Leadership

[_Markk]

Markk - you may have already ventured an opinion on this elsewhere in the thread (and I may have missed it) but I'm curious as to your opinion about limiting or denying firearms sales to folks on the no-fly list. Not that this necessarily has anything to do with the conversation in general but it would shed some light on your temperament regarding firearms legislation and controls.

Also, how you might feel about restrictions on firearms purchase/ownership by folks with mental health issues (which is a stickier subject).

Thanks, and Merry Almost Christmas.

Depends on what the mental health issue is? And it depends on how the government vets who and should not get them. It is also confounded in that the government generally does not have the capability to process something that complex or enforce it, and where does it stop? Should they drive? Should the have children?

I have no problem at all not allowing sick folks guns, drivers license's, drugs, alcohol etc., doing it is where the challenge is to not step on people rights...mentally ill people have rights too, and where do we draw the line? What if a person is mildly ill? Who makes the call?

[_Markk]

Feel free to quote where I say this.

You wrote...Since you say drugs and alcohol kill even more, which is a the greater threat to the US?

The topic is about guns and laws. I have shown you that a city with the most stringent gun laws has more than 500% more murders that a city of the same size. with the least stringent gun laws. Which shows what Themis?

Stringent I guess is a vague term. I don't see it, and I already said given that other states may have less laws it is easy to get guns into any area in the lower 48. You even admitted lack of enforcement. Have you looked at other countries Markk? I suspect not.

You are ducking the issue, cities with tighter gun laws have less gun violence that cities with more gun laws. And we can take it further Irvine Ca is one of the safest cities in America, and 50 miles away is San Bernardino, one of the most dangerous in the US? It shows it is responsibility of people, and not government imposed laws. People that steal, do drugs, drive drunk, stab people and shoot people, generally do not care about, or follow laws, and all the laws you make will not change that portion of our society.

If you want to make a case that we should have a totalitarian state, and out law guns, it might serve you better. But taking right from responsible people too bow down to criminals is not the answer in a free society.

I have looked at other countries, and we are not them. In Niger, there are hardly no deaths due to alcohol, should we institute their laws on alcohol...or same with Pakistan and Egypt? It is a straw man argument...we are the USA, not England, Canada, or Niger.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/heroin-state-and-federal-penalties.html

Are you kidding? A lawyers advertisement?

My son, a police officer, is over as I write, and I asked him and he laughed. He said the drug use is not what lands them in jail , but what comes with it. If they act like jerks, are on probation, or they are out, up to no good ( walking around a good neighborhood at 2 in the morning), he will take them in, they spend the night in jail and are released, and at the worse given a ticket.

[_MeDotOrg]

One thing is certain: NRA types never want to talk about gun deaths. They want to talk about gun deaths AND. As in, gun deaths and drugs, gun deaths and alcohol, guns deaths and crime, gun deaths and poverty, gun deaths and ANYTHING other than gun deaths themselves. Much easier to make a bad point when you muddy up the water.

Virtually every Republican at the debate last night got up and said the first job of the President of the United States is to protect the American people.



Again and again and again, President Obama calls for rational gun control, but the very same Republicans, who last night swore up and down their solemn oath to protect the American people, cash their campaign contributions from the N.R.A.

If the terrorist could rack up half the deaths gun homicides in this country, I guarantee you people would be talking about using nuclear weapons in the middle east. But as long as it's real Americans killing each other with real American bullets, THAT'S American exceptionalism.

Again, look at the graph and remember that, according to virtually every Republican candidate last night, the first job of the President of the United States is to protect the American people.

Then by your spin we should outlaw alcohol? The USA has about 4 death from alcohol per 1000, where many countries have basically zero, or less than 1% per thousand. Should I use Niger or Pakistan as you do England and Australia as a example in deaths and laws in other countries?

There are certain things a free society chooses to live with. We like our guns, our alcohol, tobacco and Big Macs.

Talk about irony...democrats want to outlaw Cheetos and soda, and yet booze gets a free ride, and gun kill far less than bad food and booze?

Honestly...do do you want all guns outlawed, do you own guns?

This is the only handgun I've ever owned:



A friend of my father gave me a .22 rifle for my 13th birthday, but I only took it to a shooting range once. I honestly don't remember what happened to it. I think my father gave it away when we moved. Other than that, I shot a friend's handgun in the woods one time. That's about it.

I don't want to ban guns. If you want to own a rifle and a shotgun and a handgun, I've got no problem with that. I think gun owners should have to pass a safety test and be licensed.

So anyway, we're back to the gunsANDarguments. This time it's guns AND alcohol. We tried banning alcohol, didn't work out too well. So we licensed it and controlled it. Still not perfect. Tightened up blood alcohol levels in DUI laws. Toughened DUI penalties. Toughened penalties for sales to minors. The United States tries to control alcohol consumption, not ban it. We are no longer a nation of Carrie Nations.

Imagine if there were a group called the National Rotgut Association, who fought every attempt lower the blood alcohol level for drunk driving by shrilling declaring any legislation was the thin edge of the wedge to ban alcohol. The N.R.A. further argued that drinking and driving is what we do in a free society, and we should be getting tough on Vehicular Manslaughter, not drunk driving. Now imagine that group of 'independent drinkers' received tens of millions of dollars from distillers.

Last year a gun store owner in Maryland wanted to sell a smart gun that could only be fired by its owner. He received death threats. This is the level of irrational fear that permeates the gun culture in the United States. This gun wasn't being proposed as a replacement for current handguns, but as an alternative. But even the freedom to sell a potentially safer gun is subject to death threats in the gun culture of the United States.

American exceptionalism: The only nation on Earth where a gun store owner's biggest threat comes from people who own guns.

There are many nations on earth that do better with alcohol, and there are many that do worse. But there are no developed Western Nations that do as abysmally as we do with gun homicides. Most developed Western nations have rational gun control laws with much lower gun homicide rates.



And yes, Markk, obesity probably kills more Americans than gun homicides. But no one ever died from someone throwing a bacon cheeseburger at them. If someone else eats a fried stick of butter, my cholesterol level doesn't go up. There's a difference between slowly clogging your own arteries and homicide.

[_Markk]

MeDotOrg wrote:I don't want to ban guns. If you want to own a rifle and a shotgun and a handgun, I've got no problem with that. I think gun owners should have to pass a safety test and be licensed.

Expound a bit? "a" weapon? what about a collection of weapons? What about semi automatic weapons?

What would licensing and safety stop, in regards to gun violence. Safety is always a good thing, and there are plenty of gun safety programs, I took a NRA gun safety and hunting program as a child.

I oppose the the government getting involved.

So anyway, we're back to the gunsANDarguments. This time it's guns AND alcohol.

And you are back too comparing the USA with other countries? IF you took say Japan or the UK, put a 2000k long open Mexican border, with drugs and undocumented people coming over the border, it would change everything. don't open if you have a weak stomach

There are way too many variables to even began to compare the USA with any other country.

We tried banning alcohol, didn't work out too well. So we licensed it and controlled it.

BS...It is not controlled, are you kidding? I drive down San Pedro ave almost every Morning on my way to a new project i started in downtown LA...controlled, give me a break?san pedro blv.

Guns are far more controlled in the US and alcohol. We do not license people to buy alcohol as you are proposing with weapons, or does a person have to take a safety course on drinking when they turn the legal age to drink...yet alcohol kills far more people and ruins far more lives than people who kill with guns...pure BS.

Imagine if there were a group called the National Tipplers Association, who fought every attempt lower the blood alcohol level for drunk driving by shrilling declaring any legislation was the thin edge of a giant of the wedge, culminating in a conspiracy to bring back Prohibition, and besides drinking and driving is what we do in a free society. The thing to do is get tough on Vehicular Manslaughter, not drunk driving. Now imagine that group of 'independent drinkers' were funded by tens of millions of dollars from the distillers.

You are better than that, do you really believe this ? Please deal with the issue. by the way, the government is partly funded by distillers via the consumer...via taxation. Look at the link I gave you from skid row, these people who you claim are licensed pay the government to get drunk every night and sleep on the street. Th every very most are there because of drugs and alcohol, very few, if any are there because of guns.


more later

[_Themis]

You wrote...Since you say drugs and alcohol kill even more, which is a the greater threat to the US?

So I didn't make any assertion about gun deaths being a greater threat then drugs and alcohol. If you read what I say above it is not an assertion, but a question. Understand the difference?

You are ducking the issue, cities with tighter gun laws have less gun violence that cities with more gun laws.

Sorry but no. You are the one ducking the issue. I have already said there are other factors that can make one area low crime and another high crime. Hell I even talked about countries that have strict gun laws still have areas of high and low crime. The issue you want to keep ducking is about whether better rules for guns would reduce the number of deaths.

And we can take it further Irvine Ca is one of the safest cities in America, and 50 miles away is San Bernardino, one of the most dangerous in the US? It shows it is responsibility of people, and not government imposed laws. People that steal, do drugs, drive drunk, stab people and shoot people, generally do not care about, or follow laws, and all the laws you make will not change that portion of our society.

You have been conditioned to think this, but no. Good laws reduce the number of guns in criminals hands. Ones found with them can be put in jail, and when guns are harder to get one has to expose themselves more increasing the likelihood of being found out.

If you want to make a case that we should have a totalitarian state, and out law guns, it might serve you better. But taking right from responsible people too bow down to criminals is not the answer in a free society.

You really are conditioned to think a certain way. Even though I have said multiple times as have others that we are not talking about banning all or even most guns, you still cannot help but go there. And what crap is this about bowing down to criminals.

I have looked at other countries, and we are not them. In Niger, there are hardly no deaths due to alcohol, should we institute their laws on alcohol...or same with Pakistan and Egypt? It is a straw man argument...we are the USA, not England, Canada, or Niger.

You can assert it all you want. I doesn't change the fact we can compare countries in many ways. You have continued to ignore that there are areas of high crime in these other countries. And the US does have some laws regarding Alcohol. If you want to start another thread to discuss improving them feel free.

Are you kidding? A lawyers advertisement?

My son, a police officer, is over as I write, and I asked him and he laughed. He said the drug use is not what lands them in jail , but what comes with it. If they act like jerks, are on probation, or they are out, up to no good ( walking around a good neighborhood at 2 in the morning), he will take them in, they spend the night in jail and are released, and at the worse given a ticket.

So no facts to show here. Not surprised. I am aware Cops in many areas can let people off, but the facts are it is illegal and will land some people in prison.

[_Themis]

There are certain things a free society chooses to live with. We like our guns, our alcohol, tobacco and Big Macs.

An interesting point. I agree that a society has to look at what freedoms they will afford even though there is a risk of greater harm. But the issue for most people who see a problem in the US is not about banning, but about better rules and control. We do it with alcohol, drugs, cars, etc.

[_Themis]

What would licensing and safety stop, in regards to gun violence. Safety is always a good thing, and there are plenty of gun safety programs, I took a NRA gun safety and hunting program as a child.

Licensing makes sure everyone who wants a gun gets that safety course and shows they know the rules of use and storage. This alone with decrease deaths. Now don't being up criminals. One of the main points in licensing is the criminal back ground check as well as a mental check. It creates an environment in which guns are harder to get for criminals and some people who are not real serious. If you don't have a license then some would be criminals who have not been caught yet, who will get caught with a gun and no license, lose the gun and get into trouble.

I oppose the the government getting involved.

Most extremist do. It baffles me when the whole idea of Government is to make rules and laws to protect the people. Especially with a democracy. This idea is that the people have the control on what the laws will be.

[_MeDotOrg]

wrote:I don't want to ban guns. If you want to own a rifle and a shotgun and a handgun, I've got no problem with that. I think gun owners should have to pass a safety test and be licensed.

Expound a bit? "a" weapon? what about a collection of weapons? What about semi automatic weapons?

Quite frankly at this point in time I'm more concerned about the day-to-day homicides than the paranoids with huge weapon caches. You want a 'collection' of weapons? Fine. Is an arms dealer a weapons collector? Not fine. I think those types of lines can be drawn to the satisfaction of reasonable parties on both sides.

What would licensing and safety stop, in regards to gun violence. Safety is always a good thing, and there are plenty of gun safety programs, I took a NRA gun safety and hunting program as a child.

I oppose the the government getting involved.

This may come as a shock, but many people buy guns impulsively without knowing anything about how to properly handle a weapon. Maybe their house was burgled, and they want protection. Maybe someone is scaring them and they're angry and fearful. Fine: Get a gun, if that's your thing. But learn some things about how to handle it and how to store it. A required gun safety class could have the effect of slowing down a good person from acting rashly. It also could teach them habits and procedures that would greatly diminish the accidental discharge of a weapon and how to properly store a weapon. It may not stop a bad guy with a gun, but it could stop a good guy with a gun from doing something stupid.

And I also believe that gun shops should have the right to sell smart guns without getting death threats. Are you with me there?

So anyway, we're back to the gunsANDarguments. This time it's guns AND alcohol.

And you are back too comparing the USA with other countries? IF you took say Japan or the UK, put a 2000k long open Mexican border, with drugs and undocumented people coming over the border, it would change everything. don't open if you have a weak stomach

There are way too many variables to even began to compare the USA with any other country.

Ah, American exceptionalism. We cannot be compared to any other country. We cannot learn from any other country, because no other country on earth has the precise set of variables that we have in the United States.

So are gun homicides riding shotgun with Donald Trump's rapists as the Mexican hordes traipse over our border? In case you hadn't noticed, guns imported from Mexico are not a huge source of the gun problem in the United States.

Drug cartels pay Americans to buy arms legally and send the guns to Mexico. American gun manufacturers reap huge profits from outfitting the Drug Cartels. Much more violence and bloodshed flows from North to South in the form of weapons.

From a G.A.O. report:

GAO, June 2009: Available evidence indicates a large proportion of the firearms fueling Mexican drug violence originated in the United States, including a growing number of increasingly lethal weapons. While it is impossible to know how many firearms are illegally trafficked into Mexico in a given year, around 87 percent of firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced over the past 5 years originated in the United States, according to data from ATF. Around 68 percent of these firearms were manufactured in the United States, and around 19 percent were manufactured in third countries and imported into the United States before being trafficked into Mexico. According to U.S. and Mexican government officials, these firearms have been increasingly more powerful and lethal in recent years. For example, many of these firearms are high-caliber and high-powered, such as AK and AR-15 type semiautomatic rifles. Many of these firearms come from gun shops and gun shows in Southwest border states, such as Texas, California, and Arizona, according to ATF officials and trace data. U.S. and Mexican government and law enforcement officials stated most guns trafficked to Mexico are intended to support operations of Mexican DTOs [Drug Trafficking Organizations], which are also responsible for trafficking arms to Mexico.

So the reality is that a lot of the violence you fear from South of the Border has been fueled by the gun laws and gun manufacturers in the United States pouring gasoline on the fire.

Is Australia an island or a continent? Okay, let's remove those countries whose geographical anatomies are not to your liking. What about landlocked countries? They don't have to deal with seaborne smugglers.

Look, I'm not saying that guns laws are going to drop the gun homicide rate to that of Japan overnight. I'm not making a direct comparison, and saying if we take step A it will bring consequence B with X months. You're right: We are not like any other country, in the sense that we have move guns than any other country. Tightening the licensing and regulation of firearms in the United States will take a while to show results, because we have fought any solution to the problem since the N.R.A.'s leadership dramatically shifted course in the 1970's.

We tried banning alcohol, didn't work out too well. So we licensed it and controlled it.

BS...It is not controlled, are you kidding? I drive down San Pedro ave almost every Morning on my way to a new project i started in downtown LA...controlled, give me a break?san pedro blv.

Guns are far more controlled in the US and alcohol. We do not license people to buy alcohol as you are proposing with weapons, or does a person have to take a safety course on drinking when they turn the legal age to drink...yet alcohol kills far more people and ruins far more lives than people who kill with guns...pure BS.

We don't license people to drink, but most people get some drug and alcohol education through high school. Despite the fact that there are an infinite amount of variables which prevent the direct comparison of the Unites States with any other country, I'm not really considering licensing drinkers. Your friends in the National Tippler's Association are safe ;-)

Drinking and drugs are a huge health problem in this country, and we try to educate our children about it, but Congress has frozen funds for the study of gun violence as a health problem:

In 1993, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published an article by Arthur Kellerman and colleagues, “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home,” which presented the results of research funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The study found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide. The article concluded that rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance. Kellerman was affiliated at the time with the department of internal medicine at the University of Tennessee. He went on to positions at Emory University, and he currently holds the Paul O’Neill Alcoa Chair in Policy Analysis at the RAND Corporation.
The 1993 NEJM article received considerable media attention, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) responded by campaigning for the elimination of the center that had funded the study, the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. The center itself survived, but Congress included language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PDF, 2.4MB) for Fiscal Year 1997 that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Referred to as the Dickey amendment after its author, former U.S. House Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year — and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury. Dr. Kellerman stated in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”

So the NRA gets to define what is a health problem in the United States.

Where alcohol does become a homicide weapon is drunk driving, and the U.S. has made great strides in tightening the laws against drunk driving with significant results.

Imagine if there were a group called the National Tipplers Association, who fought every attempt lower the blood alcohol level for drunk driving by shrilling declaring any legislation was the thin edge of a giant of the wedge, culminating in a conspiracy to bring back Prohibition, and besides drinking and driving is what we do in a free society. The thing to do is get tough on Vehicular Manslaughter, not drunk driving. Now imagine that group of 'independent drinkers' were funded by tens of millions of dollars from the distillers.

You are better than that, do you really believe this ? Please deal with the issue. by the way, the government is partly funded by distillers via the consumer...via taxation. Look at the link I gave you from skid row, these people who you claim are licensed pay the government to get drunk every night and sleep on the street. Th every very most are there because of drugs and alcohol, very few, if any are there because of guns.

I think the National Tippler's Association is a valid analogy to the N.R.A., but if you don't like it, I'll drop it. I'll let my arguments stand without the metaphor. Obviously the consumption of alcohol is not enshrined with a Constitutional amendment (unless you count the repeal of the Volstead Act)

I would certainly agree that there are more homeless people because of alcohol and drugs than guns, but in the context of our discussion, so what? I'm not talking about tackling homelessness. I'm talking about attacking the problem of gun violence. I'm not against tackling homelessness.

And again, if you take a drink I don't get cirrhosis of the liver. As an American, I think I have more of a right to say what you do to me than what I do to me.

[_Markk]

Quite frankly at this point in time I'm more concerned about the day-to-day homicides than the paranoids with huge weapon caches. You want a 'collection' of weapons? Fine. Is an arms dealer a weapons collector? Not fine. I think those types of lines can be drawn to the satisfaction of reasonable parties on both sides.

What about semi automatic weapons, large clips etc? If you are concerned only about safety, then those things should not really matter?

And we will never agree that it is the guns fault on day to day homicide, it is a class and heart issue. There has always been, and will always be bad people who abuse the rights of others.

Gun owners over all are really responsible people, I was taught how to handle and store weapons from a early age by my father and NRA classes, and a hunting class. All my brothers were to. Mt oldest brother was a gunners mate in Vietnam, cleaned his weapons there daily for his tours, and he came home and was showing a friend a 45, and blew a hole in the ceiling. Point being accidents will always happen.

And I encourage gun safety, I educate folks when we go shooting. But there is a fine line there in letting the government in.

Lets face it, there are people that want to take away guns, you are using data from countries that have done that as a talking point, and then say it is okay to have as many weapons as you want, and ignored my question about semi auto weapons and chose words like "shot gun" and "rife." There is a old saying...If you give them a inch, they take mile, if you give them a terd they take the whole pile..."

Swimming pools and other accidents kill far more children than gun accidents, and you have to take a safety course to drive?

I believe people should be able to sell anything legally without threats, but unfortunately people are idiots. I also believe a coach should be able to pray with his team without losing his job or the school getting sued. In many ways this is the same argument in that the ACLU does not want to give a inch.

I have not done enough research on the smart gun to really comment more. If the government makes a law that all guns have to be smart, no I don't like it.

Ah, American exceptionalism. We cannot be compared to any other country. We cannot learn from any other country, because no other country on earth has the precise set of variables that we have in the United States.

So are gun homicides riding shotgun with Donald Trump's rapists as the Mexican hordes traipse over our border? In case you hadn't noticed, guns imported from Mexico are not a huge source of the gun problem in the United States.

Drug cartels pay Americans to buy arms legally and send the guns to Mexico. American gun manufacturers reap huge profits from outfitting the Drug Cartels. Much more violence and bloodshed flows from North to South in the form of weapons.

From a G.A.O. report:

Exactly why we can not compare our problems with other countries? Thank you

Bad people are using a open border, and under enforced drug laws to take advantage of our freedoms? You can't have it both ways, so in order to be like Britain and Japan...what do we do about Mexico?


The more I read from you the more I believe you don't like guns or want people to own guns, yet you say different...do you really believe that gun safety courses will stop the drug cartels? You are arguing two different things, with two different solutions?

So? We give gun safety courses to help stop accidents and domestic gun violence. How do we stop the Cartel's and drug violence with guns?

[_Kevin Graham]

Markk are you still trying to demonstrate just how much of an obtuse moron you really are on this subject?

If so, mission accomplished.