Current weather

  • Clear sky
  • 36°
    Clear sky
  • Comment

A red herring in the gun control debate

Posted: January 14, 2013 - 9:39am

I lived in Alaska for 18 years beginning in 1967. I taught school in a variety of settings, flew airplanes, was in business, and babbled for a while in a column on these pages. There were ups, and downs. Since leaving, I’ve lived for a long time in several countries where guns are vigorously controlled (Australia, France, Ireland, China, and The United Kingdom). I have come to think the following is obviously true.

I have been a gun owner and hunter for over 50 of my 71 years. Hunting moose and caribou for the table, many of my days have been spent in areas of Alaska well populated by brown bear. Doing so, I have never felt I needed more than the five cartridges held in the magazine of my hunting rifle. Only once did I see another hunter bring a military style, assault rifle, to the field, only to be greeted with knowing smiles from more experienced riflemen. We wondered why the hunter didn’t spend time improving his marksmanship, instead of packing all those heavy extra bullets around in an area where one shot should be enough to kill the prey we were after.

There is a red herring being championed by the NRA and other gun fanatics, unscrupulous legislators, gun manufacturers and those in debt to them, and uninformed, inexperienced members of the press. It is the idea that it is too difficult, even impossible, to define the line separating weapons a private citizen has a legitimate need for, and right to have, from those for which there is no Constitutional, hunting, or self-protection justification for owning. That is nonsense.

We need to make a clear distinction between the firepower of law enforcement, and that of the general populace. That distinction protects the law abiding, and threatens those who are not. It will take many years to do the job completely. We have polluted our environment with millions of guns that should not be in private hands. Collecting them will take effort, education, and, from time to time, force. It should be a federal felony for a private citizen to possess any weapon capable of semiautomatic or fully automatic fire after a period of “No questions asked” opportunity to turn them in for disposal.

The Second Amendment was written at a time when the most powerful weapon a person could carry was a muzzle loading, smooth bore, flintlock long gun. Only an expert could fire it as many as four times a minute, and not for very long. Modern semiautomatic and fully automatic weapons are able to fire four to nine times a second. They may be fitted with magazines carrying one hundred or more cartridges available for purchase over the internet. No questions are asked beyond, “Credit card number?” That is a situation the civilized world legitimately calls “insane.”

We have already barred the private possession of fully automatic weapons except under strict registration requirements. They are almost never used in the commission of a crime. Regarding semiautomatic firearms, we have seen schools shot up, people cut down on the streets of our cities and university campuses, gun fights with our police forces that kill and injure public servants, and a broadening opinion among the populace that such weapons should be in their closet or desk drawer as the result of our toleration of their profusion. Many states now permit people to have such weapons hidden on their person. It is time to take a simply defined and politically demanding action to reduce substantially such scenarios, and partially redeem our standing among the civilized countries of the world.

We should immediately outlaw the private possession of any weapon capable of semiautomatic or automatic fire, and magazines for any firearm capable of holding more than six cartridges. Again, barring such weapons is entirely consistent with the citizens right under the Constitution to bear arms. Under such a law, a citizen could still lawfully possess revolvers, single shot weapons, pump action shotguns, and/or bolt, pump, or lever action rifles, even a muzzle loading, smooth bore, flintlock long gun. We would be prevented from being able to cut down trees, or huddled masses in a mall, with a burst from our “hunting rifle.”

We should be.

  • Comment

Comments (233) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/28/13 - 01:24 pm
0
1
@Raoulduke

Then we are friends.

I will tell you as clearly as I can what I think is true, and I promise to listen closely and ask questions until I convince you that I have heard you. I freely admit that I may be wrong in some part, or the entirety, of my philosophy. I love to change my mind when I encounter convincing evidence. I am always interested in learning, and I am certain I can benefit from conversing with you.

I suspect we want the same things in general. We want the future to better for our children than the past was for us. Neither of us wants to see another young person sent off to die, or to kill. We both love our country.

How am I doing so far?

Raoulduke
3014
Points
Raoulduke 01/28/13 - 03:01 pm
0
1
the same

JDB- Your second paragraph has convinced me.A rational thinker can not argue that point.You,and I have the same sentiment on those issues.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 01/28/13 - 04:45 pm
1
0
Background checks are no solution.

The right to bear arms is not based on how smart or dumb you are. You can be a dumb or low intelligence person and still have a right to defend yourself or your family. Sure we have crazy people in this world who should not have access to guns, knifes, swords, bombs or anything else which could be used to commit illegal actions. How are you going to list off everything out there they could use to do something dumb? Are you going to have a background checks for EVERYTHING? Are you going to have a background check to buy a gallon of gasoline? There is more destructive force in a gallon of gas than any semi-auto firearm. Are you going to reach around the nation and background check everyone for everything? Believe it or not firearms background checks can never solve the problem of "bad people doing bad things". Background checks are the lazy mans way of trying to address bad people doing bad things.

Rather than addressing the difficult question of how to stop "bad people", these people want to do it with an easy-breezy background check. If the logic of background checks works why don't we just do background checks to stop crime in general? Are you a dope dealer? Give them a background check so they can't buy prescription medications that can be used to make illegal drugs. Are you a bank robber? Give them a background check so they can't buy body armor or ski masks. Are you a shop lifter? Give them a background check before they can enter a department store. Are you a murder? Give them a background check to stop them from getting guns, knifes, ropes, shovels or garbage bags. Are you a psycho sniper? Give them a background check so they can't purchase an assault rifle. The background check solution is a TOTALLY corrupt and non-functional solution, it would not stopl any of the above.

If you want to address "bpdbt's" you have to address the indivugal people involved, not what they might have done in the past. You either get out in front of it with a billion dollar campaign to find out who is crazy in America or you simply take that money and dump it into law enforcement, prisons, electric chairs and gas chambers. Once the odds of being caught and put to death starts becoming very likely, most of the nation will be good. The remaining official nut-jobs should be pulled off the streets with "crazy person fly-paper". Crazy person fly-paper would be government programs designed to give crazy people what they want most regardless as to what it is, in order to get them off the streets. An example would be to establish drug cities where drug addicts could go to get free drugs but they would have to sign up for long-term contacts to get into the drug city. The addicts are off the streets and most of them would never get out of the drug city alive anyway. The result would be a better world for non-drug addicts. The same could be done for crazy persons, setup special cities for them, give them whatever they want, sign them up for long term contracts. If they can somehow manage to get healthy again then they could return to normal society, if not they stay. You may believe these possible solutions to be far out but they are no worse than expecting a background check to stop a crazy person from doing something crazy.

normolson
389
Points
normolson 01/28/13 - 05:56 pm
1
0
Well Said

R, you said, "Years ago I had sworn an oath to protect,and defend this country from all enemies foreign,or domestic. I completed my military service requirement.But the oath I had sworn to this country.Still goes.I would not pick up arms against my country."

Nor would I, ever. But what if this country is no longer yours? It is now in the hands of greedy corporate powers who control the legislature and the courts. Would you take up arms if "your" country turns against you?
Is your allegience to your country more powerful than freedom? What if your country began to function like Stalin's Soviet Union or Hitler's Germany? Would you stand by waving the flag if the Bill of Rights is under attack?

normolson
389
Points
normolson 01/28/13 - 06:18 pm
1
0
JDB said, "The issue here is,

JDB said, "The issue here is, do we think ordinary citizens have a Constitutional right to possess semiautomatic and fully automatic firearms, no matter their state of mind, however disrupted or not. I think it is clear that they do not, and that we would be a far more safe country if they didn't have them."

And herein is the slippery slope. Who determines who is mentally competent to keep, bear, and operate semi-and-fully-automatic weapons.

Isn't it convenient that the same central government that has the power to make the laws is also able to determine that a person is mentally imbalanced. What if "ultra" or "hyper" Patriotism becomes a crime. What if super-patriotism is deemed a mental illness. Don't think it hasn't happened.

Better to give the victim of gross injustice and tyranny a weapon to fight back than to become a victim unable to defend himself!

I don't fear crazies with guns. The REAL threat is the kind of jingoism that Raoulduke spoke about when he said that he "took an oath to defend the country against enemies foreign and domestic." I never took that oath. The one I took reads, " I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Notice the difference? Defending the Constitution against domestic enemies is a far different thing than defending the country against domestic enemies since patriot/militia people could be called enemies of the country.
Forgetting the Constitution is a dangerous thing to do.

Sam Von Pufendorf
1088
Points
Sam Von Pufendorf 01/28/13 - 07:57 pm
1
0
Those that make convoluted

Those that make convoluted laws are charged with enforcing the same and in this case, creating the guidelines for for those laws.
But you missed one point. As Mr Bishop stated: "In general, however, I would say there will be people who disobey laws making such a change in the categories of weapons they may possess. They would be outlaws in that case, and will and should feel the full impact of the common will." In other words, such laws would turn what had been for years, law abiding citizens and turn them into criminals. People who had possessed the now outlawed arms for years (legally) are now outlaws themselves having done nothing wrong for years. This in itself should be cause to wonder. The "grandfather clause" in NY would permit the sale or transfer of the arms outside the state. I wonder if willing it in your estate would be such a transfer. If not, then when the owner dies, the state would be come the new owner of that registered arm.
The problem I have with registration of such arms would be that the government now would know where to go get those arms when the time comes to take them should they so decide this would be the next logical step in "gun control."

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
-Jefferson-

normolson
389
Points
normolson 01/28/13 - 10:37 pm
1
0
Blast From The Past

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL7MRXXF2VE

Years ago we had the same discussion we're having today. Perhaps Mr. Bishop needs to realize that things aren't going to change.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/29/13 - 12:01 am
1
2
Sad FYI

Whatever one thinks about this issue, this incident brings out an issue, the heartlessness of many gun fanatics, that gun owners must get under control or they will lose at the ballot box.

There is no way to consider it good P.R., or good politics, or decent in any way. It is a losing strategy.

People who like guns, and also have a sense of humanity, had better learn how to control the trolls among us, or reap the whirlwind.

http://jezebel.com/5979772/father-of-six+year+old-newtown-victim-heckled...

I view the following remark, posted above by 'normolson' as indicative of the sort of attitude that will bring us all down.

'...Isn't it convenient that the same central government that has the power to make the laws is also able to determine that a person is mentally imbalanced. What if "ultra" or "hyper" Patriotism becomes a crime. What if super-patriotism is deemed a mental illness. Don't think it hasn't happened....'

The secret of a civilized society is the 'consent of the governed.' Jean Jacques Rousseau, in 1762, wrote a book about the idea that we are born into a society, and as citizens grant the power to govern us in exchange for services provided to those to whom we give power. If there is no such contract between the masses and the government, there is chaos. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin et al were very familiar with Rousseau and the other political philosophers prominent during the 18th century, Hobbs, Locke, and others, and read and discussed their work enthusiastically. The philosophers influenced our Declaration Of Independence, the Constitution, and our lives today very dramatically.

We hold as a fundamental assumption that a people, properly informed, has the skill and the right to govern itself. I place great emphasis on 'properly informed.' One must read many sources, listen to many points of view, and be ready to change their mind to be 'properly informed.' I think Mr. Olson gives evidence of only accepting one point of view, his own, and being ridged regarding the idea that he might need to compromise with others. That is dogma, not thought, and one need not read a great deal of history to know what fruit that tree bears. Yes, '...super-patriotism (may be) deemed a mental illness...' and, in my opinion, should be. 'Super-patriotism' has many names. Some of them are, 'racism,' 'the Taliban,' 'old time religion,' 'National Socialism,' and 'Fascism.' Each of those put forward the premise that one point of view should dominate all others, and compromise is wrong. A democracy cannot function that way.

We have a system for coming to an decision about what we are going to have as our ruling written laws. Almost all of us have the right to participate. If we don't like what the law says, we have the right to try and convince our friends and associates to change it, as we obey it in the interim, or pay the price for not doing so. I expect my government to use all of its power to protect itself, and me and my family, from those among us who would make their opinion about anything the only thing that matters.

Raoulduke
3014
Points
Raoulduke 01/29/13 - 05:40 am
0
1
oath

Norm- I was paraphrasing.I could not remember word for word,But I still stand by my oath.The answer to your question about who makes the decision on who is competent to own firearms.Well! It is the same powers that be that make the decision to allow you the privilege to drive on the open roads.
You have made scenarios of my country failing.I truly believe none of those will come to pass in my lifetime.If,and I do mean if.Any of them come to pass.Such as a Stalin Soviet Union,Which crumbled.Hitlers Nazi Germany wreaked havoc,but the country ended in a pile of rubble.If my country takes those type of paths.Then the legislators have perjured themselves by taking their oath of office,and my country will no longer exist,and so would my oath.

Raoulduke
3014
Points
Raoulduke 01/29/13 - 08:58 am
1
0
background checks

Kenai 123
The background checks should come before the fact.How do you know if someone is a bank robber,drug dealer,or any other felon? You do the background checks first-not last. Criminals will not tell you the truth. as the law stands now.A felon can not possess,or be in close proximity of any firearms period.So! They just have to lie.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 01/29/13 - 09:37 am
2
0
Let's do a test Ireland.

Okay let's end the great gun controversy. Let's do a test city in America. Let's have the U.S. Government put out a call for a large city in America to stand up and actually volunteer to test all the crazy theories of the left wing radical anti-gun extremists. Let's ask for a large city to accept the challenge to ban all guns for 5 - 10 years into the future with a sun-set clause, which voids the ban at the end of the test. After the test anyone out there who wants to also ban or restrict their guns LET THEM! We just do really good guns and crime studies prior to the ban within and around the chosen city and we all sit back and watch for the end results.

I will predict that EVERY criminal out their will pack up their bags and head for that chosen city, thus the crime rate will soar to unbelievable levels in that chosen city. Victims in that city would soar to unbelievable levels. Residences of that city would move out and the city would begin to dissolve as it becomes a crumbling criminal center which would eventually start branching out its tentacles to its near by neighbor cities. That "bad apple city" would act as the first of many domino cities which would later fall under the same dissolving / criminal influence. Once the test is complete the whole nation could change its gun policies accordingly. Gun controversy ended. You could do the same thing for any kind of partial gun ban also. The results would not be as dramatic time wise but would eventually result in the same kind of social changes. Why wreak the entire nation while attempting to prove anti-gun policies? Just make a test anti gun city. We should have lots of places willing to stand up to become a test city. Once we have a couple good tests under our belts then we can go ahead with wisdom as to what will happen to our world around us. The first city out there willing to step up and be a test city "should be" one in good old Northern, Ireland. I await the test results from Drogheda. In Drogheda it's acceptable to strap on your semi-auto firearm and go grocery shopping! Try that in your local Fred Meyer's! And so JD lives in Ireland while sending out mass anti-gun propaganda to America where it's not okay shop with your moose rifle? Ireland has a history of 1.1% of its residences causing the other 98.9% A LOT OF TROUBLE. Now they are exporting their trouble to us courtesy of the Clarion. The Clarion deletes our local Alaskan posters and then imports posters from Ireland...I wonder if the Clarion is trying to make a statement here...
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGdUxQ8QdRmH8AE2xXNyoA?p=Norther++...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

"We have less crime here because we have armed home-owners. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland#cite_note-26

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein,
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-uk-gun-ban-3819560.html

-------------------------------

"How has that UK gun ban been working?
In the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's. 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. "
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-uk-gun-ban-3819560.html

------------------------

Curio
18
Points
Curio 01/29/13 - 11:35 am
1
0
@kenai123

I see you try to make a point that gun control would turn an American city into a violent criminal playground, but you link to a Wikipedia article about Gun Politics in the UK that shows the UK having a much lower gun homicide rate -

"The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany's 0.21 (3 times higher)."

- a much lower homicide rate overall -

"The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales."

- the UK and US having very similar crime rates overall -

"The United Kingdom has a total recorded crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people; the United States of America records approximately 80."

- and something about that violent crime rate doubling -

"In 2008 The Independent reported that there were 42 gun-related deaths in Great Britain, a 20-year low. However, in late 2009 The Telegraph reported that gun crime had doubled in the last 10 years, with an increase in both firearms offences and deaths. A government spokesman said this increase was a result of a change in reporting practices in 2001 and that gun crime had actually fallen since 2005. Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary (an opposition party spokesperson), attributed the rise to ineffective policing and an out-of-control gang culture. A 2006 statistical analysis found no measurable effect detectable from the 1997 firearms legislation."

Don't use that source!

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/29/13 - 12:32 pm
1
1
@curio

Thanks for that data, not that it will do any good. The difference between religion and science is that a religious person, all too often, considers it a virtue to ignore and reject any information that clashes with what they believe to be true, witness the slow tendency to accept Evolutionary Theory in the very religious U.S. In contrast, Science changes what it thinks is true when it encounters new information, and good scientists love to do that because they realize that changing one's mind is essential to learning anything.

Guns nuts have a religious 'belief' in their gun culture, not a way of thinking that can conceive of and adapt to new information. Getting many of them to grasp that criminalizing the possession of semi and fully automatic weapons is not necessarily in violation of the Second Amendment is very challenging. Many of them seem to consider themselves and their friends to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution means, and not the Supreme Court. Some even suggest they will take up ams against our country if their military assault weapons are threatened. It is very strange, and reflects the ineffective way in which American Government and History is taught and learned in our high schools.

Curio
18
Points
Curio 01/29/13 - 01:43 pm
1
0
It's impossible to change

It's impossible to change anyone's opinion on anything. I was just pointing out bad cherry-picking.

If I wanted to accomplish something worthwhile, I couldn't think of a bigger way to fail than to argue with strangers on the internet.

Luvflyfishing
214
Points
Luvflyfishing 01/29/13 - 02:05 pm
1
0
I AGREE

@Curio

I have read a lot of good articles on this forum. A lot of the opinions I agree with and some I do not.
That is ALL they are is just opinions which everyone has a right too. Thank you very much for your post.
Some who post here think they have to convince the others that they are absolutely correct and that their opinion is the only correct one.
As I can tell thus far, no one person has changed the world with their opinions. :-). However, it does give us to a chance to see the variance in people in the world.
Thanks again and God Bless You!

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/29/13 - 02:18 pm
1
2
@Curio

We are in a pickle, and persuasion is a better way to get out of it than civil war. I have a lot of time each day to jabber about these issues, and actually learn a great deal by conversing with people having strong opinions, some of them informed. A lot of it is disappointing, but I have to admit it is a big part of our country.

normolson
389
Points
normolson 01/29/13 - 03:10 pm
0
0
He's Absolutely Correct!

Mr. Bishop stated:
"We hold as a fundamental assumption that a people, properly informed, has the skill and the right to govern itself."

Amen and amen! That is precisely what is happening. It is precisely what the Declaration of Independence said. What people are learning every day is that the central government's power is drawn from the people. As we the people give up power to the central government, it continues to grow and as it grows, it becomes more corrupted. As it's power condenses, centralizes, and consolidates, it begins to deny individual rights until finally, the power that the people had to govern themselves disappears.
Ironically, Mr. B, with every effort to rob an informed people of their inalienable rights, they become more defiant.
There has never been a nation that has survived tyranny by simply amassing the people and voting the tyrant out. Only with the force of arms behind them can a free people survive.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 01/29/13 - 04:35 pm
1
0
Curio, Higher American homicide rate is blacks on black murders.

Curio, The higher American homicide rate is higher only because of social reasons. More than half of those murders are all blacks on black murders within the inner cities.
This has little to do with guns and much much more to do with why black men enjoy killing other back men. That social phenomena "black on black murder" cannot be used to hide the fact that gun control is a complete failure in the UK and that American cities enjoy A LOT LESS crime in general. Gee I wonder why? Yor are trying to bury a social problem with gun control.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein,
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-uk-gun-ban-3819560.html

"Murders in the USA has declined by 11,000 since 1992, because more people in the USA own guns. 80% of murders happen in metropolitan areas, and 50% of all murders are committed by blacks. It's a culture problem, not the presence of guns. The presence of political correctness that refuses to say, "blacks, get control of your attitudes".
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-uk-gun-ban-3819560.html

"The murder rate among Blacks is seven times greater than among whites."
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=dfc7a4...

"In some areas of the country it is now more likely for a black male between his 15th and 25th birthday to die from homicide than it was for a United States soldier to be killed on a tour of duty in Vietnam," said Dr. Froehlke, an epidemiologist with the agency"

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/07/us/homicide-rate-up-for-young-blacks.html

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/29/13 - 03:46 pm
0
0
@kenai123

I went looking for some data regarding your remark that '...More than half of those murders are all blacks on black murders within the inner cities....' and found this interactive source.

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemapdetail.jsp?typ=3&ind=115&cat=2...

I can't make it support your claim.

Curio
18
Points
Curio 01/29/13 - 05:22 pm
0
0
@kenai123

It stands to reason that if "an armed society is a polite society," then the heavily-armed black urban gang environment that is supposedly inflating our homicide rate should be the politest society of all.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/29/13 - 10:53 pm
0
1
@curio

I spent a large portion of my life in various roles that involved teaching, and I am a happy man because I did. I spent time in classes from first grade through grad school in various places, and as an instructor and designee in airline work. A teacher has to believe that people can change their mind, and the minds of others. Because I have seen it happen many times, I know people, including myself, have the ability to change their mind in the face of new information. They need to be taught it is a virtue to do so, and our schools and society don't do so well at that. Regarding this issue, the criminalization of semiautomatic weapons, there has been very little actual data on offer from proponents of the weapons, mostly strong emotion. I learned such feelings exist, and a bit about how strong they are among some of those writing here, and that was my primary objective.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/30/13 - 04:03 am
0
1
FYI

This is the sort of thing that will cause us to have a Constitutional Amendment election that bars all guns.

Just because one can do something doesn't mean one should do something. This is a young man who has his head in a place where 'the sun don't shine,' and he is not the only one.

http://www.nbc29.com/story/20755619/kroger-gun-stunt-sparks-2nd-amendmen...

Here are two thoughtful pieces on the subject.

One...

http://verdict.justia.com/2012/12/26/what-gun-regulations-will-the-supre...

Two...

http://verdict.justia.com/2013/01/02/what-gun-regulations-will-the-supre...

Obfuscate
235
Points
Obfuscate 01/30/13 - 11:58 am
0
0
Too funny

"Because I have seen it happen many times, I know people, including myself, have the ability to change their mind in the face of new information." - This is too funny; see below.

"A teacher has to believe that people can change their mind, and the minds of others." - I believe this is where you stand. You see yourself as "the teacher" and feel the right to change the minds of others. But what you have been "teaching" here is not fact, it is your opinion or the opinions of others that align with your opinion. That is not teaching, it is preaching. Pretty humorous considering your recent post on religion vs. science....

"Regarding this issue, the criminalization of semiautomatic weapons, there has been very little actual data on offer from proponents of the weapons, mostly strong emotion." - The first and foremost data, that you so promptly ignore, is the fact that the previous assault weapons ban did not stop all tragedies from occuring. The next bit of data that you choose to ignore is the fact that criminals don't follow the rules. Banning semiautomatic weapons will not prevent bad people from obtaining them. All you have done is help to prove that what Curio stated above is most likely true - you are not debating to teach, you are debating to win.

"This is the sort of thing that will cause us to have a Constitutional Amendment election that bars all guns." - I will retype this phrase from "the other point of view".

" This is the sort of fear-inducing drama that the news media has been using for decades to scare citizens into believing "guns" are bad. It will likely continue to happen until the news media (a majority of which takes an anti-gun posture) frightens enough people into believing that a constitutional amendment banning guns will make them safe. "

Mr. Bishop - You are too funny.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 02/10/13 - 06:57 am
0
0
Further FYI

Substantiation for the fact that more Americans have been killed by gunfire within the borders of the United States by firearms since 1960 alone than in all wars fought by the United States since the War For Independence COMBINED.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/20/more-americans-have-died-from-do...

spwright
1376
Points
spwright 02/10/13 - 10:04 am
0
0
Change Nothing ?

2/10/13 Really ? Are You Serious ?
Do you really believe that Nothing needs to Change ?

Could you honestly stand before the Parents of the Sandy Hook Ele. Students & Teachers & then state :

Everything is Just Fine, Sorry for Your Loss, but we are not going to change a thing.

SPW

Sam Von Pufendorf
1088
Points
Sam Von Pufendorf 02/10/13 - 05:26 pm
0
0
Change

SPW, there will be change. It is a matter of in what form the change will come. No one, not even the NRA promoted "no change" or maintain the status quo.
If this were such a simple problem to solve, it would have been solved decades ago.
Proposed changes range from weapons and magazine bans, to education and mental healthcare with a range of changes in between. Some, such as JDB, propose a ban on all semi automatic weapons. That, in my opinion, is not realistic.
One change that needs to occur is taking place ... discussion amongst the people what change needs to take place.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 02/10/13 - 07:53 pm
2
0
Sam Von Pufendorf

I will tell you what kind of change needs to happen. We need to weed out the nut cases and drop them into prison camps or cities where they can get what they need for free from the government and not leave until there long-term relocation contract has ended. Then our judicial system should be changed to dispense quick justice, special courts for persons who use weapons to commit crime. Once convicted no probation and on the second offense deportation from the U.S..

Notice that all these suggestions target the people who commit crimes and not the tools they attempt to use to commit the crimes. This is Obamo's main problem, he is so dumb that he really believes he can remove the crime by removing the tools and he is out of his mind. You cannot prevent nuclear war by banning nuclear bombs and you can't prevent gun murders by banning guns. You really have to start thinking, you cannot just go around trying to stomp out spot fires when the whole forest is on fire. You must address the people who think they can murder people and get away with it. You have to prove to them that they cannot get away with it. Just playing with the tools will do nothing but waste your time and your words. You have to address the people involved.

Okay, how about if I were to get Sam banned from posting with the Clarion? Does anyone think that would stop Sam or JB from posting gun control stupidity? No, both would just go on posting somewhere else. We have to actually address them and not the Clarion tool they are using. Gun control is the same you have to address the people not the tools.

Back to Top

Spotted

Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321268/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321253/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321248/
  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321243/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321208/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/320593/
  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321173/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321163/
My Gallery

CONTACT US

  • 150 Trading Bay Rd, Kenai, AK 99611
  • Switchboard: 907-283-7551
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-283-3584
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Business Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-335-1257
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback

ADVERTISING

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES

SOCIAL NETWORKING

MORRIS ALASKA NEWS