Is anyone else fed up with the extremism on both sides of the gun/gun control debate?

[MLeake]

overthere, it is really very simple.

We either have a natural (not government given) right to effective self defense, or we do not.

Effective self defense does not mean locking ourselves in a room, throwing iPads, or attempting hand to hand combat with pencils (though, barred other alternatives, we might try such methods).

Effective self defense means something that can let the weakest elderly person have a fighting chance against the biggest, meanest man in town - and that means guns.

There are already laws on the books for reckless behaviors resulting in injury; there have already been tort cases over same. What new laws would you propose?

 

[nate45]

When people use the way too common 'two wrong things make a right' argument such as "Well cars kill people too, let's ban cars then". Automobiles are highly regulated, as is the ownership and operation of automobiles. Automobile deaths is a huge issue and it too needs to be, and is, addressed but it does not mean that gun violence somehow does not need to be addressed.

We've had several discussions here on TFL about the nature of firearms. Most of us agree, as we all should, since its a fact, that all firearms are weapons in and of themselves. Making false analogies about and/or equivocating on that point, is disingenuous and not helpful to our cause.

It works both ways though, firearms are not analogous to driving automobiles, etc when it comes to governmental regulation either. Driving an automobile is a privilege, owning firearms is a constitutional right. That fact can never be stressed enough in my view.

The limits on the 1st Amendment for example, are carefully defined and very narrow in their scope. The limits and restrictions already on the 2nd Amendment are too broad, too ill defined and too onerous as it is. Hence the strong objection to further eroding that right.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would be careful about just an effective SD argument.

In our own discussions, many have claimed you don't need XY or Z level of firepower for most effective SD.

One could claim that most of us could effective defend the homestead with a SW Model 10 and a pump shotgun. In fact, if I weren't me - those two guns with modern SD ammo would do just fine in the vast majority of cases.

So are we limited to that?

 

[wayneinFL]

The discussion to be had is around gun violence and how to reduce it.

The discussion should be about how to reduce violence. It doesn't do any good to reduce gun violence if other forms of violence are still at unacceptable levels.

People love to bring statistics from the UK into the discussion. They have low rates of violence, with or without firearms. Even if you excluded all homicides committed with firearms in the US, we still have a far higher homicide rate than the UK. So the problem we need to discuss is not "gun violence", it's violence.

It's just convenient for politicians to talk about gun violence, because it leads to talks about gun control legislation, which is politically expedient. The smart thing to do is reduce violence, but it doesn't make the sound bites and photo ops that lead to votes.

 

[MLeake]

Glenn, I also believe in defense against tyranny, but those threads tend to get shut down rather rapidly.

 

[Skans]

The insanity is that pro-gunners won't budge, and want guns for everyone, with no restrictions or controls,

I didn't bother reading any further. This is a load of crap.

Can I buy a post-86 machinegun?
Can I build a machinegun?
Can an 18 year old buy a handgun, legally?
Can I carry a gun without a permit? Do you know what is involved in getting a permit?
Can I buy a new gun without filling out a BATFE Form 4473
Do I need special permission to own silencers, machineguns, short barreled rifles or shotguns?
Can I buy a post-89 AK made in China? Or a post-89 FNC made in Belgium?

These are just random examples of the volumes of gun laws. Pro-gunners have more than budged on our rights - we have caved into the gun banners nonsense far too many times. My line is drawn - I won't agree to any more gun restrictions - and those that try to impose them will suffer the political consequences like they did in the early 2000's. I don't care if some politician promises me the moon, stars, and free healthcare for the rest of my life, if they vote for even one anti-gun measure, I will vote against them.

 

[jimbob86]

For those who espouse the term "gun violence", I have a question:

Is getting beaten to death with a tire iron, a stick, or a brick preferable to being shot to death?

To listen to the antis, one would think so.

Go look up Marko Kloos' "Why The Gun Is Civilization" .....

@overthere: Rights ALWAYS = Responsibilities. Regulations won't make a person Responsible. Only good character can do that, and the .gov has a poor track record in producing, or of even being conducive to producing that, of late, IME.

 

[Hal]

Originally Posted by medicinebow
I have never once heard of a non-felon, non-crazy who couldn't buy a gun or two or five in this country when he wanted to. Not a single one.

Lautenberg amendment - look it up...

Lot's of people had their RTBKA stripped away with that piece of crap legislation.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . . gun violence. . . . gun violence . . . gun violence . . . . gun violence . . . . gun violence . . . . gun violence . . . . gun violence . . . . gun violence. . . . gun violence

Why is "gun violence" any worse than airplane violence or fertilizer violence? The discussion needs to be about violence, period.

. . . .- When people say that there is no such things as gun owner responsibilities, only gun owner rights. Tiresome as it is, the analogy with the first amendment not giving the right to yell 'fire' in a movie theater is relevant. There need to be responsibilities that come along with gun ownership, such as making a reasonable effort in keeping guns away from minors and other individuals that should not have access to guns (as one example). To state that the second amendment should infer only rights and no responsibilities is invalid. There are regulations around gun ownership and there needs to be regulations around gun ownership. . . . .

One important distinction that needs to be made in that "fire in a theater" analogy: Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an intentional act, with reasonably foreseeable consequences (a stampede) that may result in injury or death. Mind you, I am not arguing that gun ownership does not come with responsibilities; it most certainly does. Tort law already provides for remedies for things like negligent use or entrustment, though.

Oh, and there are already regulations around gun possession. (Ownership is a different kettle of fish, and I think that any real danger comes from possession, not ownership.) As an example, see 18 U.S.C. 922.

. . . .- When people use the way too common 'two wrong things make a right' argument such as "Well cars kill people too, let's ban cars then". Automobiles are highly regulated, as is the ownership and operation of automobiles. . . . .

Operation of motor vehicles is regulated. I'm unaware of any regulations on ownership, though. What's happened in the last 3 weeks is a huge push to regulate ownership of firearms, on top of already-extensive regulation on posession and use.

If we were to treat ownership of guns in the same way as ownership of automobiles: (1) there'd be no minimum age to purchase; (2) no background check would be required; (3) there would be no license required as long as the driver stayed on private property.

. . . .I wish that there could be a sensible discussion around gun violence with true cause and effect being examined, based on data rather than emotion. To try to determine what can be done to reduce gun violence. Why is it that a reasonable dialog cannot be held about reducing gun violence?

1) I hold my right and responsibility to protect myself and my family inviolate, regardless of data. I care about more than just how many people care killed. I care about which ones are killed. What's more, I hold your right and responsibility to protect yourself and your family to be inviolate.

2) "Why is it that a reasonable dialog cannot be held about reducing gun violence?" Over several decades, gun owners have been more than reasonable, even accomodating to the anti-gun crowd. The latter have proven themselves to be unreasonable. We tried it the gun-control way, and it failed.

 

[jimbob86]

As for the pro-gun side reducing death or injuries from guns I'd like to point out that throught the efforts of gun people, in the form of Hunter Safety Education and Gun Safety classes and programs, have successfully reduced accidents from firearms, despite far more people owning and using guns ......

The Hunter Ed programs around here are taught by volunteers: gun people, and usually cost no more than the materials used.

 

[Trip20]

The problem I see with the posed topic is that the OP starts off with the false premise (my opinion) that one of the two sides is in fact 'extreme'. To partake in the discussion means we have to accept this, else we change the discussion entirely, which results in the OP continually having to bring us back to his original parameters.

 

[Xaak]

Fairness

The battle lines are often drawn and both sides always want to keep a little extra in their pockets should they ever be in the unenviable position that the should need to yield ground.

Here's my one give... The gun show sale by private citizen
(known to the other side as the gun show loophole)

I have probably lost a fair amount of money selling my firearms to a dealer so there was enough in retail for him to make resale profit, getting a receipt, and knowing that they passed hands in an environment I "feel" makes me comfortable that the firearms will not be in the hands of someone that would use them inappropriately. I sure hope that Joe is an upstanding guy who isn't selling them to a drug cartel jk.

I am concerned when I go to gun shows and I see people selling all sorts of firearms to people with cash in hand in personal sales with nothing more than a hand shake. We do have laws that regulate who can, and cannot, purchase and no pro gun person including myself disagree that felons and mentally incompetent individuals should be restricted. So why can't we set up transfer stations at the gun shows that do a background check for a reasonable fee? I know for one, I would be happy to get a good price for my less used, sellable firearms, knowing that I was selling it to someone that was legally allowed to purchase it.

That said, I also understand any time you give the anti-gun folks an inch, they take all 16 inches of the barrel AND the flash hider of your AR. I presume to give nothing unless my back is against the wall, but then again, it is the right to keep and bear arms that was afforded us in the 2nd amendment so that we could be free from the same tyranny that is presenting itself in taking our guns (rights). It is the same government formed through the Constitution that is trying to nullify part of it. That is ALSO not permitted under the Constitution.

My feeling is, if the gun show personal sale went through a transfer station, I'd be cool with it. Hell, I'd likely use it. But I also think that the Feds have proven they cannot be the ones to implement these programs. In fact, take into account the fiscal "cliff". Wouldn't you like to just go into your boss, tell him you need some holiday time off, take those days, then come back, angry that they were cut short, then decide the best action is to throw some crap at him to cover up that you won't get the job done for six more months? I'd be fired. The people in Washington should be fired. And I think they have too much on their plate to do the job we hired them to do, rather than come impose threats against me as a law abiding, constitution protected, legal gun owning citizen. I'm just not that lenient of an employer!

CAN OF WORMS - Our government officials are now using what NATO said about disarmament to propose more gun control. NATO? Don't we OWN that? I know WE PAY FOR IT! (Just another reason why when you're PRO GUN, you cannot be reasonable)

 

[ChasingWhitetail91]

Yes i am. Both sides have good points as well as their fair share of extremism. Noone will give an inch so both sides are pushing for a foot.

 

[Skans]

I won't give the antis ANYTHING, or even consider it, until they give back the '86 machinegun ban and the '89 import ban. Give me back the rights that were stolen from me and promise NO MORE GUN BANS of any kind, and then I might be interested in listening to "ideas".

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I am concerned when I go to gun shows and I see people selling all sorts of firearms to people with cash in hand in personal sales with nothing more than a hand shake. We do have laws that regulate who can, and cannot, purchase and no pro gun person including myself disagree that felons and mentally incompetent individuals should be restricted. So why can't we set up transfer stations at the gun shows that do a background check for a reasonable fee? I know for one, I would be happy to get a good price for my less used, sellable firearms, knowing that I was selling it to someone that was legally allowed to purchase it.

The "Gun Show Loophole" is a fantasy. A complete fantasy. It's not unique to gun shows and, let me guarantee you, eliminating the loophole from gunshows would be STEP 1 only. The next obvious step is eliminating ALL private sales, because that's the REAL "loophole". Where the sales happens to occur is completely irrelevant.

What the Anti's hate (in regards to a "loophole") is private sales without background checks.

It's a slippery slope and we're already WAY down. We've just recently begun to arrest our downward speed and maybe come to a stop. Now is not the time to negotiate some new wax for our skis. Now is the time to climb back to a reasonable landing place, get off the slope and STAY THERE.

 

[wayneinFL]

I wasn't involved with firearms when the background check laws were passed. Here in Florida, it happened a few years before the Brady Bill. In the late 80's I was working in Kmart and was selling a rifle. The buyer was unusually annoyed with the background check- it was taking a long time, and he complained about it. I told him I thought it was a good idea. He told me if someone couldn't pass a background check, all he would have to do is send someone else in with the money and have him pay for the gun and go through the background check, or go buy a gun from someone besides a dealer.

As a kid (16 or 17), I hadn't really thought about it. Here we are 20 years later and we still have the same problem- people who shouldn't have guns are still getting guns. And I'm sure in the wake of the Newtown murders, we're going to see a bill requiring gun show sales to go through a dealer. (Never mind that it had absolutely nothing to do with Newtown.)

20 years later we'll see it isn't working and we'll ban private sales entirely.

20 years after that we'll see that isn't working and we'll ban more classes of guns. If we're down to single shot shotguns by then, we'll ban knives.

And the murders will continue, because we keep implementing the placebo of gun control, instead of fixing the problem.

 

[nate45]

Both sides have good points as well as their fair share of extremism.

Well, if thats true, would you mind naming two, or three good ideas the antis have? Also, how about naming two, or three things that are extremist about the RKBA point of view?

 

[jimbob86]

Well, if thats true, would you mind naming two, or three good ideas the antis have?

Hell, I'd settle for one.

Challenge Accepted?

 

[Tom Servo]

He told me if someone couldn't pass a background check, all he would have to do is send someone else in with the money and have him pay for the gun and go through the background check

That's called a straw purchase, and it should be...oh, right. Those are already against the law. In fact, they're punishable by a 10-year prison sentence.

Of course, they still keep happening because nobody ever gets sentenced to 10 years for them. Most folks get probation.

Of all the ugly gun control measures of the 1990s, the NICS system is the least offensive. It has its problems (which is a whole 'nuther thread), but if we didn't have it, we'd have something far more onerous.

 

[gc70]

Here's my one give... The gun show sale by private citizen
(known to the other side as the gun show loophole)

See? They even fooled you. They talk a lot about the "gun show loophole" but below Senator Charles Schumer shows what they really mean when they use those words:

Senate Bill 436 - Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011

TITLE II--REQUIRING A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR EVERY FIREARM SALE

Even the title above is deceptive because the language of the bill is not limited to sales, but extends to "transfers" which include:

... a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title ...

Yes, according to Chuck Schumer, you too could potentially commit a felony by doing nothing more than handing a gun to someone under the wrong circumstances.

At any rate ... back to talking about extremism.