Bleach violence, weapons of war, and the numbers game. What problem are we trying to solve? (Page 3)

"Historically, who has waged war? The State has waged war. So by giving it the label "Weapon of War" in essence that label is saying "No civilian shall have access to this item. This item is a weapon of the State".

I think it is that American distrust of power in me but that statement in the video pretty much explains my negative emotional reaction when I listen to a politician talk about gun control.

The irony is that the object which as you say is "for the express purpose of killing things" kills a fraction of the people that prescription drugs do.

And who could possible argue in favor of weapons of war?

Me too. The 22lr is not the only caliber that can be fired from a rifle or hand gun, many handgun rounds have rifles chanbered in those as well. 9mm, 357, 44, 45, 45 long cold/410 and I'm sure others. I would think if a weapon isn't recovered that they could fall into this category or if no projectile is recovered.

Would be nice to know for sure.

That is correct.

Thanks for posting the videos Powerman they sum up what I feel in a much better way then I can express them. I have been fighting the term assault rifle for a while now.

So let me get this straight you want me to have to pay an exorbitant tax so that I may exercise my second amendment right as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.  I know you are from Canada and this may seem odd but i have a constitutional right to own a firearm.  Just like I have a constitutional right to worship as i please.  So no I do not think taxing a Constitutional right is a good argument.  As for as taxing tobacco, alcohol, and pot fine i do not have a constitutional right to use those products.   

having read through all of this and thinking about it last night and this morning on my commute I think I would agree with Powerman (which I rarely do but still respect him as I respect most here on BT). The numbers and statistics on gun related deaths and injuries are all out there. The media, legislators, and lobbyists from all angles use these numbers to try and prove their own point by skewing data or not providing definitions.

To me, after the recent trajedies and acts of violence which have occured, it comes down to first defining what problem we are trying to solve. All of the proposed solutions that I have heard so far seem like they are trying to solve a problem before defining it (Ala Hitchikers guide to the galaxy - the answers is 42 but what is the question!) What we really need right now is to understand what the problem is from an unbiased viewpoint and then examine and propose solutions. If that were ever to happen I do not think the realistic solution would have much if anything to do with stricter gun or ammo laws, however we will never get here because people on all sides are to emotionally invested to think in an unbiased manner.

as an aside, I saw on the news that VP Biden, for one of his meetings, is meeting with the video game industry to discuss gun violence. To me that makes no sense - yes there are violent games out there but I have never seen a study the actually connected violent games to added violence (though I could have just missed it is all).

Isn't that you stance on Health Care, since it's a "right"?

Nope it's a valid point.  It's valid because the proposed "fixes" for the "culture of gun violence" and to fix the "staggering amount of gun violence" is to ban high capacity magazines, and assualt weapons.    The original OP pointing out the hidden numbers in the statistics is asking the basic question about the efficacy and honesty of current "gun control" advocates.  If approximately 60% of the "gun violence" are suicides the question must be asked if banning high capacity magazines and assualt weapons will have any appreciable effect on these numbers?

No one is saying that suicide isn't a compelling issue, however when that compelling issue is being used as a justification by those in favor of gun control, without being honest about it, then the question is a valid one.  How would prohibitting "large capacity magazines" and "assualt weapons" impact the number of "Gun violence" victims, given that the total number of "gun violence" victims includes self inlficted "gun violence?"

It's also a question of honesty.  The pro gun control side promotes these figures as if every single victim of gun violence is some type of mass shooting case.  At the very least to have an honest and open debate about the issue, the fact that suicides are part of the total gun violence statistics should be disclosed.

It comes down to what many anti gun control people argue, and that is the current sugestions of the pro gun control side are feel good political moves that will have no effect on gun violence, and its only effect will be to deprive otherwise law abidding citizens of certain things.

Solution to what specifically?

Prospective gun purchasers must demonstrate the ability to:

Close to 1hr swim time: at a minimum, sub 1:30/100yd swim pace should be a comfortable warmup. An example test set to get in the ballpark of having a chance to break 1 hour might be something like 20x100scy on 1:20-1:25 coming in at 1:10-15.

Sub 5hr bike split on typical flat or rolling hill course: Approx. 3w/kg minimum at .75 IF for the more aerodynamic setups.

Sub 3:20 run split: Approx. capable of at least sub 6:50 run pace at upper endurance heart rate for long runs assuming >20hrs training/wk with majority Ironman cycling specific. Much faster E pace likely req'd for lower overall training time.

Well, if you start with those three things you'll be alot further down the road to solving safety concerns than you will be by imposing more gun control. 

Could be home made stuff like zip guns and such.

Obamacare...problem solved already.

Yes Tony... define what we are trying to solve. If we are trying to solve Sandy Hook, then so far the gun controls being proposed do not solve it.

If you are trying to solve the problem of guns being used to kill people... well hell, that's easy. Destroy all guns and stop making them. You will need to repeal the 2A, and when you are done, you won't stop people from killing people.

LaPierre is an idiot. "More guns" is not the solution, neither is less. There is a very small number of mentally unstable people that want to go out in a blaze of glory and kill a bunch of people and be taken out in a hail of bullets so they can be imortalized in media for all time. They want their face in the 24/7 news entertainment channels so talking heads can talk about them for decades to come. I'm not quite sure where to start to beigin to deal with that. Media, mental health, guns?

As a law abiding citizen, I do not want bad guys or mentally unstable people to have guns. To follow the rest of the Bill of Rights, they have to be ruled a prohibited person through due process and the courts. Criminals are easy, I have no idea what to do to legally rule to someone mentally unstable to have guns. Right now you have to be ruled "mentally deficient". As in certifiable crazy.. we are talking severe here... Cho, Holmes, and Lanza... not sure what to do with that.

The only way to ensure dealers do not sell to prohibited people, is to do a background check. (solution) Yes we can even require back ground checks for private sales. (solution) Yes we can strengthen what goes into back ground checks. (solution) Yes we can not allow private sales at gun shows, or require back ground checks for all sales. (solution) I do not agree with a "National Registry"... but I think we could come up with a Federal law that says "States will track firearms in their state". And that the only way law enforcment could access such a data base is through due prosess and a warant investigating a crime... to go back and see who sold what to who and when and prosecute those that did not have a background check to transfer a weapon. (solution) We most certainly need to stiffen requirements on felons getting their rights back. (solution)

Make no mistake... that will not keep guns off the black market. That will not keep criminals from getting guns... and that would not have stopped Adam Lanza... Cho and Holmes possibly... I know full well it does not stop prohibited people from getting guns, but as a law abiding citizen, I do not want to provide easy means for them to get them. Like you said.. make em work for it, and if they get guns, then there is a host of laws already to punish them. We could at least stop the easy strawman and corrupt FFL sales. 

But other than that, what else do you want? Mag restrictions, AWB, lisencing, training, safes, no CCW, ... and the rest of the 20,000 gun laws ALREADY on the books, did not stop Sandy Hook. 20,000 more won't either. It isn't that pro gun folks are not willing to compromise... it is that pro gun folks are sick and tired of giving in and giving in to every irrational emotional plea with nothing in return, and laws that don't actually adress the problem.

Fienstien is clear on what she wants, Cumo is clear, Forbes is clear, Bloomberg is clear, Illinois is clear, DC is clear... they want all guns banned period. That isn't a myth, it's a fact. So we can go back and forth about this law or that law and what we should do for this and that... but the antis are dishonest, they are not trying to solve a current problem in the media, they are trying to solve the existence of guns. Those that disagree are tired of giving in.

So New York passed their version of gun control. By the above stats... they passed the strictest gun control laws in the nation and implemented a AWB. There were 5 murders with rifles last year... FIVE. 26 people used their hands or feet to kill somebody. But obviously, the 5 murders involving rifles... needed a complete semi-automatic rifle ban.

They implemented a 7 round max capacity on existing guns. You can own a grandfathered 10 round mag, but you can only have 7 bullets in it. You must turn over to the government all magazines over 10 rounds. How in the fudge does that make any sense at all? Where is the data showing the correlation of crimes and magazines. How do they arrive at 10... were do they get to 7?

Believe it or not, there are 8 round revolvers. Am I only able to load 7 bullets?

To top it all off... The President Of The United States of America is going to trot out children today for a publicity stunt to announce his plans. Without a doubt... he is the best marketer to ever be in the white house. I can't wait to see the new logo his sales team has come up with for gun control.

No.

I was hoping to use this thread for all the ridiculous stuff put out against guns instead of multiple threads.

According to Jessi Jackson, semi-auto rifles are anti-aircraft guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lAoKdm8tjzI