gun ownership and uncontrollable anger go hand in hand....

K

Koda94

New member
Now dont get angry when you read this.....

http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2015/04/gun_ownership_and_uncontrollab.html#incart_2box

Just how are we supposed to set an example of lawful gun ownership in America with propaganda like this?


For those of you outside of Oregon, we are currently fightig the next UBC law in our legislation, SB 941.

The democratic majority is trying to push the bill through under an emergency clause so the public wont have a chance to oppose it. The bill was attempted to be amended but that was tossed out by the dems and the bill has moved on to the house.... There is a fierce battle of opposition from out local gun rights community driven by the Oregon Firearms Federation.

I have no idea how it works if out of state citizens email our senators or if it would even help, but we can use all the support we can get. Remember (like Washington state) if we lose, we all lose and your next.....
 
Vancouver here, I know my stats still says Texas lol

Media will make sure this passes

They're gonna chip away at gun rights by passing laws where they can pass them.

I was a bit surprised with washington as they are more gun loving than Texas.
 
Well, the study is behind a paywall. Without seeing the criteria and methodology, we have no way of confirming or rebutting their allegations. From what the article does describe, their research sounds shaky.

In the balance of things, this is just another sad attempt to grasp at straws.
 
I dont see how there can be any credibility to the study. There are over 3 million people in America. There are over 3 million guns in private circulation. A majority of gun owners own more than 6 guns. If there was a problem with guns and anger America would be like a war zone, and were not.

This reminds me of the study were 43% more likely to kill a family member or commit suicide...

Bogus.
 
I was a bit surprised with washington as they are more gun loving than Texas.
Click to expand...

Funded by out of state interests, the media ran a constant stream of lying ads, most focused on how the background check law would keep convicted domestic abusers from being able to get a gun.

Never once did they mention that a convicted domestic abuser cannot legally have a gun under CURRENT LAW.

Because of the population distribution in WA, the five counties in the Sea-Tac I-5 corridor carried the state. The only counties where the law carried the majority were those five, and the rest of the 30+ counties in the state did not have the population (votes) to prevent it.

Oregon is in a similar situation.
 
It is my belief that you can create a study and statistics to prove anything you want. Don't get me wrong. I do believe that people with anger management issues probably should not have guns. But who can we trust to make objective decisions about this. There are too many political and social biases among the people who would be charged with the making these decisions. I would not want this done on a federal level due to the fact that I really don't like people in NY or CA making the decisions that affect my life. This might not be exact, but I am referring to the population comment made earlier about WA. Rant over.
 
While we're at it with the ridiculous studies, here's one that "proves" 5% of online gun buyers are "domestic abusers, felons, meth addicts and at least one person with a restraining order against him."

From the 203 responses received to the ads from interested buyers that the investigators could identify through names and phone number searches, the group ascertained that 11 of those individuals researched – or about 5 percent – were possibly prohibited from firearms possession.
Click to expand...

Because, apparently, D33rHunt4r66 is a name listed in the phone book.

It makes me so angry, I'm gonna...I'm gonna...nah, I get tired just thinking about it.
 
5,000-and-some people over ten years? One wonders what the selection criteria were.

That said, previous violent behavior is, as far as I know, the best predictor of violence. I'd support extending a gun prohibition to include violent misdemeanors, if -- and it's a very big if -- it were done on a time limited basis, with a ban on possession of, say, two years for the first misdemeanor, and then ratcheting up on some sort of 3-or-more-strikes-and-you're-out principle. DUIs, not so much. People who drink and drive aren't necessarily violent, just stupid.
 
Vanya said:
That said, previous violent behavior is, as far as I know, the best predictor of violence. I'd support extending a gun prohibition to include violent misdemeanors, if -- and it's a very big if....
Click to expand...
I could support something along those lines. Problem is this is logical, and the gun controllers dont want whats logical they want a world without guns.





heres a quick update on the gun control bills were facing right now:
SB 941 expands background checks and was passed expeditiously through the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 3-2 partisan vote. We will be debating this bill on the Senate floor on Tuesday, April 14th.

SB 525 would prohibit someone who has a restraining order (regardless of guilt or innocence) from purchasing or owning a firearm.

SB 945 would make it a crime to have an unlocked gun in your home anytime a “minor” is present. This bill also has the potential to punish a gun owner who has their weapons stolen, by an unwanted intruding minor.

Here is the gun rights bills:
SB 170 Requires school districts to provide firearm safety courses. This bill is unique because it was created by a local high school student. This may seem like a small topic compared to the others but in reality this would bring back what was removed from our schools many years ago....

HB 3528, proposed an alternative (I'm assuming to SB941) that would protect law abiding gun owners. HB 3528 protects the privacy of the law abiding and even requires immediate records destruction after a transfer is approved, if a person conducts a voluntary background check. If I understand it correctly this bill would make it illegal to even unknowingly sell a firearm to a prohibited person but the background check would be voluntary. https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB3528/Introduced

here is an automailer from our local gun rights organization if anyone is inclined. http://www.oregonfirearms.org/no-expanded-background-checks
 
Koda94 said:
There are over 3 million people in America.
Click to expand...
There are approximately 320 million people in America.

Koda94 said:
There are over 3 million guns in private circulation.
Click to expand...
Most estimates put the number of privately-owned guns in the US at roughly 300 million.
 
Vanya said:
That said, previous violent behavior is, as far as I know, the best predictor of violence. I'd support extending a gun prohibition to include violent misdemeanors, if -- and it's a very big if -- it were done on a time limited basis, with a ban on possession of, say, two years for the first misdemeanor, and then ratcheting up on some sort of 3-or-more-strikes-and-you're-out principle.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't. Not for a nansecond.

Loss of a Constitutionally-guaranteed right over a misdemeanor? You can't be serious. You think someone should lose their right to possess firearms over a crockery-throwing incident? Or a shouting incident?

Sorry. That doesn't work for me.
 
Lautenberg already lays the groundwork PERMANET LOSS OF RIGHTS for a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, ever in you life.

A real red letter day in the history of our republic, that one....

These days it no longer takes felony stupid, it only takes misdemeanor stupid in the right category, and you life is permanently altered, and not for the better.
 
Oops, I did mean to say over 3 (hundred) million.... Was replying from my phone.

Aguila, thats an interesting perspective and also that just being involved in some altercation could too easily work against you even if you werent the instigator. In some cases it could be difficult to determine a "history" from someone whos just been dealt some bad cards in life , say grew up in a rough neighborhood....
 
These days it no longer takes felony stupid, it only takes misdemeanor stupid in the right category, and you life is permanently altered, and not for the better.
Click to expand...
Which is why the loss of rights shouldn't be permanent. Lautenberg is absurd and wrong-headed -- no one should lose their rights permanently over a misdemeanor. But a pattern of low-level violence is the single best predictor we have of future, escalating violence. It's a far better predictor than mental illness, for example, and part of the problem here is that the current fashion is to define violence as a sign of mental illness, and to treat it as a clinical problem, so that the whole argument becomes circular and the clinicians always win, and so do those who believe them.

But if the guy who started a fistfight and was convicted of misdemeanor assault were to lose his guns for a year, he might decide that future fistfights were a bad idea.

And it should go without saying that this would require a system under which the guns didn't just disappear, but were placed in safe storage: the person would be deprived of possession while retaining ownership.
 
Vanya, how do we determine who started the fistfight?
Click to expand...
It's not our job. I'm willing to assume that if someone is convicted of assault in such a situation, the investigating officers found enough evidence to warrant the conviction.

There will never be an ideal system, and if we hold out for that, we'll have no influence at all on what the system becomes. At some point, we have to deal with what is, rather than saying "We can't ever try A, B, or C as solutions, because they might, just might, fail in X, Y, or Z situations."
 
Nearly 9% of people in the United States have outbursts of anger, break or smash things, or get into physical fights -- and have access to a firearm, a new study says. What's more, 1.5% of people who have these anger issues carry their guns outside the home.
Click to expand...
This is from the LA Times story which was the basis for the story in Oregon.

.09 x .015 = 0.00135 or 0.135 percent

Yep, all this fuss over a little more than one tenth of one percent of the populace IF the study is accurate.
 
New study released: that other study was wrong...

Pure politics, and a low grade at that. I'm not going to mention names, but there are dozens of "studies" businesses (some at well known universities including at least 1 named above) that will give your cause "high confidence results". You pay their salaries, they will find supporting questions, and ancillaries to get you any published results (including in peer reviewed journals) you're willing to pay for. :)
 
It's not our job. I'm willing to assume that if someone is convicted of assault in such a situation, the investigating officers found enough evidence to warrant the conviction.
Click to expand...

Technically, you are correct in that it is not our job. But we elect the people whose job it is. I'm not willing to deprive someone of their rights based on an assumption that the person making those decisions is making the right one.
Is anyone aware of excessive use of force by authorities? Those are the "good guys" and they make mistakes and are forgiven. Why do we need to hold our citizens to a different standard?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top