Gun laws

David · 16th December 2008, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBJW

David- First off an "assault weapon" by definition capable of full automatic fire. Semi-autos are not therefore the dreaded assault weapon. I hunt with a semi-auto rifle, collect them (as well as blades), and use one to protect livestock. I do not care if you think they are necessary or not. You don't have to own one if you don't want to. If you lived in England you probably would have been all for the "assault sword" ban.

Well it is pretty hard to kill 164 people with a sword like they did in Mumbai. Of course those were assault weapons, not semi-automatic ones, i am aware of the difference and they are indeed "dreaded".
If you really feel you "need" a semi-automatic rifle to hunt and protect your live stock that's your business, but i'm not at all interested in fighting for your right to keep them. I don't need them. I'm also not interested in fighting to take them away from you either. You don't care if i think they are necessary or not, but you see, i don't care if big brother takes them away from you, so really i think it's best if we just agree to disagree. I am sure that you are personally being a responsible citizen with you guns. I am not convinced that we can assume the same for everyone though.

BBJW · 16th December 2008, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Well it is pretty hard to kill 164 people with a sword like they did in Mumbai. Of course those were assault weapons, not semi-automatic ones, i am aware of the difference and they are indeed "dreaded".
If you really feel you "need" a semi-automatic rifle to hunt and protect your live stock that's your business, but i'm not at all interested in fighting for your right to keep them. I don't need them. I'm also not interested in fighting to take them away from you either. You don't care if i think they are necessary or not, but you see, i don't care if big brother takes them away from you, so really i think it's best if we just agree to disagree. I am sure that you are personally being a responsible citizen with you guns. I am not convinced that we can assume the same for everyone though.

The fact is that many of those killed in Mumbai were killed by grenades and other explosives. 10 trained and determined terrs with other rifles/pistols and pump shotguns could have done almost as much damage. ALSO the Indian police had very poor equipment. Few or no walkie talkies. No night vision or thermal imaging and some were armed with bolt action Enfield rifles. Had the Indian police had better equipment and training there would have been fewer casualties.

You may not care about my Constitutional rights, but I care about yours and have fought for them and would do so again.

bbjw

David · 16th December 2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBJW

You may not care about my Constitutional rights, but I care about yours and have fought for them and would do so again.

The constitutional right that you speak of is open to vast interpretation. I feel not even a twinge of guilt for not stepping up and defending your right to owns guns that i personally don't believe should be in the hands of regular citizens. I also am not fighting to have them taken away from you, so why don't you just drop it and agree to disagree as i suggested. You are not going to change my mind on the subject.
I only got involved in this thread because i though Clockwork was misreading this bill and over reacting to it. In fact he was misreading the bill and thought appendix A was a ban list, not the exempt list that it actually is. I have no real interest in getting into a debate over the constitutionality of one's right to own semi-automatic or automatic weapons. That is a fool's debate and there will never be any winner.

Gonzalo G · 16th December 2008, 07:23 AM

We all come from a very different societies. There are many motivations and obscure fears behind the gun control. I would pont the matter as follows:

* What right does a State has to impose over it´s subjects any limitation to their liberty, if it does not constitute an actual offense against the criminal law? Which is the limit of the State to make laws constraining civil and personal rights? Like the right to defend the live against a criminal activity not controlled by the same State which pretends to disarm the civil society.

In the past and in the present, the protestant societies had intended to control the personal behaviour over the basis of moral values. So it came the Prohibition. What the Prohibition did to control crime and alcoholism? Nothing. It only created an inmense and powerfull network of organized crime, and it grew to stay indifinitely in the basement of the social and political order. What does the laws against drug consuming and trafficking had made to stop the traffic and drug related crimes? Nothing, it only has created a new generation of a more powerfull organized crime, and more offcial corruption. Lets face the facts: laws must be evaluated against statistics and efficacy indexes. This prohibitions have a great economic burden over the pockets of the public, without significant results. It only maintain an inmense state police bureaucracy with few results. Meanwhile people wants drugs, alcohol or guns, they will get them at any cost, and they will be sold to enrich the organized crime, no matter prohibitions.

* What confidence would we give to political tycoons to legislate in favour of the people, when they only live to their personal benefit? Are they to be trusted? Threir personal criteria is always correct, or instead, they bend to the side of convenience?

In the catolic Latin America, gun control is exercised to mantain an overwhelming superiority od the represive organs of the State over a population exploited by an oligarchy, with their parodies of democracy, which is in fact a clientelist order permeated by an inmense corruption. In Mexico, there was no gun control until the rise of the gerrilla movement, originated on the stupid and inept measures of a deeply authoritarian government. I purchased my first own gun at Sears at 18 years old without any requirement but my money, and the criminal rate was VERY low at that time. Now, we have gun control since then, and a very high rate of gun involved homicides. Crime is not controlled with efficacy because crime is good business. The common criminal pays to the police to recive protection, and the money flows up, to the highest levels. Organized crime is a better business. They pay directly to the highest levels. And they have rocket launchers, assault rifles, machineguns, cal .50 BMG sniper rifles, armoued cars, hand grenades and so on. How it is possible, without the protection of somebody, some institutions, very important? We have a great wave of violence on the country for this reason. And meanwhile, the governments tightens the gun control over the civil and honest population, which is defenseless. So...

* The fact is that crime violence is not affected by gun control, only good citizens register their guns. The other violence, comming from psychopaths, sociopaths and unadaptated people, is generated by the same societies which suddenly are afraid of what they have created theirselves. Poverty, racism, opression and ignorance are different forms of violence, and every form of violence exercised over some people, generates an equivalent response. Just take a night trip to the hoods to see. The public cult of the violence on the media is another factor. But nobody tries to control it, because movies, TV programs and other media, are good business. You can limit the rights of the people, but don´t try to touch the big business. What we need is to change the social context. This, can limit more efectively the violence, alcoholism and drug consumption. I understand the canadians have more guns per capita than USA americans, but a very low index of violent homicides....why? Why they do not sepeak so insistently about gun control? Why in Mexico, with so few guns on the hands of the honest vast majority of the population, we don´t have a SINGLE gun store in the whole country, and all comes from the black market? Because it is good business, because it generates many money to the dealers, and their protectors, the corrupt politicians and police officers. So, you can purchase a black market pistol, and register it if it´s caliber is legally accepted by the law, without questions asked. Of course, guns are very expensive in this way, but you can get ANY gun you want, legal or not.

The entire world is now in a recession. The financial capital had used the lack of international controls to make big and unethical speculative business to the expense of the general economic stability, producing another deep cyclic crisis. We all going to suffer this situation. This, will bring more gun violence on the streets, more drug adictions and more alcoholism. But, where are the intentions to control this, more dangerous weapons? They try to give aspirins to cure a pneumonia, but they do not fight against the roots of the sickness. This is hypocrisy. We don´t need gun control. We need to control our politicians....and the too smart people. I respect the pain of the persons who had sufered a loss on the hands of the senseless violence, but this is no reason to make many other inocent people to pay for this.

Please excuse me for this protest. I am not a liberal. I am not a right wing follower. I am only a citizen tired of all this situation. More gun control is going to be a big business for some people, but useless. Today, the ban against assault rifles has expirated since 2005, I believe. The criminal statistics did not change with the ban, or without the ban. The ban has no effect over society. They only give a false and temporary sense of security. The ban only limits honest people. And the problems are not resolved with laws, though bad laws creates many serious problems...and good business for the too smart people.

By the way, Manolo, it was not Bonnie and Clyde, it was Dillinger.

Regards

Gonzalo

16th December 2008, 07:23 AM	#4
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	We all come from a very different societies. There are many motivations and obscure fears behind the gun control. I would pont the matter as follows: * What right does a State has to impose over it´s subjects any limitation to their liberty, if it does not constitute an actual offense against the criminal law? Which is the limit of the State to make laws constraining civil and personal rights? Like the right to defend the live against a criminal activity not controlled by the same State which pretends to disarm the civil society. In the past and in the present, the protestant societies had intended to control the personal behaviour over the basis of moral values. So it came the Prohibition. What the Prohibition did to control crime and alcoholism? Nothing. It only created an inmense and powerfull network of organized crime, and it grew to stay indifinitely in the basement of the social and political order. What does the laws against drug consuming and trafficking had made to stop the traffic and drug related crimes? Nothing, it only has created a new generation of a more powerfull organized crime, and more offcial corruption. Lets face the facts: laws must be evaluated against statistics and efficacy indexes. This prohibitions have a great economic burden over the pockets of the public, without significant results. It only maintain an inmense state police bureaucracy with few results. Meanwhile people wants drugs, alcohol or guns, they will get them at any cost, and they will be sold to enrich the organized crime, no matter prohibitions. * What confidence would we give to political tycoons to legislate in favour of the people, when they only live to their personal benefit? Are they to be trusted? Threir personal criteria is always correct, or instead, they bend to the side of convenience? In the catolic Latin America, gun control is exercised to mantain an overwhelming superiority od the represive organs of the State over a population exploited by an oligarchy, with their parodies of democracy, which is in fact a clientelist order permeated by an inmense corruption. In Mexico, there was no gun control until the rise of the gerrilla movement, originated on the stupid and inept measures of a deeply authoritarian government. I purchased my first own gun at Sears at 18 years old without any requirement but my money, and the criminal rate was VERY low at that time. Now, we have gun control since then, and a very high rate of gun involved homicides. Crime is not controlled with efficacy because crime is good business. The common criminal pays to the police to recive protection, and the money flows up, to the highest levels. Organized crime is a better business. They pay directly to the highest levels. And they have rocket launchers, assault rifles, machineguns, cal .50 BMG sniper rifles, armoued cars, hand grenades and so on. How it is possible, without the protection of somebody, some institutions, very important? We have a great wave of violence on the country for this reason. And meanwhile, the governments tightens the gun control over the civil and honest population, which is defenseless. So... * The fact is that crime violence is not affected by gun control, only good citizens register their guns. The other violence, comming from psychopaths, sociopaths and unadaptated people, is generated by the same societies which suddenly are afraid of what they have created theirselves. Poverty, racism, opression and ignorance are different forms of violence, and every form of violence exercised over some people, generates an equivalent response. Just take a night trip to the hoods to see. The public cult of the violence on the media is another factor. But nobody tries to control it, because movies, TV programs and other media, are good business. You can limit the rights of the people, but don´t try to touch the big business. What we need is to change the social context. This, can limit more efectively the violence, alcoholism and drug consumption. I understand the canadians have more guns per capita than USA americans, but a very low index of violent homicides....why? Why they do not sepeak so insistently about gun control? Why in Mexico, with so few guns on the hands of the honest vast majority of the population, we don´t have a SINGLE gun store in the whole country, and all comes from the black market? Because it is good business, because it generates many money to the dealers, and their protectors, the corrupt politicians and police officers. So, you can purchase a black market pistol, and register it if it´s caliber is legally accepted by the law, without questions asked. Of course, guns are very expensive in this way, but you can get ANY gun you want, legal or not. The entire world is now in a recession. The financial capital had used the lack of international controls to make big and unethical speculative business to the expense of the general economic stability, producing another deep cyclic crisis. We all going to suffer this situation. This, will bring more gun violence on the streets, more drug adictions and more alcoholism. But, where are the intentions to control this, more dangerous weapons? They try to give aspirins to cure a pneumonia, but they do not fight against the roots of the sickness. This is hypocrisy. We don´t need gun control. We need to control our politicians....and the too smart people. I respect the pain of the persons who had sufered a loss on the hands of the senseless violence, but this is no reason to make many other inocent people to pay for this. Please excuse me for this protest. I am not a liberal. I am not a right wing follower. I am only a citizen tired of all this situation. More gun control is going to be a big business for some people, but useless. Today, the ban against assault rifles has expirated since 2005, I believe. The criminal statistics did not change with the ban, or without the ban. The ban has no effect over society. They only give a false and temporary sense of security. The ban only limits honest people. And the problems are not resolved with laws, though bad laws creates many serious problems...and good business for the too smart people. By the way, Manolo, it was not Bonnie and Clyde, it was Dillinger. Regards Gonzalo Last edited by Gonzalo G; 16th December 2008 at 07:38 AM.