@Keyserling
- concerned about Stephen King's booklet for fire arm control and if it'd lose him audience
I think you'll find that those who bother to read will tend to agree with him .
Correct me if I'm wrong but the number of firearms does not equal the number of people with firearms , the latter is very much lower.
Apart from that the number of actual fire arm owners does not equal those who have or obsessed with semi or automatic rifles and/or large ammunition clips.
In reality SK is arguing for CONTROL of Fire arms and the banning of semi and automatic rifles and large clips NOT the elimination of Fire arms per se . e.g. He has three pistols, and his firearms count for two other non firearm owning house holds. In truth some over cooked nutters own virtual armouries. Those that would take offence at his stance are definitely a minority. Apart from which I'd suggest World Wide more people would read his books anyway and his domestic stance would be moot.
I think you'll find that those who bother to read will tend to agree with him .
Correct me if I'm wrong but the number of firearms does not equal the number of people with firearms , the latter is very much lower.
Apart from that the number of actual fire arm owners does not equal those who have or obsessed with semi or automatic rifles and/or large ammunition clips.
In reality SK is arguing for CONTROL of Fire arms and the banning of semi and automatic rifles and large clips NOT the elimination of Fire arms per se . e.g. He has three pistols, and his firearms count for two other non firearm owning house holds. In truth some over cooked nutters own virtual armouries. Those that would take offence at his stance are definitely a minority. Apart from which I'd suggest World Wide more people would read his books anyway and his domestic stance would be moot.
@peternh
- was concerned that only 3% of firearm murders were with semiautomatics
Ah but WHO are 3%?
THAT is the key issue.
I'll grant you that only a minority in the US care about gun violence per se (maybe 40%), but 20 innocent children and their teachers or innocent people at the movies THAT IS a different issue.
Ah but WHO are 3%?
THAT is the key issue.
I'll grant you that only a minority in the US care about gun violence per se (maybe 40%), but 20 innocent children and their teachers or innocent people at the movies THAT IS a different issue.
As an example and to show I'm not simply ANTI FIRE ARMS.
I learn how to shoot about the time I started school. But
interestingly I grew up. and recognised the difference between a NEED
and a WANT. I might want a semi automatic fire arm but do I need it for the activity I engage in.
PS I used to smoke a pipe and it gave me pleasure but then we had children and I asked the question is smoking worth the cost/consequences to me , our family or others? I apply same reasoning having fire arms not correctly stored or used.
I don't begrudge a person who shoots competitively or someone who uses a fire arm to control feral animals etc. But hunting (misnomer) ? their choice of course but killing for pleasure ? why seems decidedly psychologically suspect to me. And the risk to others unacceptable ...look at the number of legit weapons stolen and used to kill innocents and of course accidental shootings or domestic violence? Those numbers are far more significant. As are the consequences.
BTW Obama's plan includes mandating safe storage
I don't accept your myopic reasoning nor you Lamarkian sense of population control.
Cheers
PS I used to smoke a pipe and it gave me pleasure but then we had children and I asked the question is smoking worth the cost/consequences to me , our family or others? I apply same reasoning having fire arms not correctly stored or used.
I don't begrudge a person who shoots competitively or someone who uses a fire arm to control feral animals etc. But hunting (misnomer) ? their choice of course but killing for pleasure ? why seems decidedly psychologically suspect to me. And the risk to others unacceptable ...look at the number of legit weapons stolen and used to kill innocents and of course accidental shootings or domestic violence? Those numbers are far more significant. As are the consequences.
BTW Obama's plan includes mandating safe storage
I don't accept your myopic reasoning nor you Lamarkian sense of population control.
Cheers
@Atavism
- Was Peirs Ackerman partisan in the debate with the firearm spokes person
Piers
is a performer an entertainer... a deep complete thinker of high
moral character (hmmm. I 'm not so sure.)
The interview in fact any interview with Jones (? ) (eminately forgettable limited perspective individual) The type of individual who you'd find in football pub after his team lost. The Interview (?) was always going to be a "colourful" and it was.
Jones wasn't there to discuss anything merely to tell the audience in as brutal terms as possible why the majority of Americans shouldn't take away his means of pleasure and oh yes defence against the US government in it's march towards a liberal (read C21st Democracy) dictator ship.
Peirs merely pointed out the flaws in his argument i.e. a bunch of men with rifles are going to stop the worlds biggest most well equipped military how?.
Jones then proceeded to threaten civil war etc.
was Peirs partisan? not in my view.
Yes the 'spokesperson' was set up by his own extremist arrogance.
great TV abit like watching a re run of world championship wrestling. The outcome was never in doubt.
Personally that man shouldn't be allowed to speak in public on such issues he didn't do the cause any good.
his supporters had a rally Piers was anti the 2nd amendment! a total fiction . Piers got massive free publicity . I guess both sides got what they wanted.
The interview in fact any interview with Jones (? ) (eminately forgettable limited perspective individual) The type of individual who you'd find in football pub after his team lost. The Interview (?) was always going to be a "colourful" and it was.
Jones wasn't there to discuss anything merely to tell the audience in as brutal terms as possible why the majority of Americans shouldn't take away his means of pleasure and oh yes defence against the US government in it's march towards a liberal (read C21st Democracy) dictator ship.
Peirs merely pointed out the flaws in his argument i.e. a bunch of men with rifles are going to stop the worlds biggest most well equipped military how?.
Jones then proceeded to threaten civil war etc.
was Peirs partisan? not in my view.
Yes the 'spokesperson' was set up by his own extremist arrogance.
great TV abit like watching a re run of world championship wrestling. The outcome was never in doubt.
Personally that man shouldn't be allowed to speak in public on such issues he didn't do the cause any good.
his supporters had a rally Piers was anti the 2nd amendment! a total fiction . Piers got massive free publicity . I guess both sides got what they wanted.
@p4451d
- you are generalising badly. not all firearm owners are either
backwoodsie or male.
The truth is that the key issue here is the weapons manufacturers have a lot at stake ...If they were stopped from selling firearms to anyone except a US authority police , customs FBI etc their profit would plunge.
Imagine what would happen if there same manufacturers were excluded from selling to overseas ? i,e. gun dealers , war lords militias etc.
It is a natural part of the military manufacturing complex DNA that prohibiting them as a business from doing so is .....Un... American.
Look at the Tobacco industry's fight to continue selling their product with impunity.
US business in particular is well experienced in thwarting anything that may imping on their 'Right to be free to do as they want.
Look at their opposition to their EPA it's borderline frothing at the mouth.
NB the USA already has a department and 20+ laws to control firearms but the manufacturing industry have made the department a toothless tiger. Over time the GOP has inserted restrictive clauses in funding laws that ties the hands of the department.
i.e. they still don't have a permanent head; their shop reporting laws are unenforceable and the department officers all 200 of them can't visit a shop more than once in 2 years( in reality with 10s of thousands of shops its nearer 9 years between visits).
The data can't be centrally collected or collated across state lines.
Add to this many country communities rely on the Military Manufacturing Complex for jobs. Any congress member who jeopardises these jobs is courting political suicide. It is naive to think that the industry doesn't use this as a pressure point.
If one looks at the electoral districts that depend on the MMC for jobs they are predominately (strategically?) in marginal or GOP seats .
The truth is that the key issue here is the weapons manufacturers have a lot at stake ...If they were stopped from selling firearms to anyone except a US authority police , customs FBI etc their profit would plunge.
Imagine what would happen if there same manufacturers were excluded from selling to overseas ? i,e. gun dealers , war lords militias etc.
It is a natural part of the military manufacturing complex DNA that prohibiting them as a business from doing so is .....Un... American.
Look at the Tobacco industry's fight to continue selling their product with impunity.
US business in particular is well experienced in thwarting anything that may imping on their 'Right to be free to do as they want.
Look at their opposition to their EPA it's borderline frothing at the mouth.
NB the USA already has a department and 20+ laws to control firearms but the manufacturing industry have made the department a toothless tiger. Over time the GOP has inserted restrictive clauses in funding laws that ties the hands of the department.
i.e. they still don't have a permanent head; their shop reporting laws are unenforceable and the department officers all 200 of them can't visit a shop more than once in 2 years( in reality with 10s of thousands of shops its nearer 9 years between visits).
The data can't be centrally collected or collated across state lines.
Add to this many country communities rely on the Military Manufacturing Complex for jobs. Any congress member who jeopardises these jobs is courting political suicide. It is naive to think that the industry doesn't use this as a pressure point.
If one looks at the electoral districts that depend on the MMC for jobs they are predominately (strategically?) in marginal or GOP seats .
They
don't have to. Many factories are 'strategically?' located in
marginal or low income seats. The people see their jobs threatened
.
Added to that the corporate spin heightens this fear and gives the workers etc someone to blame ...anyone not in favour of business and the 2nd amendment.
Added to that the corporate spin heightens this fear and gives the workers etc someone to blame ...anyone not in favour of business and the 2nd amendment.
Steve,was concerned about the argument about a fire arm is just a tool and it's impact on the debate over all.
Hyperbole
and sarcasm aside fire arms *are* just tools as he says.
They
are useful for those people who raise live stock/ fowls but have a
problem with feral animals.
Also
when putting down large numbers of stock damaged beyond reasonable
recovery from disasters famine, fire or even disease.Of that there is
no doubt. That is clearly a NEED.(must have)
on
the other side there are many who derive pleasure from target
shooting/competition. That is a WANT.(desire ..emotional)
As
for 'hunting' for pleasure. Killing some thing for no useful purpose
is either a learned activity or something of concern to a
psychiatrist particularly if it manifests as an obsession or a NEED!
There
is NO SUBSTANTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that Hunting is a primal
instinct.
It
is simply emotionalised spin confusing the primal need to survive
with the methodology.(standard Conservative 'associative spin'.)
in
all but the first case multiple shot fire arms are clearly
superfluous/unnecessary to the task. I'd challenge anyone to
demonstrate how any of the wants even hunting can't be done with a
single shot then reload fire arm.
Having
established the two different reasons and the appropriate fire arm
for the task.
We
then ask what is the problem we're trying to solve?
It
is stated that 3% of firearm killings (murders) are with semi
automatic firearms so why the fuss. The answer is WHO and HOW many
are killed in each incident?
As
I've said before I'd rather that there are NO MURDERS. However, in
the real world there are. The question then becomes how do we reduce
the number of the deaths of mass innocents? (the who and how many)
The
remaining question is who are the people committing these mass
killing etc. By and large they are people who psychologically
shouldn't have access to fire arms period even if it's just a tool.
by analogy who is at fault if a parent allows a child under the age
of ten (the average age of spacial judgement) to have a chain saw or
circular saw; Or under 16 the (average legal age of clear cognitive
understanding of right or wrong... a minor) the above tools or drive
a vehicle; on their own?
Or
a mentally challenged or psychologically unstable child?
Well
both are all just tools!
The
answer is common sense is the person using the tool and the different
degrees of deadliness of the same. A vehicle can easily kill more
people at once than a circular or chainsaw (Texas excluded but that
IS Texas everythung is diff'rent there)
One
doesn't go and git a car licence then start driving 32-38 wheelers at
16. (“road trains”... powerful 18 wheelers with 3 dog trailers
...used for hauling stock in the Australian outback).
it
would be a very rare child/very young adult (given that frontal
cortex development(judgement area of the brain)isn't , on average
fully mature until 24-26 YO who would actually be allowed to
captain/fly a loaded Jumbo Jet.
Common
sense on average dictates there people should have limited if not no
access to firearms Period.
Likewise,
the same logic that applies to vehicle licences the would be owner
should have to PROVE they are appropriate to drive and have an
appropriate firearm.
As
with vehicles In most countries the vehicle MUST be registered and
transfer duly reported.
Insurance
insists that the vehicle is appropriately stored so why not firearms.
If you have a history of dangerous behaviour you can be refused a
licence. There is noting new there, no new principles.
So
having established the clear logic we have to ask why the hostility?
Answer
the firearm manufacturers are part of the Military Manufacturing
Complex (MMC) and they are (Feral/Vulture) Capitalists who hold the
notion that they have the RIGHT to make money anyway they can.
Why
their support? Well Bears is right the manufacturers have sold the
less mentally agile and therefore more prone to faux fear, the
'associative spin' equating their (manufacturer's assumed rights)
with the firearm owners rights by twisting the intended meaning of
the 2nd amendment. Also by associating fire arms with
defence personal and public.
They
have been very successful in both this and neutering both the
Department whose job it is to control firearm and the 20 or so laws
that exist to that end. This they've done by corrupting the
political system and by strategically placing their (MMC) factories
in locations where they constitute a large local employment supplier.
This in turn means the locals are more worried about their ass than
some 'liberal idea of peace and love' . Finally which elected
representative is going to be seen as voting for UNEMPLOYMENT in
their electorate ...Oh yes there are reps who lobby for a factory and
funds in their electorate .
All
this leads me to the conclusion that playing Whack Em O with the the
gun nuts and the manufacturers stooges is exactly what they want. If
I was leading the firearm control I'd go for the 'head or heart
shot' not the legs. The latter need more bullets for the kill and
isn't as reliable as the head or heart shot.
Fire arms are just tools but most people are concerned about the tool at the other end.