Guns and Violence Today

[GearHead_1]

Is there a cliff notes version of that? I haven't read that much since I left college

No, sorry there isn't and unless you are pro Second Amendment you probably wouldn't think much of it. If you did think this was a good read I would also recommend a book called The Second Amendment Primer. I really liked it and though it had a legal perspective it was still very readable. With the Supreme Court set to take another look at Second Amendment and its interpretation both sides of the issue are gearing up for its findings.

 

[DLR Detailing]

Excellent thread here guys! :bow :10:

Thanks for the post GearHead. I enjoyed it. It is going to work with me in the a.m.

I got confused and thought that I was logged in at the Smith&Wesson site I visit. :wow: :hmmm:

Dave

 

[Beemerboy]

Beemer,

I meant no insult or disrespect in what I said. I hope it didn't come across this way.

No, sorry there isn't and unless you are pro Second Amendment you probably wouldn't think much of it. If you did think this was a good read I would also recommend a book called The Second Amendment Primer. I really liked it and though it had a legal perspective it was still very readable. With the Supreme Court set to take another look at Second Amendment and its interpretation both sides of the issue are gearing up for its findings.

GH

I have no problems with firearms at all, I use to hunt as a kid...birds mainly...the only problems that I have is with the misuse of them for senseless violence..I'll take the time to read threw your post I'm sure that its good

 

[97F1504x4]

Gearhead FANTASTIC POST!!!!!



Richard

 

[POPPAJ]

Guns are just tools. There are many tools that in the wrong or unskilled hands cause death.

 

[JaredPointer]

Guns are just tools. There are many tools that in the wrong or unskilled hands cause death.

Agree 100%. If guns were non-existent, we'd be getting clubbed to death by baseball bats, cut up with box cutters, or stabbed with kitchen knives. It's not the guns that do the killing, it's the people pulling the triggers. That's one argument the gun control folks have that I have never been able to understand.

 

[Pockets]

I think the problem with guns is the unexpected. Like you cant predect where that bullet is going to go if you miss your target. That is what really bugs me. At least if you are using a knife you know what happens if you miss it is still in you hands and the innocent persone behind the target is still alive. If the people that are fighting only kill themselves, at least i dont care, it will be nowhere near them killing someone else that is innocent.

JP i dont think that we would be clubed to death other than the crazy people that just like to kill but i think there is alot of people that die from a stray bullet and that would go away if we dident have any guns. I am for guns in law enforcement and stuff like that but there has got to be a way that they can limit the illegal gun sales.

end rant

 

[BLUELINE 1]

My department along with the ATF just ended a 16 month undercover operation. The operation was the largest in my area and the second largest in ATF history.
This is how we did it. Last year we knew we had a gang and gun problem in our area, so the brains of the department came up with a plan to get both of them at the same time. We opened up a tatto shop that would cater to the gang members, but at the same time this was just a front to buy stolen guns. After two weeks there were so many assault wepons coming in we had to contact the ATF and they joined in on the investigation. The shop also had a room where the gangs could go and hang out. In this room they would brag about diffrent crimes they had commited. The crimes were armed robbery, drive by shootings, drug sales, gun shop robberies, etc...
This room was wired with some of the best camera systems there is. Over that 16 month period we were able to ID 6 local gangs, recovered over 400 guns, and lots of drugs. At around 3 am on the 14th 17 teams of 10 members mixed with our deputies and ATF agents started a round up were we took 71 of 93 subjects into custody on federal grand jury warrants. Over 40 of the ones taken into custody were known gang members. I'm sure their will be others to take their place, but maybe it will be awhile. To see more on this bust you can go to augustachronicle.com.

 

[Mikeyc]

Agree 100%. If guns were non-existent, we'd be getting clubbed to death by baseball bats, cut up with box cutters, or stabbed with kitchen knives. It's not the guns that do the killing, it's the people pulling the triggers. That's one argument the gun control folks have that I have never been able to understand.

While I 100% agree with you that it's the people who do the killing and not the guns. I'm still in favor of getting rid of guns. While it's true there are other tools that you can use to kill someone like a knife or a blunt object, it's much easier to harm more people at once with a gun. Did you ever hear of a massacre at a high school where the guy used a knife?

Plus, guns even in the right hands are recreational items and really not a must have. If you like to hunt then go pick up a bow & arrow. IMO the more guns there are out there (even if they're in the right hands) the more chance there is that the gun could end up in the wrong hands.

 

[JaredPointer]

I am for guns in law enforcement and stuff like that but there has got to be a way that they can limit the illegal gun sales.

end rant

What, like, kinda the way we "limit" the sale of illegal drugs? You think the people that abide by rules and laws are getting their guns illegally? If we banned guns, you know who would still have them? That's right, the people who were getting them illegally to begin with.

For an example, look at the stunning success that was prohibition.

 

[JaredPointer]

While I 100% agree with you that it's the people who do the killing and not the guns. I'm still in favor of getting rid of guns. While it's true there are other tools that you can use to kill someone like a knife or a blunt object, it's much easier to harm more people at once with a gun. Did you ever hear of a massacre at a high school where the guy used a knife?

Plus, guns even in the right hands are recreational items and really not a must have. If you like to hunt then go pick up a bow & arrow. IMO the more guns there are out there (even if they're in the right hands) the more chance there is that the gun could end up in the wrong hands.

The guns will be in the wrong hands whether or not we have laws that ban or limit the issuance of them. Criminals are going to be criminals.

As far as the ability to do more harm with them than with a knife, I can buy into that. But I'm still a firm believer that if the gun had never been invented, we'd still be subject to violence in some other way using some other tool. It's people not wanting to take responsibility and blame an inanimate object (the gun) for the actions of a person.

As far as the high school "massacres" go, I think there's a lot more to it than just some kid had access to a gun. I personally think a lot of it goes back to my statement earlier about society not teaching any kind of value or responsibility. I think that has a lot more to do with the school events in the big picture than just the fact that a gun was available/used.

 

[Beemerboy]

My department along with the ATF just ended a 16 month undercover operation. The operation was the largest in my area and the second largest in ATF history.
This is how we did it. Last year we knew we had a gang and gun problem in our area, so the brains of the department came up with a plan to get both of them at the same time. We opened up a tatto shop that would cater to the gang members, but at the same time this was just a front to buy stolen guns. After two weeks there were so many assault wepons coming in we had to contact the ATF and they joined in on the investigation. The shop also had a room where the gangs could go and hang out. In this room they would brag about diffrent crimes they had commited. The crimes were armed robbery, drive by shootings, drug sales, gun shop robberies, etc...
This room was wired with some of the best camera systems there is. Over that 16 month period we were able to ID 6 local gangs, recovered over 400 guns, and lots of drugs. At around 3 am on the 14th 17 teams of 10 members mixed with our deputies and ATF agents started a round up were we took 71 of 93 subjects into custody on federal grand jury warrants. Over 40 of the ones taken into custody were known gang members. I'm sure their will be others to take their place, but maybe it will be awhile. To see more on this bust you can go to augustachronicle.com.

Thats great to read and thanks for sharing...its funny to me how these guys can just get sucked in....lack of education to know that they are getting setup

 

[Beemerboy]

What, like, kinda the way we "limit" the sale of illegal drugs? You think the people that abide by rules and laws are getting their guns illegally? If we banned guns, you know who would still have them? That's right, the people who were getting them illegally to begin with.

For an example, look at the stunning success that was prohibition.

JP

Spot on! as long as there is a need and money involved in it, the problem will exists

 

[Mikeyc]

The guns will be in the wrong hands whether or not we have laws that ban or limit the issuance of them. Criminals are going to be criminals.

As far as the ability to do more harm with them than with a knife, I can buy into that. But I'm still a firm believer that if the gun had never been invented, we'd still be subject to violence in some other way using some other tool. It's people not wanting to take responsibility and blame an inanimate object (the gun) for the actions of a person.

As far as the high school "massacres" go, I think there's a lot more to it than just some kid had access to a gun. I personally think a lot of it goes back to my statement earlier about society not teaching any kind of value or responsibility. I think that has a lot more to do with the school events in the big picture than just the fact that a gun was available/used.

Anytime a shooting occurs there are two issues.

1. the guy had a gun
2. there's something wrong the guy doing the shooting

If we could fix #2 then I think they should sell guns in vending machines. But that's not going to happen there will always be crazy or murderous people. If that's the case then IMO we have to limit access to guns. Of course people will always be able to get what they want if they are willing to take chances and pay enough money. That doesn't mean we should make it easy to get your hands on one. Your argument seems to be that if we can't stop people from getting guns then we shouldn't even try. Seems to be a pretty weak argument to me.

I'm not saying we need to ignore problem #2. I'm just saying we need to work on both issues.

As for your analogy about illegal drugs . . . cigarettes are legal pot is not. I GUARANTEE you there are more people in this country that smoke cigarettes than do pot. Why because it's easier to get your hands on and it's legal. Now personally, I don't think anyone should be smoking on a regular basis but if you want to kill yourself go right ahead. But that's a totally different thread.

 

[JaredPointer]

Anytime a shooting occurs there are two issues.

1. the guy had a gun
2. there's something wrong the guy doing the shooting

If we could fix #2 then I think they should sell guns in vending machines. But that's not going to happen there will always be crazy or murderous people. If that's the case then IMO we have to limit access to guns. Of course people will always be able to get what they want if they are willing to take chances and pay enough money. That doesn't mean we should make it easy to get your hands on one. Your argument seems to be that if we can't stop people from getting guns then we shouldn't even try. Seems to be a pretty weak argument to me.

I'm not saying we need to ignore problem #2. I'm just saying we need to work on both issues.

As for your analogy about illegal drugs . . . cigarettes are legal pot is not. I GUARANTEE you there are more people in this country that smoke cigarettes than do pot. Why because it's easier to get your hands on and it's legal. Now personally, I don't think anyone should be smoking on a regular basis but if you want to kill yourself go right ahead. But that's a totally different thread.

So we should all have someone decide for us what we can and cannot obtain based on the chances that a small percentage of the populous may act irresponsible with it? Sounds a little 1984'ish (thought police) to me.

I agree that they shouldn't be just giving away guns, but in all honesty, who do the control laws protect? It sure isn't Mr. Crip in LA who is not considering getting a gun legally in the first place. Possible limitations on the ability to legally obtain a firearm on impede the honest people out there who are abiding by the laws in the first place.

You've already proved my point by what you said earlier. "Of course people will always be able to get what they want if they are willing to take chances and pay enough money." There's not a gun control law in the universe that will prove that statement wrong and it's a very valid argument for why the outlawing of firearms wouldn't stop the criminals from obtaining guns.

Banning guns would only open/create new avenues for crime. Refer to my earlier post on prohibition and just take a look at the "war on drugs." The answer clearly isn't banning guns.

Again, the issue isn't the guns. They can't do anything outside of their respective owners/user. The problem is that this society wants to place the blame on everything other than the person at fault. It's much more than trying to ban firearms and then think you've solved the problem.

 

[GearHead_1]

As for your analogy about illegal drugs . . . cigarettes are legal pot is not. I GUARANTEE you there are more people in this country that smoke cigarettes than do pot. Why because it's easier to get your hands on and it's legal. Now personally, I don't think anyone should be smoking on a regular basis but if you want to kill yourself go right ahead. But that's a totally different thread.

Not necessarily a different thread. You believe people shouldn't smoke? I too agree with you, after all we know it kills people in serious numbers. Should we make it illegal for people to buy cigarettes? The point is you can't tread on the rights of the many because a few abuse the circumstance. I'm a big believer that the founding fathers had eyes beyond their present time. The Second Amendment insures the right of the individual (not group) to own and bear arms. Bearing arms allows a person the ability to hunt, target shoot or protect themselves from individuals, small groups, large groups, even governments. The founders knew this and the possibility of what the later part of the previous sentence meant. I must be jaded, I've read the Second Amendment and virtually any commentary I've ever come across as to its meaning. I just cannot see any way that this amendment was written with a group of people in mind as opposed to an individuals rights.

The reason a person owns a firearm and the type they choose to own is solely at their discretion, not the governments. I honestly don't have any idea what an assault rifle is, trying to define something like this has as many opinions as there are people. A single shot is not necessarily any less of a weapon than a fully automatic rifle in the hands of the right marksman. I'm perhaps not as hard core as some firearm owners. I don't have a problem with realistic, appropriate and timely background searches. I do believe there are a number of things that can be done in order to make firearm ownership more safe but taking away the firearm is like cutting off the nose to spite the face. The founding fathers got it right though it was 200 plus years ago. Times have not changed that much, nothing in this world is new but rather recycled and a little more efficient. I guess it was evident after my first post that I'm a supporter of the Second Amendment. Anyway I wasn't going to do this on a Detailing Board and better stop now. I appreciate the comments in this thread. It's nice to know we can have discussion about something that can be as heated as this topic and do it in a civil manner, says a lot for the members.

 

[Pockets]

What, like, kinda the way we "limit" the sale of illegal drugs? You think the people that abide by rules and laws are getting their guns illegally? If we banned guns, you know who would still have them? That's right, the people who were getting them illegally to begin with.

For an example, look at the stunning success that was prohibition.

I'm not saying that we should ban guns. That would never work. There is progress in getting rid of the illegal guns. Blueline said they got 400 guns that is alot of people probably saved by doing that.

 

[JaredPointer]

I'm not saying that we should ban guns. That would never work. There is progress in getting rid of the illegal guns. Blueline said they got 400 guns that is alot of people probably saved by doing that.

I agree that we should do what we can about illegal guns, but not at the price of those who obtain them legally. And after reading that post (my original response to you), it sounded kinda snippy to me. I didn't mean for it to sound snide if it came off that way. Don't go denting my bottles of product next time I order from you guys. :rofl

 

[Mikeyc]

So we should all have someone decide for us what we can and cannot obtain based on the chances that a small percentage of the populous may act irresponsible with it? Sounds a little 1984'ish (thought police) to me.

I agree that they shouldn't be just giving away guns, but in all honesty, who do the control laws protect? It sure isn't Mr. Crip in LA who is not considering getting a gun legally in the first place. Possible limitations on the ability to legally obtain a firearm on impede the honest people out there who are abiding by the laws in the first place.

You've already proved my point by what you said earlier. "Of course people will always be able to get what they want if they are willing to take chances and pay enough money." There's not a gun control law in the universe that will prove that statement wrong and it's a very valid argument for why the outlawing of firearms wouldn't stop the criminals from obtaining guns.

Banning guns would only open/create new avenues for crime. Refer to my earlier post on prohibition and just take a look at the "war on drugs." The answer clearly isn't banning guns.

Again, the issue isn't the guns. They can't do anything outside of their respective owners/user. The problem is that this society wants to place the blame on everything other than the person at fault. It's much more than trying to ban firearms and then think you've solved the problem.

:sorry: I have to disagree with you. The problem is both the guns and the people. If there were no guns then no one would get shot and if there were no crazy people no one would get shot either. It needs to be harder for the wrong people to get their hands on guns. If that means honest people can't have guns I'm 100% OK with that. What does a person need a gun for anyway? Don't try to tell me you need it to hunt to feed your family. If it means even saving 20 lives a year, then I think it's worth it.

Bottom line is there are two fronts we can address when it comes to gun deaths: the guns and the people behind the guns. In order to reduce gun related deaths we need to address BOTH sides of the problem not just one. PLEASE don't tell me this is 1984-ish. That's ridiculous. There are and have been many, many things the government tells us we cannot have/do. Just because I'm suggesting one more doesn't mean I think the gov't should be "big brother."

I'm not trying to persuade you because I know I won't. I just want to state my case. You're from Alabama where I'm sure people have no issue with guns. I live in the Northeast where if you see a gun once every ten years it's a lot.

 

[JaredPointer]

:sorry: I have to disagree with you. The problem is both the guns and the people. If there were no guns then no one would get shot and if there were no crazy people no one would get shot either. It needs to be harder for the wrong people to get their hands on guns. If that means honest people can't have guns I'm 100% OK with that. What does a person need a gun for anyway? Don't try to tell me you need it to hunt to feed your family. If it means even saving 20 lives a year, then I think it's worth it.

Bottom line is there are two fronts we can address when it comes to gun deaths: the guns and the people behind the guns. In order to reduce gun related deaths we need to address BOTH sides of the problem not just one. PLEASE don't tell me this is 1984-ish. That's ridiculous. There are and have been many, many things the government tells us we cannot have/do. Just because I'm suggesting one more doesn't mean I think the gov't should be "big brother."

I'm not trying to persuade you because I know I won't. I just want to state my case. You're from Alabama where I'm sure people have no issue with guns. I live in the Northeast where if you see a gun once every ten years it's a lot.

Well, if there were no alcohol there'd be no drunk drivers. If we take away all the alcohol, no one can get drunk, so there'd be no more drunk driving related deaths. See how ridiculous that sounds? You're not going to solve the problems this society has with guns & violence by removing gun. Period. You've already said people would get them if they chanced it and had the means to do so. Stating that guns are the source of the problem and that by removing them from circulation is a crutch. Plain and simple.

If you don't like guns, by all means stay away from them. But don't tell me (via the government or regulatory authority) that I can't get one if I so desire by legal means. I appreciate your input on it, even if it sounds like I don't and I agree that we would never persuade each other one way or the other. I do agree with you about doing all we can to get them away from those who get them illegally, but not at the cost of punishing those who abide by the law in getting them. I just feel like most of the time when people are anti-firearm it's because they've never been around them and never been educated on their care and usage. Like any other inanimate tool, there are certain things you do and don't do with them. Blaming the gun is a crutch too.

While I won't disagree with you about the problem being both gun and person, I will go out on a limb a say it's a lot more person than it is gun. To say otherwise is to minimize the responsibility of the person. "The gun made me do it....." C'mon.....

As an aside, I will have to say one thing for Alabama. After living other places, people are a lot less likely to break in on you in the middle of the night or try and carjack you at the intersection. Maybe it has something to do with everyone down here packing heat, maybe not. But I bet it's a deterrent knowing that Jimbo in the Ford 4x4 probably has a Smith & Wesson riding awfully close to his seat. Not to say we don't have our crime too, but it's not like some of the other places I've lived where people are scared to go outside and walk the street.

And yes, I do use a firearm for hunting. And yes, my family and friends do enjoy venison and various other wild game that I bring home. Do I need to get my own meat? No. But it is rewarding be able to provide for myself and others. You don't know what you're missing until you've had some ginger cube steak or smoked wild turkey (the bird, not the whiskey). :drool: