Author Topic: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)  (Read 14280 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #135 on: January 04, 2013, 04:51:39 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1968
  • Tommy Points: 222
Seriously?  12 years at the government trough to make "inroads" into figuring out how to lower gun injuries?

More training courses.  Fewer guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.  Lower capacity magazines.  Restrictions on certain types of ammunition.

Can I have my $20 million now?
This is a double oversimplification: once for the original problem, and then for the solution to the first thing. Scientific study isn't about condensing conventional wisdom into action items, it's about testable hypotheses. Not everything that people assume is true, actually is. Psychology studies frequently have counter-intuitive findings in particular.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #136 on: January 04, 2013, 04:54:49 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23628
  • Tommy Points: -29133
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Seriously?  12 years at the government trough to make "inroads" into figuring out how to lower gun injuries?

More training courses.  Fewer guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.  Lower capacity magazines.  Restrictions on certain types of ammunition.

Can I have my $20 million now?
This is a double oversimplification: once for the original problem, and then for the solution to the first thing. Scientific study isn't about condensing conventional wisdom into action items, it's about testable hypotheses. Not everything that people assume is true, actually is. Psychology studies frequently have counter-intuitive findings in particular.

Maybe the government can give scientists sympathetic to the NRA $20 million to prove that guns *aren't*, in fact, dangerous.  That's perhaps counter-intuitive, but you don't know until you spend millions of dollars studying it, right?


D. Cousins / F. Ezeli / P. Antic
D. West / R. Anderson / C. Copeland
L. Deng / V. Carter / D. Rudez
A. Iguodala / M. Ginobil / B. Gordon
K. Irving / S. Livingston / S. Blake

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #137 on: January 04, 2013, 05:05:38 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10537
  • Tommy Points: 230
Seriously?  12 years at the government trough to make "inroads" into figuring out how to lower gun injuries?

More training courses.  Fewer guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.  Lower capacity magazines.  Restrictions on certain types of ammunition.

Can I have my $20 million now?
This is a double oversimplification: once for the original problem, and then for the solution to the first thing. Scientific study isn't about condensing conventional wisdom into action items, it's about testable hypotheses. Not everything that people assume is true, actually is. Psychology studies frequently have counter-intuitive findings in particular.

Maybe the government can give scientists sympathetic to the NRA $20 million to prove that guns *aren't*, in fact, dangerous.  That's perhaps counter-intuitive, but you don't know until you spend millions of dollars studying it, right?

I don't want the government deciding how to spend the money. I want academic experts who can assess a potential study and determine its scientific merits to decide.
Celtics fan for life.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #138 on: January 04, 2013, 05:09:48 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1968
  • Tommy Points: 222
Maybe the government can give scientists sympathetic to the NRA $20 million to prove that guns *aren't*, in fact, dangerous.  That's perhaps counter-intuitive, but you don't know until you spend millions of dollars studying it, right?
As I said: this is not about answering the question "are guns dangerous?", which is an oversimplification of the proposal.

There is a wealth of data on gun violence, locked up for no good (for the public) reason. Some of the conclusions drawn may in fact validate some of the NRA's claims. But the problem is, almost certainly it will also contain data that they won't like, such as exactly how often "assault" rifles are used in crimes, as an example. All of it is suppressed.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #139 on: January 09, 2013, 10:10:05 AM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38860
  • Tommy Points: 1962
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
This seems like an unnecessary fight for the NRA right now:

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168926749/nra-vows-to-stop-tuscon-from-destroying-guns

Quote
Anna Jolivet had four old rifles she didn't want: "They belonged to my husband, and he passed away four years ago, and I haven't had any success in having someone take them off of me since then. So I thought this is a good time to turn them in."

That's exactly what Republican Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik expected when he asked the police to do the buyback. What he didn't expect was the response after he announced the event.

"I've been getting threats," Kozachik says. "I've been getting emails. I've been getting phone calls in the office trying to shut this thing down or 'We're going to sue you' or 'Who do you think you are?' "

Todd Rathner, an Arizona lobbyist and a national board member of the NRA, may sue. He has no problem with the gun buyback, but he does have a problem with the fate of the guns once police take possession of them.

"We do believe that it is illegal for them to destroy those guns," he says.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #140 on: January 09, 2013, 10:13:42 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23628
  • Tommy Points: -29133
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
This seems like an unnecessary fight for the NRA right now:

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168926749/nra-vows-to-stop-tuscon-from-destroying-guns

Quote
Anna Jolivet had four old rifles she didn't want: "They belonged to my husband, and he passed away four years ago, and I haven't had any success in having someone take them off of me since then. So I thought this is a good time to turn them in."

That's exactly what Republican Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik expected when he asked the police to do the buyback. What he didn't expect was the response after he announced the event.

"I've been getting threats," Kozachik says. "I've been getting emails. I've been getting phone calls in the office trying to shut this thing down or 'We're going to sue you' or 'Who do you think you are?' "

Todd Rathner, an Arizona lobbyist and a national board member of the NRA, may sue. He has no problem with the gun buyback, but he does have a problem with the fate of the guns once police take possession of them.

"We do believe that it is illegal for them to destroy those guns," he says.

Too lazy to read the link.  Why is it illegal to destroy the guns?  If they're "bought back", don't they now belong to the buyer, who can do whatever it wants with them?


D. Cousins / F. Ezeli / P. Antic
D. West / R. Anderson / C. Copeland
L. Deng / V. Carter / D. Rudez
A. Iguodala / M. Ginobil / B. Gordon
K. Irving / S. Livingston / S. Blake

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #141 on: January 09, 2013, 10:18:47 AM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38860
  • Tommy Points: 1962
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
This seems like an unnecessary fight for the NRA right now:

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168926749/nra-vows-to-stop-tuscon-from-destroying-guns

Quote
Anna Jolivet had four old rifles she didn't want: "They belonged to my husband, and he passed away four years ago, and I haven't had any success in having someone take them off of me since then. So I thought this is a good time to turn them in."

That's exactly what Republican Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik expected when he asked the police to do the buyback. What he didn't expect was the response after he announced the event.

"I've been getting threats," Kozachik says. "I've been getting emails. I've been getting phone calls in the office trying to shut this thing down or 'We're going to sue you' or 'Who do you think you are?' "

Todd Rathner, an Arizona lobbyist and a national board member of the NRA, may sue. He has no problem with the gun buyback, but he does have a problem with the fate of the guns once police take possession of them.

"We do believe that it is illegal for them to destroy those guns," he says.

Too lazy to read the link.  Why is it illegal to destroy the guns?  If they're "bought back", don't they now belong to the buyer, who can do whatever it wants with them?



Quote
Rathner says Arizona state law forces local governments to sell seized or abandoned property to the highest bidder.

"If property has been abandoned to the police, then they are required by ARS 12-945 to sell it to a federally licensed firearms dealer, and that's exactly what they should do," he says.

That way, Rathner says, the guns can be put back in circulation or given away.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #142 on: January 09, 2013, 10:21:29 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23628
  • Tommy Points: -29133
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
^ But if guns are sold back, how is that "abandonment"?  Aren't those two different things?

(Clearly the police think so, I guess.)


D. Cousins / F. Ezeli / P. Antic
D. West / R. Anderson / C. Copeland
L. Deng / V. Carter / D. Rudez
A. Iguodala / M. Ginobil / B. Gordon
K. Irving / S. Livingston / S. Blake

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #143 on: January 09, 2013, 10:24:30 AM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38860
  • Tommy Points: 1962
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
^ But if guns are sold back, how is that "abandonment"?  Aren't those two different things?

(Clearly the police think so, I guess.)

It really is a pretty wacky position for the NRA to take. Here is the 'vow' to stop it:

Quote
Rathner says the NRA will ask for an accounting of every weapon turned in and then go to court to stop the firearms from being destroyed. If that doesn't work, Rathner says they'll change the law.

"We just go back and we tweak it and tune it up, and we work with our friends in the Legislature and fix it so they can't do it," Rathner adds.

At the gun buyback, gun-rights advocates held signs reading "Cash For Guns" and "Pay Double for Your Guns." As cars pulled into the parking lot, they asked drivers if they wanted to sell their guns privately rather than turn them in. There were few takers.

Doug Deahn couldn't understand it: "Can't figure they'd rather line up and give them away. Can't figure that out."

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #144 on: January 09, 2013, 10:39:49 AM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1968
  • Tommy Points: 222
Wacky for sure, but not by the NRA's standards. I give them credit for being 100% consistent at all times.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #145 on: January 10, 2013, 09:04:23 AM »

Online nickagneta

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27087
  • Tommy Points: 2030
You know, there have been a lot of suggestions about gun control, such as:

- eliminate all semi automatic weapons
- eliminate high load magazines
- offer buy back gun programs nationwide
- create a national standard whereby all gun purchases must be put into a certain time frame hold to allow for background checks of buyers
- mental health examinations for all prospective purchasers

I think this is reasonable to begin with.

But I think a part of this problem is that the government doesn't know just how many guns are out there, what types of guns are out there and who owns them. I really think the government needs to rectify this situation:

- Gun shows where dealers can just trade guns or buy guns without a background check or without a registration of the gun purchase or a background check of the individual must end

- All guns must be registered in a national database

- If caught with an unregistered gun, you are committing a crime punishable by $1000 and/or 6 months in jail. A second offense is considered a felony and punishable by a fine of $5000 and up to 5 years in jail. A third offense would result in harsher punishments

- When applying for hunting licenses you must register which gun(s) you will be using with that license. If caught hunting with a gun different from that license fines and eventually jail time for repeat offenders

- Cross check the database when created with that of known felons and mental health patients that have been hospitalized for mental health reasons and take the guns from all those people. Known felons are outlawed from ever owning a gun ever again.

These restrictions would be hated by gun owners as well as the NRA but if you have to register and insure you car and have to have a license to drive a car, I see no problem with these restrictions to guns.



Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #146 on: January 10, 2013, 09:29:16 AM »

Online slamtheking

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10861
  • Tommy Points: 2244
You know, there have been a lot of suggestions about gun control, such as:

- eliminate all semi automatic weapons
- eliminate high load magazines
- offer buy back gun programs nationwide
- create a national standard whereby all gun purchases must be put into a certain time frame hold to allow for background checks of buyers
- mental health examinations for all prospective purchasers

I think this is reasonable to begin with.

But I think a part of this problem is that the government doesn't know just how many guns are out there, what types of guns are out there and who owns them. I really think the government needs to rectify this situation:

- Gun shows where dealers can just trade guns or buy guns without a background check or without a registration of the gun purchase or a background check of the individual must end

- All guns must be registered in a national database

- If caught with an unregistered gun, you are committing a crime punishable by $1000 and/or 6 months in jail. A second offense is considered a felony and punishable by a fine of $5000 and up to 5 years in jail. A third offense would result in harsher punishments

- When applying for hunting licenses you must register which gun(s) you will be using with that license. If caught hunting with a gun different from that license fines and eventually jail time for repeat offenders

- Cross check the database when created with that of known felons and mental health patients that have been hospitalized for mental health reasons and take the guns from all those people. Known felons are outlawed from ever owning a gun ever again.

These restrictions would be hated by gun owners as well as the NRA but if you have to register and insure you car and have to have a license to drive a car, I see no problem with these restrictions to guns.
All good suggestions Nick.  I'd add a couple of others.
- All guns sold must undergo a ballistics test to register their ballistics pattern.  I'd like to make all existing guns undergo the same requirement but I don't see that ever happening.
- Altering a guns barrel or possession of other parts capable of altering a gun's ballistic signature are felonies.  Purchase/sale/ownership transfer of such guns is also a felony.  Commission of a crime with this type of gun adds an automatic minimum of 10 years to the sentence.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #147 on: January 10, 2013, 06:41:45 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1968
  • Tommy Points: 222

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #148 on: January 10, 2013, 07:31:30 PM »

Online nickagneta

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27087
  • Tommy Points: 2030

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #149 on: January 10, 2013, 08:09:24 PM »

Offline Master Po

  • Author and
  • CelticsBlog Relic
  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2268
  • Tommy Points: 242
  • The Man behind the Curtain
I am not saying this to offend anyone, nickagenta, Indeed, interceptor. etc. I am just saying this honestly.

1st - I am not a member of the NRA... I don't need to be a member of any club especially a club that lobby's an already corrupt and totally inept government.

I do own guns...they have all been given to me as gifts in the past.

I know how to shoot them as I grew up in the Ozarks and was surrounded by hunters.

I don't hunt because I don't like killing anything for sport and I don't really care for the taste of most wild game.

If I had to survive or lived in Alaska in the wild I would have no problem killing an mammal or fish to survive.

If my home was invaded (as is happening more and more in Kansas so it must be happening in bigger cities) I would have absolutely no issue in using one of my guns to try and stop the invader. I could fail but I would want to try and I should have that right.

I think there are basically two types of people politically in this current events forum (to simplify my post) First, those who look to the government to solve many problems that may or have already come into existence, or to address problems that may arise in the future that they would like some form of government to fix or regulate. The second group are those who generally think government should be severely limited to a few tasks as outlined by the constitution.

Without trying to sound to conspiratorial I simply have never seen government employees, government institutions, or government programs ever produce anything that impressed me or come up with solutions that actually solved a problem. I have seem them come with programs, regulations and spending bills that generally fail and overregulate the common citizen or business.

Why would I trust the government to not screw up and over regulate and over spend and become even more bloated on the issue of gun control?

Government institutions, regulations and government people just can't seem to do anything that works in my opinion.

There are other layers of gun control that could be discussed but on the first layer is that I do not trust the government n any level to act smart, efficient, creatively or honestly and that would include gun control.

 





 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog