Feinsteins Gun Control Bill

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

The comment was a condemnation of appeasment and "if you'll just be reasonable and give us everything we're asking for we can avoid all this unnecessary unpleasantness". I'm fairly well versed on the Chamberlain govt's "avoid war at any cost while secretly engaging in an ineffective arms buildup" strategy. Avoidance of conflict, even after it had become apparent to all, including the most head-in-the-sand pacifist, while understandable as an outgrowth of the WWI experience was an unforgiveable failing in a national government with a duty to look to its people's best interests. My duty is to uphold and defend the Constitution so that succeeding generations can enjoy the same rights and privileges I hold dear; my failing is in expecting others to understand that duty in the same light.

Interesting that you ignored the rest of my comments and seek to divert attention by asking rhetorical questions. As a partial answer, I invite you to examine Post #28 in the NYT Posts Names thread.

By my reading of this thread and others related to the post Newtown debates, no one--including those with whom you disagree--is suggesting anything resembling "appeasement." It is my view that some are calling for a level of engagement that allows for an optimal balance of political pragmatism, rhetorical effectiveness, and, for lack of a better term, imagination, that does not compromise core principles.

The purpose of the rhetorical questions was to suggest that just because good and wise men (that is, Richard, ZonieDiver, and Dozer523) have different perspectives on an issue, those views cannot work to the benefit of the overall discussion.

The conversation over how to address the issue of mass violence against children is centering around the issue of gun control and becoming increasingly polarized. It is my view that this direction is going to cost America an opportunity to discuss "big picture" issues that include the militarization of American mass popular culture, the criminalization of mental illness, the role violence (both actual and symbolic) plays in identify formation, and the social contract among citizens, communities, and the state.

I also think that the current trajectory is going to expose the American right even further to a series of vicious counter arguments that will undermine its intellectual and political legitimacy among independent minded voters.

This polarization is not merely the result of politicians' rhetoric, irresponsible media elites, special interest groups, nor a broadly defined they/them who won't listen to reason. To me, this polarization is a choice made by Americans on both sides of an already complex and controversial topic. This choice is to make an issue a broader symbol for things they don't like about people with whom they disagree and then to recast the debate as a make or break contest of us versus them.

I think that this choice is not in accord with the best practices of the American political tradition; the fact that different people have markedly dissimilar views on vital issues is not evidence that the America is failing--but rather that it is working.

My $0.02.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Check out the crime stats of "gun-free" cities as compared to cities like Phoenix. Yes those that make themselves gun-free are being targeted by the criminals. Chicagos violent crimes are about 4-5 times worse then Phoenix.

Unable to link thru the work filter but Larry Correia had a pretty good piece I read last night on this. IIRC, all but one of the recent high-vis events (Gifford's shooting) occurred in "gun free zones." Even given the excellent response times of LE
- average number of people shot when LE was first intervention: 14
- average number when a civilian (already there) intervened in some way: 2.5

And a suggestion: Exempt on-site staff, who also happen to be permit holders, from the Fed GFSZ Act. This isn't "putting cops in every classroom" and permit-holders aren't cops - that's not the point. If, when faced with opposition, these monsters tend to either give up or shoot themselves, let's speed up that loop.

A permit holder has no more or less criteria to go by when faced with someone about to do them (or their charges) grievous bodily harm. Make it voluntary, but at least enable it. (Naturally there would be occasions where a state must release some pre-emption or home rule issues, but that's f'n paperwork and a vote in a statehouse.) A non-critical outcome of that might be also a window into who is locally serious IAW their local values about protecting children, and who's just flapping their gums.

But the G currently handcuffs those communities who'd be willing to try that. With that act they (from top down) said things would be better. They either lied or were ignorant; bottom line it doesn't work. If the vast national conversation is to have any merit it must include an objective examination of what hasn't worked, however motivated. To do otherwise is criminal.

Now y'all go play socio-pathology. There's one idea, just one small facet, and I'll bet it could be implemented someplace faster than you can fix the deficit in mental health care.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Check out the crime stats of "gun-free" cities as compared to cities like Phoenix. Yes those that make themselves gun-free are being targeted by the criminals. Chicagos violent crimes are about 4-5 times worse then Phoenix.

There may be others, but I'm not sure Chicago is a valid choice for making such a comparison as I doubt that its long-standing and well-known (to an almost mythical stature) culture of urban violence (ala organized crime and gang-related criminal activities) has changed much in the last 100 years from its pre and post-gun free zoning - other than its violent crime rates (including murder) have, in general, dropped fairly significantly over the last couple of decades.

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/por...ports/MA11.pdf

http://qrc.depaul.edu/djabon/Article...me20030101.htm

Richard

[Streck-Fu]

Rates of violent crime of all types have been dropping for decades all over the country. Chicago serves best as an example firearm prohibition BECAUSE the gun violence is very prevalent after the prohibition was enacted.

Just like with alcohol prohibition, Chicago proves that bans will not stop the behavior.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

Rates of violent crime of all types have been dropping for decades all over the country. Chicago serves best as an example firearm prohibition BECAUSE the gun violence is very prevalent after the prohibition was enacted.

Just like with alcohol prohibition, Chicago proves that bans will not stop the behavior.

I don't think anybody here believes such acts can be entirely 'stopped' - but can they be reasonably curbed or lessened? To that end, the logic of your statement escapes me - I'd be interested in hearing your interpretation of the CPD's "Chicago Murder Analysis" report and Table 13 in particular.

However, using such logic, this may be an argument in favor of letting everyone arm themselves - maybe the problem would become self-limiting.

A teenager is recovering after police say he shot himself in the penis and testicle while cleaning a gun he just bought.

It happened Thursday morning at a home on the 200 block of Verada Street in Port St. Lucie.

Police say 18-year-old Michael Smeriglio first lied to police saying someone shot him while he was walking down the street. After being questioned by police he admitted to accidentally doing it himself.

Doctors say the bullet went through his penis, his left testicle and then lodged itself in his thigh.

Smeriglio told police he bought the gun last month at a party.

While police were investigating at the home where it happened, they discovered marijuana in the house. That led to the arrest of the homeowner Joseph Lamar James, 22, on drug charges.

CH11 News, Macon, GA

Richard

[Destrier]

Perhaps we are missing a few other ways to stop and individual with a gun attacking a gun free zone.


Maybe some would consider other methods to attempt to buy time until LEO's can arrive.


O.C. bear spray in a sprinkler system in hallways or hand helds.

With small hand held O2 bail out bottle in class rooms.

Car-15 with blue plastic

semi auto shotguns with bean bags or rubber bullets

Flash bangs

Tasers

tranqulizer guns

Ballistic shields for the turtle effect

Tracked Robotic drone with several methods of sub duel operated from LEO station.

Not saying my preference is for such. Just brain storming. But since some are not capable, are unwilling, or simply cannot utilize deadly force themselves.

Maybe a multi faceted approach. Along with, some trained armed willing responsible individuals when possible. Goal to buy response time.

[Pete]

The Mission of the S.A.I.S.D. Police Department

http://www.saisd.net/admin/police/index.htm

Hmm, Cops in schools.

Goggle Texas ISD Police and you get a bunch of hits.

Even Dallas has one

http://www.dallasisd.org/Page/1217

[rubberneck]

They're not screwing around this time. This makes the Clinton AWB look like a walk in the park. This evil legislation has to be killed before it sees the light of day. Every owner of a magazine with a capacity of over 10 rounds becomes a felon the second after this law is passed. Another goodie includes a national registration of grandfathered "assault weapons" for easier confiscation down the road, and the banning of some handguns.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons

[Badger52]

Naturally her website doesn't cite as ref the CDC studies commissioned by her complicit friends the Clintons, which ended up not validating any real benefits of such things.

Originally Posted by rubberneck

Another goodie includes a national registration of grandfathered "assault weapons"...

Whatever. Let me know how that works out.

[Streck-Fu]

Molon Labe

[Richard]

Can we have it both ways?

Americans Want Stricter Gun Laws, Still Oppose Bans

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/am..._term=Politics

And so it goes...

Richard

[Streck-Fu]

Can we have it both ways?

As though more laws/restrictions would work.

From the link:

Also, nearly all Americans -- now 92%, up from 83% in 1999 -- favor laws that require people attempting to purchase guns at gun shows, including gun dealers, to undergo background checks.

This demonstrates extraordinary ignorance and it's inclusion in the poll indicates the Gallup question writers are very ignorant of existing laws.

Buying from dealers at gun shows already requires a 4473 and background check. What they probably are trying to address is private sales/transfers at gun shows which are a matter state law. Most states do not require private parties to transfer through a FFL/dealer.

To ban private sales at gun shows would only move those sales to the parking lot next door.

The question is based on a false premise.

[booker]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

While I am sure you can take care of yourself how well could you defend yourself if a 6'5" 280 lbs of muscle jacked up on meth attacked you if you were unarmed? I know I would probably get my ass handed to me and I am not a small guy or helpless. A 45 would go a long way twords your survival.

Funny you mention that one - my neighbor is a town cop who had to deal with just this issue (the guy was probably only 240 though) a couple of weeks ago. Tasered him twice, to no avail, physical restraint failed, it took three officers to subdue him. And this was a college kid... One cop broke his wrist in the scuffle. Denial won't work anymore, trouble will find you with your head stuck in the sand. I agree with BrushO, a .45 will help.

[koz]

Originally Posted by Richard

Can we have it both ways?

Americans Want Stricter Gun Laws, Still Oppose Bans

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/am..._term=Politics

And so it goes...

Richard

This is simple. Politicians, teachers/educators, psychologists, hollywood, liberals in general continue to tell people that "gun laws will make them safer." If you hear something enough, some people will begin to believe it. So when someone says, do you want more restrictive gun laws, they think they want to protect the children, so they say "yes more restrictive gun laws will make me safer."

But when they ask how to make these more restrictive gun laws, banning anything doesn't seem to make sense to the majority.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Richard

There may be others, but I'm not sure Chicago is a valid choice for making such a comparison as I doubt that its long-standing and well-known (to an almost mythical stature) culture of urban violence (ala organized crime and gang-related criminal activities) has changed much in the last 100 years from its pre and post-gun free zoning - other than its violent crime rates (including murder) have, in general, dropped fairly significantly over the last couple of decades.

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/por...ports/MA11.pdf

http://qrc.depaul.edu/djabon/Article...me20030101.htm

Richard

Yes Richard that's my point, even with laws banning guns the problem only grows. Chicago is a prime example of how such brainless left-wing guns laws don't work. It's also a prime example of what happens when you ban guns. And we know Washington D.C. is the same as Chicago. Ban guns and crime goes up.

As far as the violence seeming to lessen over the decades I have read studies that suggest killing the bad men stems the violence. It's hard to be a repeat offender when you're taking a dirt nap.

You want to stop the violence, enforce the current gun laws. It's quite apparent that left-wing operated cities with millions cannot do that. Do we need to bring the current situation in England into the discussion? You know what's currently going on in a country that basically banned guns?

Targeting the guns is simple but it will not stop the violence. How about we target the individuals committing the violent crimes instead.

I will defend my constitutional right to defend myself with my life and I will not live in a left-wing, delusional, sheeple gun free zone.

The right idea is starting to come to the surface:
"Arizona Attorney General proposes arming school employees"
Published December 27, 2012
FoxNews.com
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2GH7fF3lb