EnclaveForum.net: Buick Enclave Online Community banner

1 - 20 of 134 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,405 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
It has been too long, since 2004, in which the ban on the sale of assault rifles was permitted to lapse.

Isn't it past the time to do this?

Isn't it past the time to stop the sale of magazine clips which hold more than 10 rounds each?

Isn't it past the time to stop the slaughter of the innocent?

Isn't it past the time to realize citizens do not need to own assault rifles.

Isn't it past the time to understand that owning guns also places a responsibility on those of us with guns to keep these weapons under secure lock and key

Isn't it past the time to never have to witness another mass killing in our school.

Yes....I myself know that it is past the time and now is the time to come together as a nation and say...enough is enough...I understand and I agree...the ban on assault rifles and the sale of large magazine clips needs to be placed within our laws. A law which will never have an end date to expire but one to stay forever in place.

Yes....enough is definitely enough.

We put strict controls over airport security after our airplanes were hi-jacked and our citizens were murdered.

We put strict controls over airport security after one shoe bomber was found on an airplane and his attempt failed.

We need to put strict controls over the sale of these guns and large capacity magazine clips of which only our military and police need to have in their hands. Citizens do not need this much firepower. The average citizen has had none or little training in how to property handle a weapon, let alone one of these rifles which the only thing they are good for is to kill.....humans during war.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
Re: Re: When will an assault rifle ban go back in effect.

Two words: knee jerk.

NONE of the things you suggest make any sense except the part about making gun owners responsible for keeping their guns out of the hands of other people. Even using the term "assault weapon" demonstrates limited understanding of firearms. (It's a political term created by the likes of Diane Feinstein). A gun is a gun.

NONE of the MASSIVE "security measures" implemented in response to 9-11, or the shoe bomber, or anything else have done a dang thing to increase safety. They just make a certain element in the public feel better (at the expense of inexcusable violations of basic human rights and dignity).

The most effective way to reduce the risk of this happening again is not to trample on the rights of law abiding citizens. "Need" is not relevant to the discussion. Do individual citizens "need" firearms at all? The answer is for most people, on most days, no. But just like vaccinations, the more good people who have guns, the better off we all are, collectively. And don't forget that the primary reason the 2nd Amendment was included in the Constitution was to provide citizens with a check against tyranny.

What we NEED is to get rid of "gun-free zones" and stop providing criminals with a safe place to commit horrendous crimes.

Here is an excellent article that clears up some common misconceptions about mass killings.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund
Lots of good points made, but perhaps the most relevant is this one: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,405 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Seriously....well then I am not the only one and after all the other shootings I thought the same as I do now. But...thanks for your comment here and on the thread in the "off-topic" area.

Yet I do have this lingering question. When the assault rifle ban went into effect in 1994 no one, absolutely no one was against it. Okay it was....4 members of our government voted against the ban. Too bad it was let lapse in 2004, then perhaps the young children and others who have been "massacred" would still be here. You and I can't answer that part now can we? Yet.....the thought is....perhaps just perhaps they would be.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
Re: Re: When will an assault rifle ban go back in effect.

Perhaps. But very unlikely. And if we didn't have gun free schools and encouraged teachers and other school personnel to train with and carry concealed firearms, there's a VERY good chance that this massacre would have been stopped early, and Emilie would still be with us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
Re: Re: When will an assault rifle ban go back in effect.

The check your guns at the door policies were typically for one room buildings. Still a relatively quickly available deterrent to violent crime. Plus a responsible person was in possession of those firearms (and probably in the same room) at all times. Also, those types of policies were mostly for establishments that served alcohol.

Which brings up another good point - the real culprits behind the majority of violent crimes in the United States, gun related and otherwise, are drugs and alcohol. It's actually rare to see domestic violence, African American youth shootings, or suicides (the three mentioned in that article) that do NOT involve drugs or alcohol. In my experience as a physician, many people with severe mental illness often have serious substance abuse issues long before any mental instability. I've seen it in my own family too - substance abuse led to depression which ultimately led to my cousin's suicide. Even if he had been depressed, he never would have been impaired enough to do what he did.

Unfortunately, drug related violence is rarely mentioned, even though restricting access to alcohol would have a far greater impact on gun related deaths than gun control, and I would argue that there are no real redeeming qualities to drinking alcohol. It's certainly not a necessity.

And thank you for putting "gun problem" in quotes since it's clearly a gross misnomer...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,130 Posts
Re: Re: When will an assault rifle ban go back in effect.

Matno said:
I would argue that there are no real redeeming qualities to drinking alcohol. It's certainly not a necessity.
I would contend nor is owning a gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
Re: Re: When will an assault rifle ban go back in effect.

It's like a vaccination. Not every person needs one, but unless a majority of the population has one, everyone is much worse off. The difference is that there is a potential downside to vaccinations, so it's actually in each person's individual interest to have everyone else get one but not themselves. There is no such downside to responsible gun ownership other than cost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
I literally cringed at almost every sentence of that article. While I realize that The New Yorker is not known for being truthful, this particular article promulgates one blatant lie after another. The scary part is that there are plenty of people who believe what is being said. Let me clarify a few things contained in the article.

First, comparing gun control to an antibiotic is inaccurate. If you want a good medical parallel, compare gun control to an immunosuppressant. Violence is the disease, guns in the hands of responsible gun owners is the cure, and gun control inhibits the inherent ability of members of society to control violence. I'm not sure where the faith healer reference comes from, but I'm assuming it's to try to obfuscate the fact that gun ownership has a documented track record of sound studies to show that it absolutely reduces crime.

Second, we will NEVER be able to get rid of most of the guns that currently exist in America (somewhere around 200 million I think) because American citizens, good or bad, simply won't give them up. That includes me and virtually every gun owner I know. Charlton Heston's quote "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" could have been said by most gun owners. Therefore, comparing our rates of gun violence to countries with virtually no guns is pointless. A better comparison is to compare overall violent crime rates. In the United States, violent crime has gone WAY down in the past 2 decades, while it has skyrocketed in countries that have confiscated all of their guns. If you think gun free zones are a bad idea (they are), try to imagine all the same violent criminals in a gun free country, where no one would be able to defend themselves.

Implying that mass shootings are crimes of opportunity is also misleading. Most of these incidents involve significant planning, often including detailed written plans, internet threats, and a history of reclusive behavior and/or known mental illness.

Quoting Hemenway seriously hurts the credibility of the article. Harvard ought to be ashamed to be associated with him, but because he promotes their liberal agenda, they are more than happy to accept what he says as truth. He points out that arguments in favor of using guns in self-defense are "fantasy" because there is no "evidence" (i.e. bodies in the morgue). Yet his argument to counter that - that "there are lots and lots of chances" to use a gun inappropriately - flies in the face of a mountain of evidence that the rate of concealed carry permit holders using their guns inappropriately is effectively ZERO.

His assertion, based on his colleagues "research," that the 2nd Amendment was never intended to be a protection of individual rights is absurd. He is clearly counting on the fact that most people will not have done any research of their own and will think "Harvard professor - must be true." In reality, its obvious to anyone who has studied the writings of the founding fathers, who wrote the Bill of Rights thatthe 2nd Amendment was referring PRIMARILY to an individual right. Every other amendment in the Bill of Rights has been interpreted to protect individual rights, and the 2nd amendment is no less clear than the other 9. Courts have ruled (recently) that it is an individual right, but that does not imply that this is a new concept. What is new, is that there are now people who don't realize that it was ALWAYS intended to protect an individual right.

While this article refers only to "gun control" and not to any specific form of gun control or legislation, the only "evidence [that] is clear" is that NO gun control legislation would have prevented an attack on those children. Just like ramped-up airport security hasn't prevented any acts of terrorism (increased intelligence gathering has), it's a misguided effort to trample the rights of millions of good people so that some people can feel better. It is not evidence based by any stretch of the imagination. This tragedy hit close to home (one of my daughters went to class with Emilie Parker, who was killed), but addressing the problem with emotion based policies that have been shown to fail repeatedly will only compound the tragedy and make things worse for the rest of our children.

Personally, I think arming and training teachers (or at least giving them the option) would do more to prevent future tragedies of this nature more than anything else. I can guarantee you that a 9-11 type incident will never happen on a plane with an armed pilot. It's one of the reasons why my dad (who witnessed the WTC coming down first hand and was in the same Navy squadron as one of the captains whose plane was crashed that day) was one of the first 200 pilots to get qualified to carry a gun in the cockpit. Guns are not inherently dangerous, so I don't see why any reasonable person would object to training teachers to protect our children.

In case you can't tell, this is a topic I have researched for the better part of 30 years. I've written multiple papers on the subject, and I've read just about every piece of literature (from both sides) written during my lifetime. While I think there are many on the "other side" of the debate who I think truly believe they are doing the right thing, from the standpoint, of history, statistics, and principles of freedom, I am equally sure that their efforts are misguided and will never achieve the goals that they think they are working toward. Hopefully, in some small way, I can help to educate someone along the way. In the mean time, I think we all need to work on our awareness and treatment of mental illness. Educating ourselves about the warning signs of impending problems can potentially reduce the occurrence of violence before it even starts. Just like most other problems, this one starts with individuals, families, and communities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
Re: Re: When will an assault rifle ban go back in effect.

Unfortunately, we have already gotten used to serious violations of our civil rights in airports. Nearly everything the TSA does falls under the category of unreasonable search and seizure. We've been dumbed down to accept our children being strip searched and getting groped by perverts with nothing more than a high school education. Not to mention wasting billions of dollars on security that still misses just as many things as they always have.

But you're right that there are no perfect solutions. We can't eliminate all violence without eliminating most of our rights and freedom...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,405 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
My response to having teachers armed in our schools which the NRA would like. "Heaven help the innocent caught within the crossfire."

Oh and one other thing....the gunman at Sandy Hook and the boys at Columbine and the shooter at the theater....they had on body armor. Now tell me how much training does it take to shoot an individual between the eyes. Because....that would be the only "shot" to take down an individual wearing body armor.

Or did you forget about this happening in LA when bank robbers robbed a bank and then proceeded to do a shoot out with police officers. Perhaps after watching this you will understand...our teachers would not stand a chance.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
Re: Re: When will an assault rifle ban go back in effect.

As opposed to the chance they have now?

What solution would you offer besides an assault weapons ban that would do absolutely NOTHING to solve the problem of defenseless children in schools?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,405 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I do believe I mentioned having a police officer on duty, as we have at our high school, or even hiring one of the unemployed veterans.

I have friends who are school teachers and they said "**** no" to any teacher carrying a gun. One down the street from me, she said she would quit teaching if she was required to carry a gun to school.

Although now my husband I were just discussing your comments over lunch and he agrees on one thing, with me. No teacher unless they have had the proper training, he would prefer "swat training", should carry a gun in school. He and I also think that perhaps we should do what Israel is doing, ALL of our boys and girls when they reach the age of 18 it is mandatory they serve 2 years in the military. Then they will have the training on how to react in the different scenarios.

HEY how about this....stop the sale of body armor to civilians. I would love to know how in the **** that guy got his and where he got it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
Re: Re: When will an assault rifle ban go back in effect.

I'm all for having an armed security guard/veteran in duty, but arming and training teachers would be a lot cheaper. But I'm sure there are plenty of people who would think that a few hundred dollars a year per student is worth it to reduce a risk that is already lower than the risk of getting struck by lightning.

As for your friend, I don't think anyone should be forced to carry a gun. Just having the option would be a significant deterrent. On the other hand, with an attitude of "I'd rather quit than carry a gun," she probably should quit. Warped opinions like that can influence young minds.

Speaking of which, if we're really concerned about crime in schools we should start with the rampant organized crime - i.e. teacher's unions. But I digress...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,405 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Re: Re: When will an assault rifle ban go back in effect.

Matno said:
I'm all for having an armed security guard/veteran in duty, but arming and training teachers would be a lot cheaper. But I'm sure there are plenty of people who would think that a few hundred dollars a year per student is worth it to reduce a risk that is already lower than the risk of getting struck by lightning.

As for your friend, I don't think anyone should be forced to carry a gun. Just having the option would be a significant deterrent. On the other hand, with an attitude of "I'd rather quit than carry a gun," she probably should quit. Warped opinions like that can influence young minds.

Speaking of which, if we're really concerned about crime in schools we should start with the rampant organized crime - i.e. teacher's unions. But I digress...
Those two statements.....I am biting my tongue. I presume your children are in private schools built like a fortress with all teachers heavily armed or perhaps being guarded by former military men/women with an assault rifle slung over their shoulder.

Oh and here you go...although from 1995

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
Re: Re: When will an assault rifle ban go back in effect.

Ha! The jokes on you. Everything Wayne LaPierre said back then was accurate and eventually was proven to the public, but the media pretty much ignored it. Bush senior was never even remotely conservative in my book (well maybe slightly more than Michael Dukakis...)

I've also considered leaving the NRA on occasion. They don't always "stick to their guns" so to speak. In other words, they compromise on principles far too often ("go along to get along"). GOA (Gun Owners of America) is far more principled, and stands up for what is right even more than the NRA, although under Mr. LaPierre, the NRA has been better than in the past...

I stand by my statement regarding teacher's unions (or any other labor union for that matter). The parallels are to strong to ignore. They force members to pay dues (i.e. protection money), they force employers to pay employees more than they are worth (if they were worth more, they would get a better paying job - that's how free markets work), they intimidate anyone who opposes them (I spent several years crossing picket lines while dropping my dad of for work, getting called "baby scab"), and the only people who actually benefit from union membership are the union bosses. Sounds like the mafia to me. (And I spent ten years in a mafia neighborhood in the Bronx).

On top of that, unions provide job security to teachers who shouldn't have it. All teaching jobs should be dependent on performance with no tolerance for complacency and regular reviews to see if performance goals are being met. I'm all for paying teachers more, but they have to earn it. Our children deserve nothing less.

Oh, and my children do go to a private school. No armed guards yet, but we don't really need them since Utah allows concealed carry in schools. (We're ahead of the game that way). We also spend the least on education yet have some of the best students in the country (on average).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,405 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Re: Re: When will an assault rifle ban go back in effect.

Matno said:
Ha! The jokes on you. Everything Wayne LaPierre said back then was accurate and eventually was proven to the public, but the media pretty much ignored it. Bush senior was never even remotely conservative in my book (well maybe slightly more than Michael Dukakis...)

I've also considered leaving the NRA on occasion. They don't always "stick to their guns" so to speak. In other words, they compromise on principles far too often ("go along to get along"). GOA (Gun Owners of America) is far more principled, and stands up for what is right even more than the NRA, although under Mr. LaPierre, the NRA has been better than in the past...

I stand by my statement regarding teacher's unions (or any other labor union for that matter). The parallels are to strong to ignore. They force members to pay dues (i.e. protection money), they force employers to pay employees more than they are worth (if they were worth more, they would get a better paying job - that's how free markets work), they intimidate anyone who opposes them (I spent several years crossing picket lines while dropping my dad of for work, getting called "baby scab"), and the only people who actually benefit from union membership are the union bosses. Sounds like the mafia to me. (And I spent ten years in a mafia neighborhood in the Bronx).

On top of that, unions provide job security to teachers who shouldn't have it. All teaching jobs should be dependent on performance with no tolerance for complacency and regular reviews to see if performance goals are being met. I'm all for paying teachers more, but they have to earn it. Our children deserve nothing less.

Oh, and my children do go to a private school. No armed guards yet, but we don't really need them since Utah allows concealed carry in schools. (We're ahead of the game that way). We also spend the least on education yet have some of the best students in the country (on average).
Jokes back on you because the "right to work" laws being passed will create a slew of lower paying jobs and those who have worked their way up to higher paying jobs will be tossed aside because of the cost associated not with their ability but because corporations will prefer to pay less and less for qualified workers.

Minimum wages will be the norm and the middle class will be come extinct with the average family earnings at what we consider poverty level now.

But we were talking about guns weren't we and the NRA a bunch of idiots instilling fear and of course making a ton of money for the gun manufacturers. There are a bunch of NRA members out there who have left the association and think your "fella" is just a plain ignorant fool and that I agree with....although my wording about describing him is way more stronger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,405 Posts
Discussion Starter #18

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
Re: Re: When will an assault rifle ban go back in effect.

Right to work laws are a huge step forward in addressing the inefficiencies in our economy. People who are valuable to their employers don't get fired unless somebody cheaper is perfectly capable of doing their job, in which case the more qualified people could be earning more at a more difficult job. Simple economics. Some people have a hard time seeing the big picture.

The only "fear" the NRA promotes is the very valid fear that our right to defend ourselves will be taken away by those with distorted values.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,405 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Re: Re: When will an assault rifle ban go back in effect.

Matno said:
Right to work laws are a huge step forward in addressing the inefficiencies in our economy. People who are valuable to their employers don't get fired unless somebody cheaper is perfectly capable of doing their job, in which case the more qualified people could be earning more at a more difficult job. Simple economics. Some people have a hard time seeing the big picture.

The only "fear" the NRA promotes is the very valid fear that our right to defend ourselves will be taken away by those with distorted values.
That right there, you know what I hi-lighted, is what will be happening. If you can't see that then obviously your economics is way different than mine.
 
1 - 20 of 134 Posts
Top