It takes less time to buy a gun than adopt a dog - Hyundai Forums : Hyundai Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 25 (permalink) Old 12-20-2012, 12:23 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Xion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Victoriaville, QC, Canada
Drives 2014 Elantra GT GLS Titanium Grey Metallic , 2004 Accent GS White
Posts: 5,465
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Xion is an unknown quantity at this point
Garage
(Thread Starter)
It takes less time to buy a gun than adopt a dog

It takes less time to buy a gun than adopt a dog


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Xion is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 25 (permalink) Old 12-20-2012, 06:10 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Drives 2011 Santa Fe
Posts: 213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
seamsealer is an unknown quantity at this point
What can I say, buy the gun.
seamsealer is offline  
post #3 of 25 (permalink) Old 12-20-2012, 06:40 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Austin Texas
2010 Accent GLS, rare 5 speed
Posts: 669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
austex04 is an unknown quantity at this point
My local animal shelter sometimes has free pet adoption days, becouse of overcrowding at the shelter. In tx, all you have to do is take a approved gun safety course, and apply for a permit to carry a consealed gun, don't take very long. We love guns here.
austex04 is offline  
 
post #4 of 25 (permalink) Old 12-20-2012, 10:38 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Independence, MO
Drives 2012 Elantra GLS
Posts: 343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
ravenspilot is an unknown quantity at this point
I see Xion finally realized that there's no mention of French cheese in the Bill of Rights. And finally decided to start a thread of his own instead of hijacking Pare John's.

Speaking of Xion: Your homework assignment, padawan.

An opinion on gun control « Monster Hunter Nation

Larry Correia not only knows what he's talking about when it comes to guns and the politics surrounding them; he's also a bit more patient than I am with people whose idea of "debate" on the gun issue is to scream "It's easier to buy a gun than X !!!" And who, inevitably, then proceed to scapegoat any gun owner who actually tries to engage them in the "debate" they claim to want, with personal responsiblilty for the outrage/tragedy/atrocity du jour.

Sorry, but since I have to get up early for work tomorrow I just don't have the time for a pointless flamewar right now.

When you're finished with Correia's extensive essay, for extra credit you might Google up another essay entitled "The Gun As Civilization" by Marko Kloos.
ravenspilot is offline  
post #5 of 25 (permalink) Old 12-21-2012, 03:50 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Tempe, AZ
13 Accent SE (RB) with sunroof
Posts: 648
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
az2008 is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenspilot View Post
he's also a bit more patient than I am with people whose idea of "debate" on the gun issue is to scream "It's easier to buy a gun than X !!!"
What's annoying to me is how, when events like this happen, advocates of gun control will blame gun owners for ubiquity of guns, easy access, lack of reasonable control, etc. But, it was the pro-control groups who wasted valuable political capital in the late '80s and early '90s demonizing military-style semi-automatics, and insisting the 2nd amendment protects the National Guard (not individuals).

The result of that was pushing gun owners into a "circle the wagons" mentality. Military-style weapons were banned, only to continue to be sold with their flash suppressor and bayonet lugs ground off (and pistol grip replaced by a thumbhole stock).

The only thing that changed was the appearance of the gun. A Pyrrhic victory. But, the cost was Democrats losing control of government for 12 years. Gun owners opposing even modest controls just because it appeared opponents only desired to "punish" guns (or owners) without actually accomplishing anything.

I'm pretty critical of fanatic pro-gunners too. But, in my view, the pro-control side bears a lot of blame for the present state of affairs. All I see was the huge political cost of removing bayonet lugs, flash suppressors and pistol grips from "ugly" guns. When over 70% of households own a firearm, you need their support for any workable control. You don't focus on a symbol (ugly guns as a "scapegoat" object), pass a law requiring the removal of non-lethal appendages, and the whole time tell the 70% they have no legitimate interest in their choice to own a gun (when few own the type of gun which as targeted as a symbol).

I'm still astounded by that miscalculation. It reminds me of a passage from a law journal:

Quote:
Indeed, the scapegoat object has long tradition in Anglo-American law. For many centuries, if a criminal killed someone with a sword, the sword would be forfeited. Earlier in Britain, objects that "caused" a death were punished. If man fell from a tree, the tree was cut down. If he drowned in a well, the well was filled up. If a criminal killed a victim with a third party's sword, "the sword shall be forfeit as deodand, and yet no default is in the owner." A steam-engine was even forfeited under this doctrine (Holmes, 1881). The "deodand" was a gift to God of the object causing death. In early American law, a tree that fell on someone might be destroyed as deodand. One court ordered destruction of a canoe that had failed "to make way in a storm," causing its owner's death. A Virginia court ordered the chain by which a boy had hanged himself in suicide to be forfeit as deodand (Chapin, 1983).

Similarly, in ancient Greece, a sword used by a murderer would be banished beyond the city limits, as would a statue that fell on someone (Hyde, 1916). This punishment of physical objects was paralleled in medieval and early modern European law by the legal punishment of animals. If a pig killed a baby, or if a swarm of locusts ate a crop, the animals would be charged with legal offenses, defended by a court-appointed lawyer, and usually convicted. Animal defendants whom the court could apprehend, like domestic pigs, would be tortured to death, just as were human criminals (Evans, 1906).

Some scholars suggest that the people who punished swords and executed pigs were not so stupid as to believe that swords or pigs could form criminal intent, or could be deterred by the punishment of their fellows. Rather, argues one scholar of the phenomena, people were terrified by the seemingly random nature of bad events, which implied that perhaps there was no order to the universe. Thus, the purpose of punishing objects and animals "was to establish cognitive control ... the job of the courts was to domesticate chaos, and to impose order on a world of accidents--and specifically to make sense of certain seemingly inexplicable events by redefining them as crimes ... the child's death became explicable. The child had died as an act of calculated wickedness, and however awful that still was, at least it made some kind of sense" (Humphrey, 1906: xxvi). Albert Cohen described the same phenomena as the "evil causes evil fallacy": the belief that bad consequences must had bad causes. Perhaps it is easier to trace America's problems to "wicked" objects like guns or drugs, rather than to consider the depressing possibility that America may include a disproportionately large number of wicked people.
-- Kopel, The Ideology of Gun Ownership and Gun Control, 18 Qty. J of Ideology 3-34, p. 15-17.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
az2008 is offline  
post #6 of 25 (permalink) Old 12-21-2012, 07:03 AM
senior member
 
Em-squared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: near Portland, OR
2012 Nissan Leaf SL; 2012 Nissan X-Terra Pro-4X
Posts: 6,836
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Em-squared is an unknown quantity at this point
Garage
Sorry, but I have three rescue dogs and we've got a few guns, and it still took longer to get the guns. I'm very disappointed that they're now going to outlaw assault rifles.

Have stricter gun laws stopped any shooter from still being able to obtain a weapon and commit a crime? No, but they do stop people like myself from being able to legally purchase a weapon for self-protection or to protect my family. Not that I need an AR to do that, but I believe that this AR ban is just the first step in what will eventually become an increasingly strict legislation on gun ownership.

If someone is going to commit a crime with a gun, they certainly aren't worried about obtaining it legally and having it registered in their name. All these laws are doing are further preventing the responsible, law abiding Americans from owning guns and further proving the increasing tyranny of the U.S. government.

Fashionista.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Former driver of 2011 Elantra Limited no tech, and 2010 Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track
Em-squared is offline  
post #7 of 25 (permalink) Old 12-21-2012, 11:47 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Xion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Victoriaville, QC, Canada
Drives 2014 Elantra GT GLS Titanium Grey Metallic , 2004 Accent GS White
Posts: 5,465
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Xion is an unknown quantity at this point
Garage
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenspilot View Post
I see Xion finally realized that there's no mention of French cheese in the Bill of Rights. And finally decided to start a thread of his own instead of hijacking Pare John's.

Speaking of Xion: Your homework assignment, padawan.

An opinion on gun control « Monster Hunter Nation

Larry Correia not only knows what he's talking about when it comes to guns and the politics surrounding them; he's also a bit more patient than I am with people whose idea of "debate" on the gun issue is to scream "It's easier to buy a gun than X !!!" And who, inevitably, then proceed to scapegoat any gun owner who actually tries to engage them in the "debate" they claim to want, with personal responsiblilty for the outrage/tragedy/atrocity du jour.

Sorry, but since I have to get up early for work tomorrow I just don't have the time for a pointless flamewar right now.

When you're finished with Correia's extensive essay, for extra credit you might Google up another essay entitled "The Gun As Civilization" by Marko Kloos.
Thanks for the essay, I read some but I need a break from reading, I will continue later. The only thing I would say is that Adam Lanza used the guns available at his house, it was easy for him. In what other country other then Irak and Iran do you see shootings in malls or schools? in Canada we grew up without guns. My dad and my older brother had guns but they were the only one in my entire family and friends. How many mass shooting to you see in Canada? I know a crazy person will always find a way to find a gun to realise his plan but an ordinary kid like Adam Lanza would have given up or he may have done something else like just kill his mother with a knife and hang himself. Just my thought. I know you guys in the US own guns, it's your mentality, it's your history, it's like that. It may be a good thing to just forbid automatic guns, it's easier to stop a shooter if his gun is not a submachine gun.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Xion is offline  
post #8 of 25 (permalink) Old 12-21-2012, 04:19 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Tempe, AZ
13 Accent SE (RB) with sunroof
Posts: 648
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
az2008 is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion View Post
It may be a good thing to just forbid automatic guns, it's easier to stop a shooter if his gun is not a submachine gun.
The above is the problem with this topic, and the way the media sensationalizes it. Automatics are, for all intents and purposes, banned. The firearms under discussion are *semi-automatic* versions of automatics.

That's what makes the effort in the late '80s and early '90s such a monumental waste of time. After everything was done, a handful of cosmetic characteristics were altered. The guns never were different than any other semi-automatic. It was just the appearance. Yet, during that period, pro-control groups openly stated

Quote:
"The semi-automatic weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons"
-- Josh Sugarman, Coalition to Ban Handguns, 1988 (Quoted in Dowlut, 18 Stanford Law and Policy Review, 1997, P.5, fn.5
That's the kind of disingenuous, intentional misinformation which causes gun owners to reflexively reject any mention of control. They don't believe the topic is conducted in a sincere manner.

This is why I believe the pro-control movement owns a significant share of responsibility for the lack of progress made to sensibly control firearm ownership. They generally don't do anything until there's a tragedy. Then they go on a symbolic crusade. They don't ask gun owners for input. They depict gun owners as part of the problem. When 99.9% of gun owners never misuse their firearms, that's a massive political miscalculation.

The country paid a huge price for the '80s and '90s. It was largely credited with the huge takeover of Congress in 1994 (the so-called Republican Revolution). Democrats didn't regain control of even one chamber until 2006. Until this event, Democrats have been afraid to touch the topic of gun control.

That was a lot of time wasted. And, it diminished Democratic opposition to many other Republican agendas such as deregulation (the inability to regulate over-the-counter financial derivatives in 1997 after the CFTC chairwoman warned that they were a time bomb which could bring down our financial system.).

All so we could be safe from bayonet lugs, flash suppressors and pistol grips. Unbelievable.

(In fairness, that ban also limited magazines to 10 rounds. That may be useful. 10 rounds doesn't significantly impede anyone's ability to defend themselves. It can interrupt a shooter, giving bystanders an opportunity to use physical force -- which is what happened during the Giffords shooting a couple years ago in Tucson.).

Anyway, regarding full-auto machine guns, they have been extremely regulated since 1934 (during an era of gangsters using "Tommy guns"). The federal government didn't believe it could ban those firearms because the legal opinion of the 2nd Amendment was that it protected the right of individuals to possess weapons which could be useful as a member of a militia. (The militia was largely unused after passage of the 1901 Dick Act, establishing the National Guard.). Congress's power was limited to interstate regulation, and the power to tax. So, they required a "tax stamp" to own a full auto.

At that time, it was unclear if Congress could require this of even a weapon which never crossed state lines. But, the court system never heard a challenge because there were so few individuals interested in owning such a weapon. Over the following 70 years, most states banned ownership of full autos (regardless of compliance with federal tax).

In 1996(?) Congress capped the number of tax stamps which could be issued. Essentially, the number of full autos in circulation was capped. At that point, they became something of a collector's item. Their value has gone *way* up, making the unrealistic to the average person who happens to live in one of the few states where they remain legal.

Public attitudes about the role of federalism have changed since 1934. A challenge of that "control by tax" might have been successful then. But, today, nobody thinks about it. Most gun owners own firearms for self defense and hunting. They don't feel they're denied anything significant.

A relative handful of the population continues to talk up the militia angle of the founding believe in Civic Republicanism. They tend to be the ones who oppose a ban on semi-auto weapons with military appearance (so-called "assault weapons."). They also support legalization of full autos. But, they recognize they're don't have the political support for that. It's a fringe view.

(Owning a so-called "assault weapon" is somewhat fringe as well. However, functionally, there's nothing different between it and the average semi-auto. That's where gun control targeting these weapons becomes a symbolic crusade, and defenders have a morally superior position. That's why so much political damage was done between '85-'95. A tiny, fringe group of people were attacked using disingenuous tactics to whip the public into a frenzy. Ds lost control of congress for another 10-12 years. All due to what was essentially a fringe group with no significant political power. It was all about the *wrongfulness* of scapegoating a weapon or a fringe group.).


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
az2008 is offline  
post #9 of 25 (permalink) Old 12-21-2012, 05:32 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Tempe, AZ
13 Accent SE (RB) with sunroof
Posts: 648
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
az2008 is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by Em-squared View Post
Not that I need an AR to do that, but I believe that this AR ban is just the first step in what will eventually become an increasingly strict legislation on gun ownership.
That's exactly the damage which the anti-gun movement did in the '85-'95 era. There are a lot of people like you who have no interest in owning a so-called "assault weapon." They might support reasonable restrictions such as requiring all firearm transfers to be performed through licensed, federally-overseen dealers. Maybe even require training (safety and legal) to receive a license which would be required to own a firearm.

But, because the anti-gun movement has earned a reputation that their only goal is to ban private ownership of firearms (using confusion and demonization to do it), gun owners like yourself refuse to consider anything.

Personally, I don't agree with you that misusers would find a way around controls. You're right that any particular misuser could find a way. But, that's true of every law. We don't let perfection stand in the way of good. Even though individuals can sell firearms between themselves, that doesn't mean federal licensing of dealers isn't beneficial. The law requiring a certain threshold of sales to require licensing has led to identification of individuals conducting so-called "straw purchases" for ineligible buyers. Or, conducting business-volume sales as a private individual (and a wink, wink, nudge, nudge to his buyers).

IMO, it should be the cost/utility of any control. Weighing competing rights (the burden of a control versus the public good it may serve.). That's the discussion gun owners reflexively reject because the other side doesn't see a "competing right." Controllers see owners as part of the problem. A group to be denigrated and scapegoated.

At that point, neither side talks to each other. The anti side screams "you're responsible for killing children" (ignoring how the anti side squandered public support using bad-faith tactics). The pro side ignores any mention of control as "nothing will work perfectly, so this is as good as it gets."

What I see changing these dynamics is the Supreme Court hearing a case involving firearms in 2005. They ruled that the right is an individual right, that it was intended to have political purpose (democratic possession of the means to wage martial force in opposition to a tyrannical government). And, they incorporated the right into the 1866 14th Amendment.

The first part took away the anti side's constant refrain that there is no individual right. (But, still, today it's still common to hear anti politicians say "nobody needs an assault weapon for deer hunting," giving the impression the right doesn't have a martial purpose.).

The second part offers the most opportunity to reshape the debate to reflect the reason 90% of Americans own guns. The 14th Amendment was intended to extend the protections of the first 8 bills of right (until then only a bar against Congress) against state and private infringement (as newly freed slaves were subject to state laws denying them the right to assemble, own firearms, etc.). When the framers discussed the 2nd Amendment, it was exclusively in the context of personal self-defense against private violence (KKK members breaking up meetings of blacks). They never mentioned the militia, a formal organization operating within the framework of government.

IMO, the SC opened the door in 2005 to giving a modern meaning to the right to arms. It won't be the revolutionary right many activists promote (and which quickly fell into disuse). But, it won't be the right of the National Guard (as antis used to assert). I think the SC will merge the 2nd and 14th and accommodate a modern right to defense against private violence.

It will take some kind of regulation before a case is brought to the SC. That's just the way it works. We never know what's too far until a law is passed and the SC says it went too far. So, gun owners should view this as an opportunity and not the end of the world.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
az2008 is offline  
post #10 of 25 (permalink) Old 12-21-2012, 05:53 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Tempe, AZ
13 Accent SE (RB) with sunroof
Posts: 648
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
az2008 is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion View Post
that Adam Lanza used the guns available at his house, it was easy for him.
That's what makes this incident so inappropriate as the basis to discuss gun control. Lanza wasn't sold a weapon. If his mother had been required to keep it in a safe, Lanza would have been willing to torture her for the combination (since he was willing to shoot her in the face). There's very little which could have been done in this case -- even though requirements to purchase a gun are useful (and safe storage requirements might be useful too.).

IMO, what stands out in this case is a kid who spent countless hours exposing himself to graphic violence. And, withdrawn from school -- home schooled by a mother depicted as "difficult."

Maybe that's where we should focus our attention. With today's technology, graphic violence looks as real as an actual "snuff" film. In the '90s child p*rn came under increased regulation. After it was banned, used a computer to generate an image of such. At trial the defendant argued that, as no actual child was victimized, there was no crime. He lost. The court ruled that it was lifelike enough to constitute real CP.

Maybe we should view graphic violence the same way. If snuff films are illegal, maybe virtual "snuff" should be considered the same.

People express outrage that we've become a society awash in guns. But, how are we not outraged that we've become a society awash in virtual violence which we call "entertainment?"

And then there's home schooling. I've known a few home schoolers who I would characterize as "odd." They didn't fit well in society, were prone to conspiracy theories, survivalist activities, schizoid conduct. Certainly not all are that way. But, is it a good idea for children to be isolated from broader experiences, subjected to borderline thoughts in the home?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion View Post
How many mass shooting to you see in Canada?
Cross cultural comparisons are more complex than that. Canada isn't a nation of revolutionaries. In fact, 1/3 of the US population was forced to Canada due to their siding with the Crown during the revolution. Canada has a much deeper base of social institutions, focusing on rehabilitation. For example, it's common for offenders to receive a pardon and live their lives without the stain of a criminal record. Canadians are horrified at the idea of someone carrying such a burden their whole life, with no forgiveness. In the US, we'd scoff at it as "going soft on crime."

You guys also have less disparity of wealth and income. The US, especially after the past 30 years of political regulation, has enormous disparity. Charting our GINI index puts us closer to Russia and Mexico than it does industrialized Western nations.

That disparity ties into the importance of shared values, sense of community and obligation. Being more of a melting pot (of races, cultures, religions) we tend to be more fractured.

Finally, I do agree that if we could ban guns overnight (we can't, but if we could) we'd see firearm homicide rates fall. Non-firearm homicide would rise a little. Non-firearm violent crime would rise considerably. This tends to be the result in countries like Canada after passing major reform which eliminates firearms for personal defense.

At that point it's debatable whether it's better to be roughed up more often with the potential of firearm-inflicted wounds being less. That tends to depend on whether you're a strong man capable of offering physical resistance. Women, the elderly and infirm might take a different view.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
az2008 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Hyundai Forums : Hyundai Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome