as poverty, abuse, and mental illness.

[guncrasher]

I'll tell the three guys I know that are from there. They'll be glad to know they can own firearms there now. snicker

perhaps they should meet my uncles.   All 4 of them own them legally.



semp

[TonyJoey]

At the core of these debates is what the cause of violence is.  I'm not naive enough to say the availability of weapons (not just firearms) has an effect, but I don't believe it is a causal effect.  People constantly throw out examples of high gun control/low violence populations, then someone shows a high gun control/low violence population, followed by a high gun control/high violence, followed by a low gun control/high violence.  That tells me that gun control has a very small (if any) effect on violence.  If your true goal is to reduce violence, then you'll be much better served spending your time and energy focusing on some of the causal effects of violence such as poverty, abuse, and mental illness.

And then we reach the debate of whether the government should have a role in alleviating poverty and provding things such as healthcare, and to what extent.

[Sabre]

And then we reach the debate of whether the government should have a role in alleviating poverty and provding things such as healthcare, and to what extent.

Ooy! You'll get us locked for sure, if we go there!  On a side note, I caught a few minutes of the O'Reilly Factor last night, and heard some looney suggestions Bill made on the issue of gun control, including suggesting a requirement that any AK or AR sales (single gun or otherwise) be reported to the DEA.  Again, and like so many others, he put zero thought into some of these suggestions, acting on pure feelings.  Is there any reasonable argument to be made that such a requirement would have prevented the Aurora shootings, or decreased the death toll? He also repeated a number of other feel-good suggestions, without any better reasoning behind them except, "civilians don't need these weapons". Et tu, Bill?

[coombz]

At the core of these debates is what the cause of violence is.  I'm not naive enough to say the availability of weapons (not just firearms) has an effect, but I don't believe it is a causal effect.  People constantly throw out examples of high gun control/low violence populations, then someone shows a high gun control/low violence population, followed by a high gun control/high violence, followed by a low gun control/high violence.  That tells me that gun control has a very small (if any) effect on violence.  If your true goal is to reduce violence, then you'll be much better served spending your time and energy focusing on some of the causal effects of violence such as poverty, abuse, and mental illness.

this is a good post

I agree, and feel like a society's culture has a lot to do with it

the UK these days has a pretty scummy and often violent culture, and although I personally think the gun control there is a good thing, it evidently doesn't do much to curb the large amount of violent crime, as has already been pointed out

the US also has an awful culture and widespread availability of guns, and has become a prime example for much of the civilized world as to why it's a bad thing to make guns easily obtainable

plenty of countries out there have more lax gun control laws, but in a healthier society you don't see the same problems as you do elsewhere

guns aren't the problem, people are, and have always been, the problem. but equally, guns make it a hell of a lot easier for the average person to end a lot of lives with minimal effort

[VonMessa]

The bottom line here is that any regulations of the types of firearms , or accessories, is still infringement of the right to bear arms.

The debate of how morality cannot be regulated can go 'round and 'round.

Do I, personally, think that 100 round magazines are necessary? No.  I actually think that most hi capacity magazines are junk, jam and waste more ammo than they fire in a lot of cases.

My every day carry is a 1930's Smith & Wesson .32 caliber revolver (used to be standard NYPD issue back in the day)  It is not a "man stopper" as a 9mm or .45 would be, but I keep it loaded with hollow point rounds.  It is one of the most accurate revolvers that I have ever had the pleasure of firing.  For personal or family self-defense, I think it would suffice just fine and I hope to never have to use it.  If I couldn't hit my target with 5 of the 6 rounds, I would use the 6th round on myself for lack of target discipline.  I doubt that I would ever need to have more than those 6 rounds in most any situation where I would have to defend myself barring a zombie apocalypse.  It is ancient, accurate and reliable.



However, the 2nd amendment is not really geared towards self-defense from criminal intent but rather to defend one's self in the event of a tyrannical government.  In that case, my 6 rounds wouldn't amount to much.  A lot of folks feel the same way and prefer higher capacity magazines.  I spent many years behind an M-16 using 30 round magazines.  It does not take much time to change them and they are fairly easy to carry.  It is what I would prefer.

Just because I prefer them or see no particular advantage to high capacity magazines, it does not mean that I am against others owning them.

If someone has intent to kill another human being or a group of human beings, they will find a way whether it be through the use of high capacity magazines, rocks, flame throwers, grenades, poison or the simple and intentional spread of disease.  Limiting one route will just make them resort to another.  Humans are a very ingenious bunch.

[TonyJoey]

Here is an interesting interview that Justice Scalia, arguably the most conservative member of the Supreme Court, did on Sunday on FOX, where he touches on many topics, including gun control.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/

Sabre- O'Reilly suggested reporting heavy weapons sales to the FBI so the sales could be cross-referenced with things like terror lists. He also suggested mandatory sentences for crimes involving guns.

[Shuffler]

The bottom line here is that any regulations of the types of firearms , or accessories, is still infringement of the right to bear arms.

The debate of how morality cannot be regulated can go 'round and 'round.

Do I, personally, think that 100 round magazines are necessary? No.  I actually think that most hi capacity magazines are junk, jam and waste more ammo than they fire in a lot of cases.

My every day carry is a 1930's Smith & Wesson .32 caliber revolver (used to be standard NYPD issue back in the day)  It is not a "man stopper" as a 9mm or .45 would be, but I keep it loaded with hollow point rounds.  It is one of the most accurate revolvers that I have ever had the pleasure of firing.  For personal or family self-defense, I think it would suffice just fine and I hope to never have to use it.  If I couldn't hit my target with 5 of the 6 rounds, I would use the 6th round on myself for lack of target discipline.  I doubt that I would ever need to have more than those 6 rounds in most any situation where I would have to defend myself barring a zombie apocalypse.  It is ancient, accurate and reliable.

(Image removed from quote.)

However, the 2nd amendment is not really geared towards self-defense from criminal intent but rather to defend one's self in the event of a tyrannical government.  In that case, my 6 rounds wouldn't amount to much.  A lot of folks feel the same way and prefer higher capacity magazines.  I spent many years behind an M-16 using 30 round magazines.  It does not take much time to change them and they are fairly easy to carry.  It is what I would prefer.

Just because I prefer them or see no particular advantage to high capacity magazines, it does not mean that I am against others owning them.

If someone has intent to kill another human being or a group of human beings, they will find a way whether it be through the use of high capacity magazines, rocks, flame throwers, grenades, poison or the simple and intentional spread of disease.  Limiting one route will just make them resort to another.  Humans are a very ingenious bunch.

A proper hit with a .32 or even a .22 will be a stopper.

[RTHolmes]

The bottom line here is that any regulations of the types of firearms , or accessories, is still infringement of the right to bear arms.

thats not really a bottom line though is it? - the constitution isnt written in stone, its a bunch of stuff generally agreed to a coupla hundred years ago. and then changed (or amended) constantly ever since, depending on what society at the time deemed right.

any well-regulated militia today would need access to nukes, attack choppers, tanks, SAMS etc to effectively deal with a tyrannical government.

gun control laws are a pragmatic way of dealing with conflicting rights. does anyone really think its sensible that people should be able to legally walk around with an RPG, grenades, a Stinger or a flamethrower?

[TonyJoey]

thats not really a bottom line though is it? - the constitution isnt written in stone, its a bunch of stuff generally agreed to a coupla hundred years ago. and then changed (or amended) constantly ever since, depending on what society at the time deemed right.
any well-regulated militia today would need access to nukes, attack choppers, tanks, SAMS etc to effectively deal with a tyrannical government.

gun control laws are a pragmatic way of dealing with conflicting rights. does anyone really think its sensible that people should be able to legally walk around with an RPG, grenades, a Stinger or a flamethrower?

While I agree with the general gist of your post that government has the right to regulate guns, I disagree with the bolded. What is bolded is the job of the legislature. The Constitution is what it is; it isn't a living organism that bends to whatever belief you hold. Rather, it sets in place certain limitations and leaves the rest to the legislature and the democratic process. Roe V. Wade is a perfect example of judicial activism. The Court took on the role of Congress and took the values of the Fourth Amendment and made it fit their agenda. The Fourth Amendment does not address abortion, and as such, it should be left up to the democratic process.