Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Tighter Gun Control and/or Banning of Guns


  • Please log in to reply
248 replies to this topic

#1 auto1571

auto1571

  • Members
  • 321 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:04 AM

Posted 29 October 2017 - 07:49 PM

I recently watched a video with Ben Shapiro and Piers Morgan having this debate in 2013. You can see the video here: if you're interested.

 

Moreover, I have to admit that I was stumped a bit by Shapiro in this video. I also agree on a lot of what Shapiro says in the video.

 

According to statistics, it is true that the majority of murders in the US are committed by handguns; not assault weapons, which Ben also states in the video.  And, here is a journalistic resource on it: https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/effectiveness-policies-programs-reduce-firearm-violence-meta-analysis

 

However, there have been recent mass shootings lately, with Vegas being the latest one. There were unfortunately 69 deaths. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2657418. Now compare that to 6,220 were committed with handguns in 2011. At the moment it probably does look like that handguns are more of a problem. But not so fast.

 

Let's just imagine that the 6,220 and 69 figures are within the same year and that the 6,220  figure is over a 12 month period. Now divide that by 12, you find you have the approximate 518 per month figure. Now divide that by 4 you then have the approximate 130 a week figure. Then divide that by 7 you have the approximate 19 a day figure.

 

Similarly, multiply 69 by 7 and you get you get 483 a week. Then multiply that by 4 and you get 1932 a month. Then times that by 12 and you get 23,184 every year. My point here is that assault weapons are capable of doing harm to thousands of more people than handguns, even though they may not be causing as much harm right now. 

 

However, My current stance is for tighter control on handguns in the US and I don't think there is any need for assault weapons for either self-defense or to protect the constitution.

 

 



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 OldPhil

OldPhil

    Doppleganger


  • Members
  • 4,129 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island New York
  • Local time:10:04 AM

Posted 27 January 2018 - 07:42 PM

You need to balance thoughts on gun control with what is happening around the world!

https://www.google.com/search?q=brits+want+their+guns+back&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&q=australia+gun+ban+failure&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2u9zwtPnYAhVONd8KHVxUCokQ1QIIcSgD&biw=1014&bih=508&dpr=1.88

 

Please do not quote the lefty Snopes BS they will print anything the lefties believe in!


Honesty & Integrity Above All!


#3 r.a.d.

r.a.d.

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:04 AM

Posted 27 January 2018 - 08:15 PM

This comes up and has been covered by many on this forum. Topic title examples-

Great Day For Weapons Manufacturers And NRA (5 pages)

Guns... are They the Problem? (19 pages)

These are just two on the Speak Easy's first page and there are probably others as well.
Bleepin' desert rat retiree in climes yet to fry brains (knock on cactus).

Past climes/best friend:  photo-91.gif

#4 NickAu

NickAu

    Bleepin' Fish Doctor


  • Moderator
  • 13,371 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:127.0.0.1 Australia
  • Local time:12:04 AM

Posted 14 February 2018 - 09:08 PM

Another school shooting in Florida 17 dead.

 

School massacre: Terrifying video shared by student inside classroom as shots fired
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/39009420/florida-school-shooting-terrifying-video-from-inside-classroom/



#5 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 8,593 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:10:04 AM

Posted 15 February 2018 - 11:50 AM

OldPhil,

 

 

You do nothing to advance any position you hold by denigrating a fact-checking source that is respected around the world.   Snopes is respected around the world for their now decades-long track record of accuracy.

 

Denigrating fact checkers in general is the practice of those who don't care one whit about the facts.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 

     . . . the presumption of innocence, while essential in the legal realm, does not mean the elimination of common sense outside it.  The willing suspension of disbelief has its limits, or should.

    ~ Ruth Marcus,  November 10, 2017, in Washington Post article, Bannon is right: It’s no coincidence The Post broke the Moore story


 

 

 

              

 


#6 OldPhil

OldPhil

    Doppleganger


  • Members
  • 4,129 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island New York
  • Local time:10:04 AM

Posted 15 February 2018 - 12:42 PM

Snopes is and has been far to political and found wrong many times, for some straighter answers try the link below plus Google!

 

https://www.truthorfiction.com/


Honesty & Integrity Above All!


#7 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 8,593 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:10:04 AM

Posted 15 February 2018 - 12:52 PM

http://newswerthy.com/entertainment/review-is-truthorfiction-com-a-trustworthy-website/

 

http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-09-28/story/fact-check-so-whos-checking-fact-finders-we-are

 

I could go on and on.   By the way, the evenhandedness of Snopes is mentioned again, and again, and again, in virtually all press coverage of the site, whether said press is slightly right of center or slightly left of center.   In other words, the mainstream media which is called mainstream because it is.


Edited by britechguy, 15 February 2018 - 12:58 PM.

Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 

     . . . the presumption of innocence, while essential in the legal realm, does not mean the elimination of common sense outside it.  The willing suspension of disbelief has its limits, or should.

    ~ Ruth Marcus,  November 10, 2017, in Washington Post article, Bannon is right: It’s no coincidence The Post broke the Moore story


 

 

 

              

 


#8 r.a.d.

r.a.d.

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:04 AM

Posted 15 February 2018 - 02:10 PM

I've relied on Snopes for years when seeking another avenue of info when researching a particular subject without partisan leanings. A short Wikipedia article about the site and its source of revenue:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com
Bleepin' desert rat retiree in climes yet to fry brains (knock on cactus).

Past climes/best friend:  photo-91.gif

#9 r.a.d.

r.a.d.

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:04 AM

Posted 15 February 2018 - 03:40 PM

Guns being the topic, Sunday night we watched the 60 Minutes segment about the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act pending. 

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, or House Bill 38, is a bill that would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to require all U.S. states to recognize concealed carry permits granted by other states. It would also allow the concealed transport of handguns across state lines, so long as it is allowed by both states, and would amend the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 to allow permit holders to carry a concealed weapon in school zones in any state.

A brief about it:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-showdown/

My wife and I (gun owners for decades) found it unsettling and don't agree as the prerequisites for carry vary from state to state (hard, with proper training or too soft).  

Not to spin the coin of this thread, but with the latest Florida tragic shootings (by an assault rifle legally purchased) there will be new furor coming from this.

 BTW, a quote as such controversial subjects can spin all over the map:

Discussion is an exchange of knowledge, argument is an exchange of ignorance. (Robert Quillen).
Bleepin' desert rat retiree in climes yet to fry brains (knock on cactus).

Past climes/best friend:  photo-91.gif

#10 NickAu

NickAu

    Bleepin' Fish Doctor


  • Moderator
  • 13,371 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:127.0.0.1 Australia
  • Local time:12:04 AM

Posted 16 February 2018 - 05:02 AM

Tighter gun control wont work, even if you passed laws today, with the number of guns in the USA it would be at least 20 or more years before you saw results. Americans just wont give up their guns. Banning guns wont work because they are too easy to smuggle into the USA.

 

I do not believe in Concealed Carry, you wanna carry a gun? Strap it to your hip where everybody can see it.



#11 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 8,593 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:10:04 AM

Posted 16 February 2018 - 10:47 AM

Nick,

 

         I agree with you 100% that tighter gun control laws in the United States would be unlikely to have any immediate effect, but without them you can be guaranteed that the carnage will continue, unabated.

 

         If serious gun control laws were ever to be enacted, which would include a complete ban on military-grade automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and very tight control over handgun sales, the laws covering sales would also have to extend to include sales by private individuals or estates.

 

         Our problem here isn't really the number of weapons "out there," per se, but the sheer number that are on the black or grey market.  We could go, as you say, for decades without much change if the gray market of sales by private individuals or estates that are in possession of firearms entirely legally aren't tightly regulated to ensure that the next purchaser is within the bounds of the laws of ownership.

 

          We've also got to get a lot more serious about monitoring individuals who make very public threats of violence and who have documented histories of antisocial behaviors and ensuring that they do not qualify to buy firearms.  This latest shooter was just a massacre waiting to happen, and it did.  Both the guns (or weapons in general, if you look at his social media) end and mental health end of things were completely ignored for all practical intents and purposes.

 

           I can't understand my fellow citizens who seem to think that their gun rights are more important than the citizenry's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  We've got to start somewhere.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 

     . . . the presumption of innocence, while essential in the legal realm, does not mean the elimination of common sense outside it.  The willing suspension of disbelief has its limits, or should.

    ~ Ruth Marcus,  November 10, 2017, in Washington Post article, Bannon is right: It’s no coincidence The Post broke the Moore story


 

 

 

              

 


#12 r.a.d.

r.a.d.

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:04 AM

Posted 16 February 2018 - 02:52 PM

Also Nick, though once entertaining and easily able to obtain a CCW permit due to the California county I was living in at the time, never bothered too, though we have friends who do. As far as a disarmament within the U.S. citizenry, there is simply too many to convince giving up such long-held lifestyles.
Responsible owners that we are, we would not want to (and wouldn't) change, though there are many folks who shouldn't own a gun at all.

There's a pro/con site , seemingly unbiased, about concealed-
https://concealedguns.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001609

Many times the mere presence of a visible firearm could discourage a potential circumstance from escalating  into an undesirable outcome, when a concealed weapon wouldn't.

Totally agree about military/assault type weapons being unnecessary  for home protection, recreation and definitely hunting 'Have some rabbit stew (plate of olives) but watch out for the pits (bullets).

Also,  deeper background checks, stringent  safety training and the proper use of a gun needs to accompany purchases.
 

Edited by r.a.d., 16 February 2018 - 02:56 PM.

Bleepin' desert rat retiree in climes yet to fry brains (knock on cactus).

Past climes/best friend:  photo-91.gif

#13 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 8,593 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:10:04 AM

Posted 16 February 2018 - 03:53 PM

r.a.d.,

 

           There is definitely a contingent in the population that has deep roots in gun ownership and, very often, hunting.  My own family would fit that description down through my own generation [though my brother is the hunter of the family, not me].  These folks are also generally not a problem.

 

           There are also a great many who own guns "for my protection" who don't have any idea how to use them correctly, and if anyone among that group has hero fantasies then I'm worried just as much about them acting on them as anything else.

 

           But there are also a lot of folks who own guns because they inherited them, have no desire to use them or even keep them, but do not want to sell them, either.  I think it would be a great idea if local police departments, twice a year, had "turn in your guns" day.  When these sorts of events are held it's often surprising just how many weapons get turned in for destruction.

 

           I'm 100% in agreement on background checks, gun use and safety training as a part of purchasing a gun and, if you haven't already completed the training, that this is required before you can take possession.  I also think that we're long overdue for a "gun user's license," much in the same vein as a driver's license and gun registration.

 

           The Founders were part of an agrarian society where most places other than cities were places where everyone literally knew everyone else and where gun safety and use training were a part of growing up.  The firearms of the period bear virtually no resemblance to what we have now and they knew quite well what went in to using them.  I'm firmly convinced that they're all spinning in their graves at the pure garbage that's been pushed by the NRA and accepted by Congress and the Supreme Court with regard to ownership of weapons they never could have conceived of.  The Supreme Court will, ultimately, reverse itself (unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed) with regard to completely ignoring the leading clause of the amendment itself.

 

            Sadly, I don't see any of this coming to fruition during my lifetime.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 

     . . . the presumption of innocence, while essential in the legal realm, does not mean the elimination of common sense outside it.  The willing suspension of disbelief has its limits, or should.

    ~ Ruth Marcus,  November 10, 2017, in Washington Post article, Bannon is right: It’s no coincidence The Post broke the Moore story


 

 

 

              

 


#14 r.a.d.

r.a.d.

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:04 AM

Posted 16 February 2018 - 04:58 PM

A great many years ago, a friend and former cop worked for me 7 years before getting his own contractor's license. Previously, he was an officer in 3 bad East L.A. precincts. Guns that he confiscated we're pieces of junk. Over the ensuing years, the gangbanger's weaponry improved dramatically.

Way back when, one answer emerged on 60 Minutes, our government. I forget which reporter, but he showed the easy, quick and simple steps taken to obtain his own FFL ( Federal Firearms License). The segment then showed the number of actual storefront and/or legit dealers vs. the far greater number of invisible dealers within the L.A. area (thousands) as well as the extremely low number of ATF employees assigned to monitor these dealers. Marginal would be an incredible overstatement.

Bingo, those lax federal licensing standards at the time opened the door (be it a garage or vehicle trunk) to brand new, legal and illegal firearms at very competitive prices devoid of overhead costs. I don't know if that same ease exists today.

britechguy, I usually use mobile version, sometimes Full, but just now saw your signature about mission in life test. Priceless!
Bleepin' desert rat retiree in climes yet to fry brains (knock on cactus).

Past climes/best friend:  photo-91.gif

#15 Bezukhov

Bezukhov

    Bleepin' Jazz Fan!


  • Members
  • 2,695 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Providence, R.I.
  • Local time:10:04 AM

Posted 16 February 2018 - 06:51 PM

Let's look at the real problem.

YOU DONT HAVE TO MAD TO OWN A GUN LICENSE, BUT IT HELPS
Satire

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2018/02/16/you-dont-have-to-mad-to-own-a-gun-license-but-it-helps/

Edited by Bezukhov, 16 February 2018 - 06:52 PM.

To err is Human. To blame it on someone else is even more Human.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users