Gun Control

[1springer]

I doubt seriously if comments about "over throwing the government" really relate to changing a system of governing. Pressed to explain themselves I would bet they really mean is a change in a given administration.

[Quinn]

Ken, sadly, you are correct... no number of deaths or mass shootings will deter people from wanting to own a gun(s). It's the by product of our culture and it will never end. It's just the price that has to be paid for these to be readily and widely available. The only way for it to change is for there to be enough shootings/killings that it affects someone we love or know, and we all know that is impossible. So, we just let the NRA and that side have at it... victims be damned.

 

I disagree with this. If my friends and neighbors were getting killed, I'd want to keep my guns so I could stand a better chance of defending myself. I can't understand a mindset that, upon reading about a gang shotting of innocent people or a crazed shooter at the mall, has the first thought of "damn, I need to turn in my guns so I'll be safer."

 

I want the option of shooting back.

 

-----

 

 

 

[Roadwolf]

My first thought isn't "damn, I need to turn in my guns so I'll be safer." No, my first thought is these people wouldn't be shot in great numbers if there were no guns. But since there will be guns under the 2nd Amendment and the gun culture is pervasive, then we must accept a certain percentage of our people will die, right about 12,000 plus, not counting suicides, per year. Arming more people to defend oneself doesn't seem to be able to drop that number much per year, I am afraid, so as long as you embrace guns as a right/method to defend against the criminal/tyrannical government, well... you know... just get used to hearing about these incidents.

[roadscholar]

There's a new Sheriff in town, Social Media.

 

When politicians fear losing their job, they'll do whatever they need to keep it.

 

As the die-hard boomers die off (my daddy taught me to shoot a gun when I was 10), there may be light at the other end.

 

The dudes that wrote the 2nd Ammendment didn't have this in mind.

 

It'll get worse before it gets better.

 

 

[Quinn]

I guess part of the problem is in finding solutions that will disarm only those people that need to be disarmed. The cities with the most restrictive gun laws in America seem to have the highest crime rates--Washington DC, Chicago, Detroit. From my limited perspective, all they've done is create a law abiding class of sheep, waiting to be sheared.

 

Also, I understand that crime rates have always dropped in states after passing concealed carry permit laws.

 

I'm not just afraid of guns. At my age and in my physical condition, I'm also afraid of baseball bats, lead pipes, knives, and physical intimidation. So, even if you could remove bad people's guns, I'd still want a gun for self defense.

 

------

 

 

[Marty Hill]

Well said Quinn!

[tallman]

Mike,

 

I don't beleive I linked a video.

Nor did I name any specific politician.

 

In fact I was refering to our school superintendent, yet assumptions were made.

 

Interesting.

 

As far as the President's family having SS protection, let's see,

the SS was originally started to suppress counterfeit currency.

After Mckinley's assassination the SS formally charged with protection of the POTUS and it has been expanded.

link

 

That said, we've had 19 people as President since then.

With one killed, another wounded, and others shot at, but not killed (bad marksmanship?) I would say the failure rate is a rather high percentage.

Not knocking those brave individuals in the SS, it is a neverending impossible job.

 

Merely an observation that a "solution" via gun control is absurd

when the issues involve people who choose to break the law and or individuals with mental health problems.

 

BTW, citizens who were outed in NY by a newspaper that published their names and addresses are starting to be burglarized and guns stolen.

[Ohio48]

Getting the POTUS children into this conversation is absurd, in bad taste and BS. It should be obvious that they could be a preferred target to a lunatic or some jihadist. Saying that if they have armed protection all children should have the same protection, is like saying that if the POTUS is accompanied by armed guards we all should have that protection.

 

Didn't see that mentioned in is post. He could be talking about the mayor of Chicago for all you know.

Chill out.

 

The reference is in the linked video. Let's see if we can keep the discussion between the lines. Bringing any reference to politicians or political parties takes us outside the realm of what's permitted here.

 

Back to the bickering . . . for at least a short while.

 

What video?

[Ohio48]

There's a new Sheriff in town, Social Media.

 

When politicians fear losing their job, they'll do whatever they need to keep it.

 

As the die-hard boomers die off (my daddy taught me to shoot a gun when I was 10), there may be light at the other end.

 

The dudes that wrote the 2nd Ammendment didn't have this in mind.

 

It'll get worse before it gets better.

 

 

So it's the baby boomers fault? Wow that is pretty remarkable!!

[philbytx]

 

 

HERE is a map showing some global firearm statistics from the Guardian, a Liberal UK newspaper.

[bobbybob]

When I was a kid in elementary school, if I had brought a pistol to school, my teacher would have confiscated it and said, "Bobby, you can have this back at the end of school today". I saw that happen twice.

 

This speaks to how badly our society and culture has degenerated. Guns are not the problem. People are.

[tallman]

Yes.

And no.

 

In the 25 minutes I spent in a gun shop yesterday

4 other indivduals bought guns.

1 semi auto rifle

1 semi auto handgun

1 shotgun

1 revolver

 

Adding mine, he sold $4000 worth of hardware in 1/2 an hour.

Ammo sales were approximately $400 in same time frame.

 

Boomers doing the buying?

Three of us are boomers and then there was the 88 yo and the 20 something.

 

Fault of Social Media or is Social Media a reflection of how flawed we have become wrt dealing with career criminals and mentally ill with violent history/tendencies?

 

BTW

If I have something to say here about a specific individual who happens to be a politician it will be obvious.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Merely an observation that a "solution" via gun control is absurd

when the issues involve people who choose to break the law and or individuals with mental health problems.

 

It's interesting to note that drunk drivers fatalities are about the same in number as gun homicides, but one never hears people advocating alcohol control any more stringent than a minimum drinking age of 21, and we don't restrict drunk drivers from owning cars (we take away their license, and they can't get insurance, but they can still own the car - and many of them continue to drive despite not having a license or insurance).

 

Why the disparity in approaches to two societal problems that appear to have similar magnitudes?

[bobbybob]

Merely an observation that a "solution" via gun control is absurd

when the issues involve people who choose to break the law and or individuals with mental health problems.

 

It's interesting to note that drunk drivers fatalities are about the same in number as gun homicides, but one never hears people advocating alcohol control any more stringent than a minimum drinking age of 21, and we don't restrict drunk drivers from owning cars (we take away their license, and they can't get insurance, but they can still own the car - and many of them continue to drive despite not having a license or insurance).

 

Why the disparity in approaches to two societal problems that appear to have similar magnitudes?

 

Thats simple Mitch: guns go "bang" when you operate them, scaring many folks with their loud noise.

 

If they were completely silent, they might be viewed more along the lines of baseball bats, knives, & alcohol.

[MT Wallet]

Prohibition. Tried it, didn't work. Just like feel good laws regarding guns won't work. The mores of society are the problem.

[Ken H.]

More important than the gun control issue, is the path the proposed legislation takes.

 

I hope most folks understand, allowing the executive branch to bypass the legislative branch, detouring around the checks and balances so crucial and fundamental to the health of our government system, is the bigger threat.

 

I would not tolerate executive ordered legislation regardless of what side of the gun issue I was on.

Realize thought that the checks and balances are still there, bypassed if albeit only briefly. Any executive order can be overturned as unconstitutional by a federal judge, and eventually if need be all the way to the Supremes.

[tallman]

Merely an observation that a "solution" via gun control is absurd

when the issues involve people who choose to break the law and or individuals with mental health problems.

 

It's interesting to note that drunk drivers fatalities are about the same in number as gun homicides, but one never hears people advocating alcohol control any more stringent than a minimum drinking age of 21, and we don't restrict drunk drivers from owning cars (we take away their license, and they can't get insurance, but they can still own the car - and many of them continue to drive despite not having a license or insurance).

 

Why the disparity in approaches to two societal problems that appear to have similar magnitudes?

 

 

Table comparing the two death rates by jurisdiction.

[Ken H.]

I doubt seriously if comments about "over throwing the government" really relate to changing a system of governing. Pressed to explain themselves I would bet they really mean is a change in a given administration.

I think it’s even narrower than that. What they really mean is change on the particular specific subject they disagree with. Trying to discuss the consequences of a true over through/collapse of the US government would get you no where. Those people are just to single minded on their pet subject to really consider, understand the consequences. One need look no further than the chaos in several countries who’s government fell lately to see. Is that what they really what? I doubt it. They want all the things they enjoy/agree with to continue on just fine. ‘Just change what I don’t like’.

[tallman]

Ken,

 

To the other side, you are a they.

[Ken H.]

There's a new Sheriff in town, Social Media.

 

When politicians fear losing their job, they'll do whatever they need to keep it.

 

As the die-hard boomers die off (my daddy taught me to shoot a gun when I was 10), there may be light at the other end.

 

The dudes that wrote the 2nd Ammendment didn't have this in mind.

 

It'll get worse before it gets better.

 

I agree in some respects. On several different subjects, this one included as you mention it, I see great hope in the next generations. They seem to have so much more (IMHO of course) down to earth view of things. Shunning the automobile, and of sprawling suburbia, growing environmental concern, more concern with quality of life than quantity of things, the rise in social responsibility factors and indexes in economics & business, and more. They seem to be much more able to see the fool-hardiness in what we’ve wroth than we are.

 

It’s really surprised me some considering they’re branded as being the most self-absorbed generations ever.

 

I was at dinner with a friend from the US last night (actually my ex-boss) and we were having a similar conversation. He thought it will take about 30 years before there is a solid mind and action shift on these kinds of social subjects. Sounds about right.

 

And maybe the obsession with guns will join the list too of ‘things of our parents’ rejected.

 

 

[Ken H.]

Ken,

 

To the other side, you are a they.

I realize that. It’s all in the perspective.

 

But then I’m not advocating a revolution and total takeover and the ensuing chaos and anarchy that would follow as some on ‘that’ side are.

 

I think it’s possible to fix things that are wrong (however you care to define the wrongs) with a society without saying you have to destroy it.

 

It’s one of those “be careful what you wish for” kind of things.

 

[Mike]

Time out for moderator intervention:

 

A question or two were raised earlier about whether this discussion violates our "no politics" rule. It's certainly butted up against that line a time or two, but we seem to have stepped back from the abyss. First, here's Fernando's explanation of the no politics rule:

 

We recently changed to a No Politics Allowed rule on this board. Given the slightly open political door of our recent past, this has caused some members to ask us for clarification. We’ll try.

 

As many may recall, we used to allow Politics. But it got nasty. Lots of name calling and accusations, then hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, as well as unknown locations/distances. So we cut it way down, allowing discussions about things that were political, but no politics, i.e. this meant no mention of names, parties, blaming, pejoratives, etc. But once again, some people had to find a way to push beyond the intention and turn it ugly. So now we have the "No Politics" rule.

 

"No Politics?" How do you do that? After all, you can hardly discuss a parking ticket without there being a political aspect to it. True. So true. However, we think that the level of discourse on this board can handle a rule such as No Politics.

 

Yup, you can hardly talk about the price of eggs without there being a political aspect to it. BUT, you don’t have to talk about that political aspect. There are economic, social, physiological, psychological, health, etc., etc., etc., aspects to virtually every topic. As long as those are what’s being discussed, and the political aspects are not (THIS INCLUDES EVEN BEING HINTED AT), then subjects are open for discussion.

 

Now, that may mean that part of the "economic, social, physiological, psychological, health, etc., etc., etc.," aspects may have to be restrained in order to not cross the line. After all, they’re often intertwined, sometimes inexorably so. Alas, that’s the price of running a board that’s NOT about politics, but about Sport Touring primarily aboard BMW motorcycles. There are plenty of other places to get your political fix, both on and off the internet (big FAT hint).

 

So if you see a topic that has a strong political aspect to it, and the only contribution you have to offer the discussion is of a political nature, click away and go to another forum. Or read, watch and see if you can find within yourself the ability to look at the other aspects of an issue and share with your fellow members some enlightened input that steers clear of the world's second-oldest profession.

 

Defining "politics" gets a bit dicey from time to time. In a highly politicized era where factionalism is viewed as the norm, most everything gets dragged into the world of politics--environmental issues, marital rights, and gun rights are just a few examples. Hell, you can't even talk about the weather without someone trying to discern your political views.

 

But, while most of our world touches upon or is touched by politics, there are ways to discuss the issues without getting political, at least as BMWST defines it. In the arena of gun rights, one can discuss the legal history of the topic. One can discuss the practical safety aspects. One can discuss the justice system, laws and legal precedents, and the broader social ramifications.

 

But, as we've shown repeatedly, we do bring our political beliefs into our discussion of guns, even if we endeavor not to. It's one of those topics that engenders deep emotional reactions and reminds us that, ultimately, the political process is deeply, unavoidably, entrenched in the debate.

 

I think we've taken it far enough this time (again). If you have anything further to say, please hold that thought.

 

I'm closing the thread and declaring a three-day "cooling off" period (sound familiar?).

 

Enjoy your weekend. Think about something else. Puppies. Flowers. Maybe even motorycles.

 

Mike's No-Gun Talk Ban will be lifted as of next Monday, but subject to the ol' no-politics rules . . . and perhaps a bit more tightly limited.

 

Happy Friday.