Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Connecticut: Every day is the day to talk about Gun Control

Connecticut: Every day is the day to talk about Gun Control (Page 12)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 09:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Seriously? A gun maker does a test and produces a video that makes their weapon look favourable and we should ignore the source? Its called propaganda.

If the test had been done by an independent party who were free to choose which weapons they tested, it might well have reinforced their point anyway, they actually undermine their position amongst the rational public by realising something which was obviously going to be biased from the start.

A biased test is a worthless test.
No, it isn't. Anyone who is familiar with the weapons knows that a shotgun w/ 00 buckshot is more hazardous to bystanders and more lethal at close range than any "assault rifle". Their PSA outlines the obvious. Just because you don't want to understand the test doesn't make it worthless. A shotgun can be good for home defense, but it takes sound judgement and careful choice in ammunition.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 09:44 AM
 
I don't know about you but since I'm not a gun owner or a expert marksman but if I needed a gun for home defense it would probably be a shotgun just because the lack of precision and over-penetration (i think is the term.) That and the sound of a pump action shotgun from the other room is probably enough to scare them out of a house.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 10:13 AM
 
Indeed, a full choke 12ga pump w/ pistol grip, of medium barrel length, using #4 buckshot, is a very solid choice for home defense, provided no family members are too close to the intruder. In some instances, other firearms would be more desirable, I like a .357 with Glaser frangible rounds, but that's just my preference.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 01:58 PM
 
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 03:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by racingonline View Post
It's amazing how uneducated people are when it comes to guns and clips.
"Magazine". You mean magazine.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2013, 02:21 PM
 
This article is a pretty interesting read:

Rachel Aviv: The Science of Sex Abuse : The New Yorker

Its about sex crime rather than mass murder but the article has a lot to say about intent and a lot more to say about treating mental health and how it relates to criminality.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2013, 03:50 PM
 
Laser sighting are relatively cheap if you're unsure about your aim.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 10:10 AM
 
Wayne LaPierre, NRA Leader, Opposes Expanded Background Checks

Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association, said Wednesday that he is opposed to closing the so-called gun-show loophole, which allows private sellers to sell firearms without background checks.

His latest comments in congressional testimony directly contradict testimony that LaPierre gave before the Senate in 1999, when he said, "We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone."
Why in god's name is he regressing?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 10:24 AM
 
I'm wondering where the political will to do it went back when the NRA supported it.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 10:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm wondering where the political will to do it went back when the NRA supported it.
I'd like to know the context of where he said it. After the Brady bill, unless there was a mass shooting nearby I imagine there was no political will to do so, doubly so since the Republicans controlled congress.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 10:59 AM
 
LaPierre wasn't president of the NRA back in `99, Heston was. So maybe that has something to do with it?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
LaPierre wasn't president of the NRA back in `99, Heston was. So maybe that has something to do with it?
It sure could. Was he still part of the NRA though? A 'we' is referenced in the '99 quote.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 11:24 AM
 
He was, and still is, the CEO.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 11:58 AM
 
The fact of the matter is that the NRA has a long history of flip flopping when it comes to gun control. The bottom line is that "they were for it before they were against it."

Black Panthers and Gun Control: The NRA's Flip Flop

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 12:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'd like to know the context of where he said it. After the Brady bill, unless there was a mass shooting nearby I imagine there was no political will to do so, doubly so since the Republicans controlled congress.
I'm definitely on the "pro-gun" side of things, but I have better things to do than go to the mat over a swap meet.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 02:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
He was, and still is, the CEO.
But he wasn't the front man or official spokesman, that was Chuck's job.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 02:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The fact of the matter is that the NRA has a long history of flip flopping when it comes to gun control. The bottom line is that "they were for it before they were against it."

Black Panthers and Gun Control: The NRA's Flip Flop

OAW
And Robert Byrd was once in the KKK, folks change.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
But he wasn't the front man or official spokesman, that was Chuck's job.
Are you trying to imply his position wasn't 'official'?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm definitely on the "pro-gun" side of things, but I have better things to do than go to the mat over a swap meet.
As always I need clarification as to what you mean.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 02:22 PM
 
I'm concerned with infringment on the right to bear arms. What you can sell at a gun show is related to that in the most incidental of ways, thus I don't understand why people get all frothy about it.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 02:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm concerned with infringment on the right to bear arms. What you can sell at a gun show is related to that in the most incidental of ways, thus I don't understand why people get all frothy about it.
You don't understand why people should have background checks at an event that I've seen reported as supporting up to 49% of gun sales in the country?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 02:33 PM
 
The opposite.

I don't see why gun people get frothy. I'm saying this as a gun person.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The opposite.

I don't see why gun people get frothy. I'm saying this as a gun person.
It's hard for me to keep paying attention to this thread, what with all the talking and no action. Isn't someone going to shoot something?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The opposite.

I don't see why gun people get frothy. I'm saying this as a gun person.
From what i can tell they see any barrier to entry no matter how reasonable as either
A. A slippery slope Nazi Germany
B. An inconvenience they don't want to deal with
C. Ineffective (prove it)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 07:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Are you trying to imply his position wasn't 'official'?
I'm saying that back then he may not have been speaking in a capacity that reflects the NRA's official policy.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 12:33 PM
 
Chris Wallace has my back.


WALLACE: A couple of weeks ago, the NRA started running an ad that created a great deal of controversy. Here's a clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NARRATOR: Are the president's kids more important than yours? Why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Mr. LaPierre, do you regret putting up that ad?

LAPIERRE: The point of ad was this -- it wasn't picking on the president's kids. The president not --

WALLACE: It mentions them.

LAPIERRE: The president's kids are safe and we are thankful for it. The point of that ad --

WALLACE: They also face a threat that most children do not face.

LAPIERRE: Tell that to people in Newtown. Tell that to people --

WALLACE: Do you really think the president's children are the same kind of target as every school child in America? That's ridiculous and you know it, sir.

LAPIERRE: You know, unfortunately, I think there are parents all over the school that think -- all over the country that think their kids are entitled to the same amount of protection when they go to school, and they want --

WALLACE: So, they should have Secret Service?

LAPIERRE: No, but what they should have is police officers or certified armed security in those schools to keep people safe. If something happens, the police -- despite all the good intentions, is 15 to 20 minutes. It's too long. It's not going to help those kids.

Certified armed security in schools, just like --

WALLACE: But that's not going to protect them in the shopping mall, in the movie theater, on the streets.

LAPIERRE: Which is why we need to do everything else I'm talking about. Let's enforce the federal gun laws which we did not do now against gangs with guns, felons with guns -- my gosh, in the shadow of where we are sitting now, gangs are out there in Washington, D.C. You can buy drugs. You can buy guns. They are trafficking in 13-year-old girls --

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: I understand there are lots of problems out there and this isn't going to solve all of them.

But you can't say, that -- first of all, the gangs don't commit the mass murders, Adam Lanza wasn't a member of a gang. James Holmes was not a member of the gang.

You talk -- one of the points of the ads that I want to ask you about, is you made it a class argument, the rich and elites.

LAPIERRE: Sure.

WALLACE: They have bodyguards. They have security.

LAPIERRE: Sure. And Mayor Bloomberg has it. Mayor Bloomberg has bodyguards.

WALLACE: I'll tell you who else has security. You do.

LAPIERRE: Sometimes. Yes.

WALLACE: And, you have security. Today you have security.

LAPIERRE: Yes, and you talk about hypocrisy right out in the open, we have had all kinds of threats on me, OK?

WALLACE: Does that make you an elite -- an out of touch elite because you have security?

LAPIERRE: I don't deny anybody the right to security when they need it. What I'm saying, it is ridiculous, Chris, for all the elites and all the powerful and privilege, the titans of industry, to send their kids to school where there's arm security. They have access to semi-automatic technology. They have access --

WALLACE: First of all, I don't know anybody who has -- I don't know anybody elites who sends their kids -- my children went to the same school that the Obama children went to, many years ago, and there were no armed security there.

LAPIERRE: A third of the schools in the country already have armed security.

WALLACE: I understand that, but the idea of an elite class, it's just nonsense, sir.

---


WALLACE: All right. The NRA says there are already 9,000 federal gun laws on the books. The problem is the government doesn't enforce them.

Funny he should mention that...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 02:15 PM
 
Wallace seems to be like O'Reilly, won't let an interviewee finish a statement. I hate that.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 02:18 PM
 
You're right, there are a lot of double dashes.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2013, 03:39 PM
 
Senate Dems have ditched the AWB provision. Out realism or political sense, I don't know.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2013, 06:50 AM
 
I don't see how a selective ban on cosmetic features of certain firearms would make anyone safer. I do, however, see a benefit in taking making the fraudulent purchasing a firearm for someone else who is not permitted to buy one easier to prosecute and having it carry a much more significant penalty. Currently this crime is pursued only very occasionally, and its maximum penalty is a paltry 5 years. How about sending someone to jail for 20 or more years for supplying a felon with a firearm? Sounds good to me. And it also sounds like it will get a lot of DAs off their Brooks Brothers clad tushes and actually get them to press those charges and not bargain them away as happens in far too many situations where a criminal uses a gun or commits other firearms violations (current ones, not new ones) but gets to plead guilty to something lesser so the DA doesn't have to stand up and talk to the judge...

(Yeah, I kinda think this is important...)

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2013, 07:04 AM
 
DA's bargain because the prisons are full of manditory minimum drug offenses.

Felons who buy guns are usually drug dealers.

Is anyone noticing the pattern?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2013, 07:11 AM
 
Indeed. As any sane person knows, decriminalizing pot would fix >50% of our woes, right off the top. The plurality of my county's lockup is now populated by pot users/sellers. It's absurd.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2013, 07:11 AM
 
I think this is a point those from other countries need to keep in mind.

We've had guns since the beginning. We've had periods where that has been a serious problem. One was during prohibition in the 20's. One is during prohibition now.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2013, 07:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Indeed. As any sane person knows, decriminalizing pot would fix >50% of our woes, right off the top. The plurality of my county's lockup is now populated by pot users/sellers. It's absurd.
And generate a ****ton of tax revenue.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2013, 11:09 AM
 
Prisons being full of criminals isn't a sign that the law is wrong. It's a sign that the punishment is wrong. Even with mandatory minimums jail time isn't an effective deterrent. The growers have moved to public or rental property so its possible to alter their behavior via financial methods. We have immigrant issues due to a lack of cheap unskilled labor. Spending 10 years picking lettuce would probably be a really nice deterrent.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2013, 02:17 PM
 
Prison should be reserved for those that are a actual danger and threat to others and violent offenders. So rape, murder and serious assault. Jail, Death penalty, Law are not deterrents to most serious crimes. Generally the crime is just the end result of a situation. Fix the situations you fix the crimes. The situation can be as simple as homelessness, or substance addiction or mental problems. Can mitigate homelessness with proper humane shelters. If a prison offers a better living condition then a homeless shelter there is something wrong with priorities. Substance addiction is best treated as a medical condition not a criminal condition. What causes this person to be susceptible to addiction. What will eventually cure there addiction. Treatment and maintenance in the mean time. Its a hell of a lot cheaper for the state to create hard drugs to provide under the medical system a sustaining maintenance program then it is to lock them up into jail. If a addict can get there drugs from a doctor they wont be stealing, and murdering people to support the addiction and will be able to use the welfare money or income from employment to live. Mental problems is the area that will make the biggest difference against mass shootings. Identifying, supporting and sometimes locking up mentally damaged people. A person with mental problems that has to be locked up should be in a care home environment not a prison environment. Was never there fault they are what they are. Of course it would be ideal if we could terminate defective babies before birth but that's a different can of worms.

The Gun was never the problem. The cosmetic items that make it look more mean is not the problem. Video games are not the problem. The problem is everything that causes the use of a gun in a crime. Ideological beliefs and business interests plus some pure ignorance is what precipitates the problems we have.
( Last edited by Athens; Mar 20, 2013 at 06:26 PM. )
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2013, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Prison should be reserved for those that are a actual danger and threat to others and violent offenders. So rap...
This post needs nothing else.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2013, 06:25 PM
 
are you that ****ing stupid you cant figure out I intended rape. Guess so, I'll remember to include photos and drawings for you next time.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2013, 06:29 PM
 
I knew you intended rape, but think the idea of going to prison for rap is funny.

Lighten up, Francis.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:34 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2