Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I guess we should follow the example that the government uses in the war on drugs for this? Whatever attempt you make at cutting off the supply, those who want them will get them. If you built a 30 foot wall around the city of San Fran, they would dig a tunnel.
|
Have you ever been to San Francisco? As someone who spends a lot of time there, I can tell you that the type of person who would run guns is a rarity. The type of person who would sell drugs, however, is everywhere.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Simply reading the notes and quotations from the writers of the constitution should make it clear that it is intended as an individual right.
|
It is perfectly clear to me that it's about protecting themselves from the government. It's also perfectly clear to you that it's the right to bear arms. I'm not a novice on the subject, as I studied it before for this very thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
This argument alone should convince you that guns are a necessary part of self defense. Do you expect my 84 year old grandmother to wield a katana against a home invader? Or would you prefer that the homeowner first take stock of any weapon that an invader has and then duel them honorably?
|
No, I expect your grandmother to get safety doors, just like I bought for my grandmother.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
not harsh enough, in my opinion. If you want to get tough on gun crime, start using the death penalty for it. If a criminal uses a gun during a crime and a person is killed or wounded during the commission of that crime, we'll see you strapped to a gurney with a needle.
|
I will not support the death penalty for anyone, for any reason. I will support severe punishments, but not the deathe penalty. Stats have already shows that it's not a functional deterrant (see my lengthy post in the "why people hate texans" thread). The death penalty is state sponsored murder, and it's wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Sure it is. Lets look at some common everyday items. A meat cleaver is used in the kitchen. It's a tool to help prepare a family dinner or for a butcher in his daily work life, but it has the capacity to kill when used in the wrong hands. Look at fertilizer? It's used to help farm crops grow to provide food to a large group of people, yet in the wrong hands can be used to blow up a federal building. A baseball bat is used in the sport of baseball, yet in the wrong hands can kill. There are lots of tools used in our lives that can kill, its how you use it that counts.
|
A meat cleaver is not a defensive tool, so you're just making my point. Fertilizer is not a defensive tool, so you're just making my point. A baseball bat...you get the idea.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I have in laws that live in Dallas. One, a 30 something flight attendant, went to the grocery store one night around 8:30. Before she could make it in to the store she was accosted, from the front, punched in the face, kicked in the stomach, had her purse stolen and then her car. Now, in this situation we could talk all about hypotheticals like not enough time to react anyway, if he'd wanted to kill her he would have anyway, and even taking her weapon away and using it on her. All of it doesn't matter. It only matters that a person have whatever means necessary to provide for their defense.
|
Yes, some situations are indefensible. Some situations only require a taser or mase. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Learn from history. Cutting off the supply does not work. It hasn't worked in the war on drugs, has it? You have to stop it at its focal point.....the criminal. There is no other way.
|
Well then let's examine that. How can we keep the guns from criminals, but keep the pro gun people happy? I've suggested full gun registration before. Put a barcode on every gun. If a gun is used in a crime, they trace it back and punish eveyone from the seller all the way back to the manufacturer. Gun cimpanies will end up paying millions in fines, and they will be FORCED to take mesures to keep guns in responsible hands. Make the corporations responsible. Make the distributers responsible. The thing is, when I've mentioned this to my pro-gun buddies, they all groan and moan about how that's taking their right to bear arms. "Te government will know how many guns I have", to which I respond, "They already do, so what's the problem?" Let's concentrate on this, the proactive function of gun control and it's various pros and cons.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
Uh. I'm sorry but where do all these unqualified assumptions come from?
"California has an obscene amount of police presence on major highways?" Uhh. I take no comfort in that. Maybe it's obscene relative to another state but certainly not enough to stop this crime. Have you ever broken the speed limit? How many times were you ever ticketed? I'll bet you haven't been pulled over for every time you've broken the speed limit, have you? If you have a car full of guns that's the most likely time you're going to get your license and registration checked.
Contrary to popular belief, true criminals are not as stupid as you'd like to believe. I should know since I work closely with level IV state inmates. Serious gunrunners (not small time, stoners with "born to lose" tattooed on their foreheads) don't drive around in stolen cars full of weapons.
Illegal arms dealers have mules transport their weapons ... often times the guns are disassembled and allocated to several different vehicles to transport. (that's how they do it in the UK - oh - or is the IRA not supposed to have weapons?) Many mules are recruited from people with clean or almost clean records - payed a couple hundred bucks to drive from one place to another without any moving violations.
|
What you RELALY have to take int account is whether the demand will rise, and how much it will rise after the gun ban takes effect. This will be the best time for the police to cut down on all things gun. They will, as I suggested before, use extreme measures to show people that having a gun, espically an illegal gun, will ave dire consequences. I've seen what the SFPD can do first hand when they want their way. I used to go to these meet ups with other people where we'd try to do tricks with our cars (burnouts, doughnuts, etc). Once thew police found out about it, they went psycho. Not only did they seek out and impound tons of cars involved, but they beat several people who were involved. I don't support that in that circumstance, but in the gun situation, it wouldn't hurt.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
"feasable"?
I gotta tell you something. Rewards, as a rule, don't work ... not with drugs, the war on terror etc. If someone's in a position to know - even an anonymous tip is a death sentence. If you think drug smugglers are dangerous you have no idea how much worse gunrunners are.
I know a few things about organized crime, particularly in the state of California, and some of the gangs have histories dating back to the 1950s and developed remarkably sophisticated structures (frequently modeled after military heiarchy) and many with written constitutions and code of ethics. "Gang" life as depicted on TV is the lowest level ... they are just the foot soldiers and have no power, knowledge or importance.
One thing I can say for a fact is that the highest level is rooted in big business ... mostly the entertainment industry. That part is, unfortunately, not a myth because most of the links are known. I have met some of the leaders - they don't look or act anything like what you might expect.
Mark my words ... if (God forbid) guns saw an honest ban ... you'll see more criminal activity, more crime and more killing than ever. Just try to stop trafficking over the border or across state lines (e.g. Nevada).
|
The entertainment industry? I'd really like to hear about this. Please PM me with some names if you don't want to post them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
We're near Nevada. Trafficking isn't about a 30 minute drive - it's big business ... a day or two on the road is no different. Especially if you're from California.
|
Well distance must play some role in the amount of difficulty or danger of running guns. There must be a higher risk moving weapons over a larger distance.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
I don't understand your point. Nobody is saying that a knife is equivalent to a gun. The fact that a gun doesn't require physical strength or martial arts training to be effective is what makes it an equalizer between a victim and a criminal.
Let me make this clear. Let's assume that all guns were successfully banned and, by some miracle, they were eradicated from the state completely.
1.) Is a violent criminal or sex offender going to say, "I can't get a gun now. I guess I can't commit crime now."?
2.) If someone was seriously threatening me or a family member with a knife or baseball bat (when I did Emergency Dept work back east these were popular weapons - on our progress notes we wrote "HIHBBB" for "hit in head by baseball bat" )... how should I defend myself or them? Am I expected to get in a knife fight with a violent home invader? Have you ever seen a knife fight? I have. I have seen and treated people who were cut up to pieces - the only winner of a knife fight is the one who is still alive even after being sliced all over their arms, neck, had their lungs punctured .... I'd rather have a gun.
|
dksuddeth tried to make a katana equvelant to a gun, that's who.
1) It's about options. A criminal is exploring and option in being a criminal. The reason this is not an unreasonable option to them is that it's fast and it can be extremly profitable. With the aid of a gun, they see a higher success rate in thier criminal endevors. Take away that 'tool', and you'll see them get scared. As you said, other weapons don't have the same functionality or terror effect as a gun. Without it's aid, I suspect that many criminals will be less brazedn, and even some will give it up. Would you want to get in a shootout with the police if you have a knife?
2)Get security doors. Get thicker glass. Get bars on your windows (EXPO and Home Depot have some really nice ones). As long as you secure all entrences of your house, you have almost nothing to fear. Without guns, you really do have nothing to fear. A criminal isn't going to take welding tools to your house, as the policve don't usually take more than 15 minutes. The average criminal is not a mastermind. With a properly defended house, home invasion will be a thing of the past.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
what are you going to do about it?
|
For now? Post. Eventualy? Well, I'm getting ready to run for office, in order to get in a position where I can actually have an effect on things.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
Please elaborate on this idea because I don't know what you're trying to say specifically.
|
I suspect that you can agree that quite often prison trains a criminal. The correctional system is nopt set up to correct problems, just hide them away in a dark place for a while. Also, the rich can buy justice in our system. Gun runners are very rich people. They can afford the best lawyers, and the best pleas. This represents a serious problem, as the guy at the top is usually the most dangerous.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
The purpose of a gun in "defense" is to stop an imminent threat ... note the operative words in that description. Regardless of whether you call it "defense" or "offense" is a pointless exercise in semantics. The use of the term "defense" refers to the relevent scenario ... it does NOT refer to the physical mechanisms of operation.
|
Well, we were talking about semantics, as the word 'defence' was applied to a gun. If it weren't for semantics, we wouldn't be able to communicate verbally at all, so please don't downplay it's importance. It is an offensive weapon.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
No more straw man, please.
By your rationale, since I have car insurance and life insurance ... I wouldn't need a seatbelt, right?
|
The seatbelt isn't used to hurt other peope, so the comparison is wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
The gun does not replace the necessity of basic preventative measures. Nor do preventative measures replace the function of a gun in self-defense. I'm not saying that you, in particular, need a gun. But it's not your business to tell me I don't need one.
|
You're not in San Francisco. If you were, then you'd be in a place where a majority of voters decided they didn't need a gun.