Politics Gun violence in CT

x

 

Frankly, Jonie, I don't give a rip -what- you think, -or- what your opinion of me might be. Your denial of hoplophobic cultural imperialism tells me everything I need to know about our respective positions.

Secondly, my culture does not threaten your rights, not even remotely. My culture desires to be left the fuck -alone- to live our lives in peace, aggressing against none. Your culture appears, on the other hand, to actively desire and work towards the eradication of mine.

As for how armed I am, put it this way: insufficiently.

And finally, no: I am not an armed aggressor. I am an armed potential defender. An aggressor -initiates- the use of force, which I will not do.

As for killing over a television- yes, I happen to agree, it's overkill unless the aggresson/thief immediately threatens your life, limb or liberty in order to steal it. However, the fact remains that robbery is fundamentally a violation of a person's right to their body and the labour they perform with it. -That- was my, perhaps poorly stated, point. Put another way- if I catch someone leaving my house with mt TV I would not shoot them. I would draw my weapon in case they attempted to use force against me to complete their theft, but if they simply dropped the TV and ran I would be content to let them leave. However, the minute they attempted to use force against me- to violate my right to ownership of my body by aggressing against it- yes, I would shoot. If a burglar were coming through my window or breaking down my door at night and I could not be certain that they were unarmed- yes, I wouod shoot: in such a case they have already aggressed against the sanctity of my home and I cannot be sure that they mean no further harm. They might be after my tv- they might be planning to kill me so as to secure it- or they might be planning to rape my wife. That is a chance I will not take.

 

I highly doubt my brand of denial exceeds yours.

Your culture allows those who should not have guns to obtain them. Sorry, not leaving you the fuck alone until the loopholes are closed. Get used to it or revolt, as you all seem wont to do.

 

Whatever happens, these motherfuckers need to be BANNED!

Ugh! Surely we can all agree on that?



OK.. if not banned .. shaved?

 

What loopholes are you talking about? The right of free people to transfer their lawfully-owned property without asking the permission of people who are remote, unfamiliar, and frequently hostile to that property's existence? How would you like to have to get Greenpeace's permission before buying, selling, or trading your car? You -do- realise that the vast majority of firearms used in crimes are old shotguns and revolvers obtained through unlawful means (primarily theft) right?

If someone cannot be trusted with a firearm, assuming the existence of a State, they belong either in prison or in a lunatic asylum.

As for revolt, I promise you: nobody- NOBODY- in the gun culture -wants- that. We -want- to live our lives in peace, to raise our families, to play with our children and make love to our spouses and sleep late on Sunday mornings. So did a lot of people who eventually had to make the very hard decision to risk and defend their lives, liberties, and properties by force of arms. That "event horizon" has not been crossed- God willing, it never will be. But if it is..."if there must be war, let it come in my time, that my son may know peace." These are not the words of a man thirsty for blood, but a man in deep sorrow, and if they ever need be uttered again it will be in the deeper sorrow still of many millions of men and women. I, and many, many others like me, pray if we Believe and hope if we do not, against the coming of that day.

Lastly, people who should not have firearms will -always- find a way to acquire them. Frequently with much greater ease, and with access to much greater firepower, than the lawful and sane people against whom they aggress. Witness Mexico- or do you -seriously- believe that the Zetas and La Familia are getting their heavy machineguns, grenades, RPGs, and full-auto assault rifles (actual assault rifles, as opposed to semi-auto sport-defense rifles) from the US?


...and Alistair, I'm afraid we may agree on that one. That poor M60 did nothing to deserve such a dreadful fate!

 

pistol grip, choker chain, gross hair, penis barrel, any one of these would make it banned under the new assault weapons ban. reported...

 

Do you really believe that? Aren't your prisons already overfull? Lunatic asylums?

How about people with prior convictions for violence (misdemeanours)? How about autistic people? Downs syndrome? Clinical depression? Drink-related offences? Hell ... stupid people? You get my drift.

Surely there are people who probably shouldn't be trusted with a firearm who don't belong in prison or a mental hospital? I've seen some. They leave loaded guns lying around, they shoot into woods behind their houses, they are a danger to themselves and others.

Really, for someone with anarchist/minarchist leanings, I find the statement ... surprising.
--- merged: Jan 19, 2013 at 11:05 PM ---

Phew! I'm saved!

Actually, I quite liked the description "Ugly Gun Ban". That is one of the areas I'm not convinced on (the only valid argument I can make for it is that the market segment targeted is probably not packed full of responsible gun owners).

 

BG: I have some familiarity with Le Guin and Chomsky, though I must confess ignorance on the others you name. When getting into Heinlein, it's important to remember that Starship Troopers was, in many ways, both a satire of and a love-letter to the desire to serve one's nation, as well as Heinlein's way of saying "Well...if you simply -must- have a State..." The Old Man was, in many ways, one of the founders of modern right-anarchism/minarchism.

I do in fact have great respect for the anarcho-leftists: in my opinion it's the "anarcho" part that's truly important. Free people can quibble and debate and voluntarily organise themselves however they like. To paraphrase Franklin, it matters not to me whether my neighbor is an anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-socialist: it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. We can do business, meet for drinks in the evening, and then retire- I to my nonarchy and he/she to his/hers, neither one having violated the rights of the other nor done any offense beyond spirited debate and beer breath. That was my experience of my neighborhood pub while living in Prague, which I regard as one of the most important, formative experiences of my life: sitting down for drinks, debate, and frindship with left-anarchists every night was -marvelous-.

 

Mentally ill or criminally intent family members having access to firearms in the home.
Easy theft of firearms during home burglaries (due to the homeowner's lack of properly securing them and no regulations requiring them to do so.)
Estimated 40% - no criminal background checks
No licensing requirements for gun owners. No incentive to report theft.
No community or law enforcement knowledge of who might be hoarding firearms.

Is that a place to start?

The vast majority of firearms used in the commission of a crime are handguns. Shotguns don't even make it on the top ten list. In fact, they are at the bottom of any compiled list.

1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver
2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic
3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic
4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic
5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun
6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic
7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver
8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic
9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic
10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic

America's Most Wanted Guns - TIME

They are obtained in a variety of different ways. Straw purchases, theft, private sales are a few. It's no point in favor of your argument to claim the majority are stolen during the break in of homes or vehicles. This should not be.

How many current law abiding citizens with a firearm can or cannot be trusted to possess one? Do you have some means of determining that, Duneden? Or are they all deemed trustworthy by nature of the fact that they were able to legally obtain one?

 

proof that the targeting of assault weapons (and their scary attachments like pistol grips and bayonet lugs) and high capacity mags is nothing more than a gun grab. these are mostly small caliber/low capacity weapons that you listed. of course i'm not sure you, like many gun grabbers, know what the capabilities of any of these weapons are.

 

My response was to Duneden's claim that a good portion of guns used in crimes are "old" shotguns, which is nothing more than a minimization tactic on his part.

I do agree that a ban on assault weapons (new sales only?) is not the answer to the problem despite the fact that I can perceive no logical use for them. Rather than take guns away from responsible citizens, (which no government entity I'm aware of is planning or suggesting) I'm a proponent of common sense regulation, licensing and stricter enforcement of gun law violations.

For the record, I'm not a gun grabber. I'm simply a citizen who is concerned about gun violence (all violence, actually) and would appreciate it if you gun nuts would stop defending the indefensible.

samcol, do you really believe Obama is going to take your guns away? If so, where on earth did you hear this nonsense?

 

are you a gun owner?

 

What the fuck that has to do with anything I've posted is beyond me. Are you telling me there some epiphany to be had upon the purchase of a firearm? What, like I'll change my mind about the relative ease in which someone's life can be snuffed out by the magic of speeding bullets once I've finally got a faux penis in my delicate little hands?

I've done some target shooting. It's fun. Do I need to stock firearms in my home to avail myself of an hour's entertainment at a gun range? NO.

 

Did you read that source, or just throw it up for grins?

Have you been following NY and CT's effort on this front? A CT legislator has recently introduced a bill, yet to be voted upon, to ban possession of all firearms other than single-shots. Source: AN ACT CONCERNING RESTRICTIONS ON GUN USE.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
That the general statutes be amended to establish a class C felony offense, except for certain military and law enforcement personnel and certain gun clubs, for (1) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate, transport, possess or use any gun except one made to fire a single round, (2) any person to fire a gun containing more than a single round, (3) any person or organization to receive from another state, territory or country a gun made to fire multiple rounds, or (4) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate or possess a magazine or clip capable of holding more than one round


New York has just enacted a sweeping Ugly Gun Ban and a ban on standard-capacity magazines (anything over 7rds, of whatever type or description) and given owners one year to dispose of them by destruction, turning over to the cops, or selling them out of State.

Oh I dunno, maybe the survey he filled out (in his own handwriting, contradicting his assertion that it was filled out and submitted by a staffer without his knowledge) in which he supported banning the sale and possession of handguns? Granted it's a bit old, but he's never repudiated it, only lied about it. Source: Barack Obama on Gun Control


Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”

Obama Forgets Writing on Gun Questionnaire - ABC News

ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Talal Al-Khatib Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., maintained at Wednesday’s ABC News debate in Philadelphia that his handwriting does not appear on a 1996 questionnaire stating support for a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns. The Democratic presidential frontrunner made this claim even though a copy of the original document suggests otherwise.
"No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire, Charlie. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns," said Obama.
The Illinois Democrat made his remarks after ABC News’ Charlie Gibson told Obama: "In 1996, your campaign issued a questionnaire, and your writing was on the questionnaire that said you favored a ban on handguns."
The questionnaire, which was filled out for an organization called "Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organizations," appears to have Obama’s handwriting on the first page plus a typewritten answer to the gun question on the last page.
Read the questionnaire with the handwriting here.
Read an accompanying story from Politico here.
The questionnaire asked: "Do you support state legislation to: ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?"
Obama’s campaign answered: "Yes."
Obama’s response to an earlier 1996 questionnaire from the same group has the same statement of support for a sweeping ban on handguns.
Read the earlier questionnaire here.
When asked about the gun questionnaire with the handwriting on it, Obama adviser Robert Gibbs did not dispute that the writing was Obama’s.
Rather than defend Obama’s claim that his handwriting was not on the questionnaire, Gibbs argued that voters should instead focus on the Illinois Democrat’s claim that he does not — and has never — supported a handgun ban.
Asked why his 1996 campaign manager would think that he supported a handgun ban if that was never his position, Gibbs said, "Why she filled out the questionnaire the way she did I have no idea because it didn’t reflect his views."


So, either Mr. Obama is a lying gun-grabber, or he is a mindless incompetent who is in control of thermonuclear weapons. I'm not sure which is scarier.

 

why do you even care if anyone spends hours at a gun range? it's a hobby. i dont care for it myself, but some people do enjoy it.

it was just a question. no need to get all alarmed. maybe you need a faux penis in your delicate little hands.

 

I'm always amused by the "gun as substitute phallus" argument.

If this is so, why are snub-nosed revolvers so popular, to say nothing of the miniscule Kel-Tec, Ruger, Taurus, and Smith & Wesson .32 and .380 pocket-pistols? And why are something like 30% of gun-owners female? Don't tell me that tired old anti-feminist "penis envy" nonsense has found a new home in the Victim Disarmament set!

 

Missed that one. But you did specifically state the shotguns were "old" which I could take to mean "not much fucking good" and possibly lying around rusting in some redneck's barn inviting itself to be stolen.

I assumed we were all on the same page here in regard to Fed proposals. States do what they want in the absence of overriding Federal jurisdiction. I wouldn't worry too much about blue state gun law enactment, you've got plenty of red states with enough loose gun laws to arm every criminal in the US and many of them do just that.

Sorry, right wing conspiracies bore me.
--- merged: Jan 20, 2013 at 12:58 AM ---

Nope, not a victim or a proponent of disarmament, as much as you would like me to be your extremist adversary.

But hey, is this not a case of over-compensating? Not even a little?


--- merged: Jan 20, 2013 at 1:02 AM ---

I don't care. I enjoy it myself. Or didn't you understand my post?

I sleep beside a man with a real one every night. I can hold it any time I want to. He doesn't need a gun. For anything.

 

Gallup: Majority supports Obama’s gun-control proposals - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Guns

 

I do worry about the gun-totin', flag-waving defenders of the Constitution who evidently dont support all of the Constitution, particularly the Supremacy Clause (Article IV, clause 2: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding) and believe they have the right to fight back against any federal restrictions with which they disagree. (i.e. shoot any federal officer attempting to enforce such federal laws).