re: Pravda column on gun control in America

quote:

---

2) What is the best fix?
-This is the toughest of the questions, there is no one easy fix. There are so many guns illegally owned and available that no matter what we program we implement, it'll take a few generations to actually have any impact.
Nonetheless, we should implement what I have described in question 1.

---

Appears to be a feel good measure more than anything else.

quote:

---

However, we need to keep the special interest groups out and take a level headed approach in our legislature.

---

Yeah, usually people saying this definitely want to limit their opposition and by level headed you mean agree with you. In order to have a fair discussion on the issue, all players should be at the table.

quote:

---

It needs to be a good faith effort by gun advocates and those against gun possession to work together to create a system that provides proper access to guns.

---

We really have that, but you and I will disagree on "proper" and "access."

The measures you seek will create a lucrative and deadly black market that will in no way inhibit those who illegally possess firearms now from having them in your vision of the future.

quote:

---

3) What are the positives of this fix?
-In time, fewer and more isolated gun related incidents. That's the goal, to reduce violence. You can't end it, but you can try to minimize it. I repeat, the goal of many liberals is to reduce violence, that's it.

---

By your answer, I think you realize that banning guns is symbolic more than anything, and doesn't address the violence inherent in our society.

The goal of everyone is to eliminate violence. It isn't a liberal thing.

quote:

---

This part assumes that we can agree that guns give a person a higher capacity for violence than a knife because they could do more damage in less time. Thus, by reducing the capacity for mass violence, reducing violence.

---

We have mass violence with hunting rifle, shotgun, sword, knife or explosive. It will make you feel like you are doing something though. Symbolism is all some people need.

quote:

---

4) What are the potential negatives of this fix?
-Some people won't have access to particular guns.

---

You ignoring the black market altogether.

What you mean is some people will not have legal access to certain guns. Criminals still will.

quote:

---

A) A national lack of respect, understanding, and experience with guns is our single largest problem. If we all had a basic level of competence/respect, it would be easier to agree upon the rest of the issues surrounding gun control. People would also safeguard their guns in a better fashion, preventing accidents and theft. We would also have fewer handling accidents.

---

I think that's a laudable goal and I agree that if you have a gun or even if you don't, you should be familiar enough with it's use to handle it safely so that you don't get some kind of phobic reaction to it where you start attributing human traits to it that it simply can not possess.

quote:

---

B) Certain people shouldn't have access to guns. There should be clear and explicit laws in place to license ownership and regulate that ownership.
I think there should be a particular licensing procedure for all guns (to ensure that gun owners are at least educated about their weapons and receive proper training).
I can't draw the line about who should or shouldn't have guns and what types of guns...I'll leave that for brighter minds.

---

I agree that certain people should not have access to guns same way they shouldn't have access to knives, baseball bats, children, the public at large, shoe laces, belts, etc. The problem is licensing ownership does nothing to address that that isn't already done with a background check on purchase. Registration is the line in the sand we won't cross because registration always ends in confiscation. Something that is simply begging for insurrection if you push for it.

So the question becomes how else can we identify these people and keep the public safe from them? There are a lot of ways to go about that. None of them have anything to do with gun control.

quote:

---

(C) Certain guns should not be accessible to certain people. Higher capacity weapons should require more education/stricter licensing.

---

No offense but I think you are showing your ignorance of the subject here. Certain guns are already not accessible to most people via the National Firearms Act of 1934. As for high capacity magazines, what education do you propose that would be any different from an education of how to use a low capacity magazine? And you think someone should have a license for a magazine that holds one more round than one that you think they don't need licensing on? How does that make sense? Once again, you're talking about a roundabout way to registration. Put that out your head. Not going to happen without bloodshed.

I've got to take number 2 in parts.

quote:

---

2) What is the best fix?
-This is the toughest of the questions, there is no one easy fix. There are so many guns illegally owned and available that no matter what we program we implement, it'll take a few generations to actually have any impact.

---

No easy fix is putting it mildly. Impossible to 'fix' is more like it. Even if you take the generational approach to full confiscation that it sounds like you advocate, it will never work because once you cross that line in the sand, things will get so bad for this country you will not get what you want for long. You'll be begging to change it back.

quote:

---

Nonetheless, we should implement what I have described in question 1. However, we need to keep the special interest groups out and take a level headed approach in our legislature. It needs to be a good faith effort by gun advocates and those against gun possession to work together to create a system that provides proper access to guns.

---

In other words, you don't want to deal with the NRA so we need to make them illegal or somehow irrelevant in a society built on one man, one vote where they represent many millions of those who are dead set on stopping this from happening. Would you also like to see the ACLU silenced? Same thing. I suspect your idea of a good faith effort on the part of gun rights advocates is to simply concede defeat.

quote:

---

3) What are the positives of this fix?
-In time, fewer and more isolated gun related incidents. That's the goal, to reduce violence. You can't end it, but you can try to minimize it. I repeat, the goal of many liberals is to reduce violence, that's it.
This part assumes that we can agree that guns give a person a higher capacity for violence than a knife because they could do more damage in less time. Thus, by reducing the capacity for mass violence, reducing violence.

---

If the goal of liberals was actually to reduce violence I don't believe for a second they'd be starting with assault rifles since they are an insignificant percentage of violent crimes. And no we aren't going to agree that rifles are more dangerous than knives when knives kill way the hell more people than rifles ever will. So do fists. So you are being disingenuous. That's why we don't trust you.

quote:

---

4) What are the potential negatives of this fix?
-Some people won't have access to particular guns.

---

The same thing you said in part one was a goal is now a negative. Double talk.

quote:

---

5) Do the positives outweigh the negatives?
In time, if we all took an active role on educating and monitoring, we would see fewer and more isolated incidents. It would take some time, like generations.

---

It doesn't take generations to train someone in the proper, safe use of firearms. But that's not your definition of safe. Your definition of safe is no guns and a population that's been brainwashed into believing they're evil violence generators.

Do you understand now why you aren't going to get any of this? It's because you aren't dealing in 'good faith' nor are you 'level headed' on this subject. It's too emotional for you to be otherwise.

You must have missed mine like I missed yours on the other page.

quote:

---

I repeat, the goal of many liberals is to reduce violence, that's it.

---

So put measures in place that caused violence to skyrocket in other countries? Makes NO sense.

quote:

---

A gun designed to kill people (AR-15) will likely be far more effective at killing lots of people in a short time than an over-under shotgun.

---

Stupidity.

Ever read about the Cumbria shootings in England? Perp used a shotgun and .22 bolt action rifle and killed 12.

The Dunblane school massacre? 17 killed using four revolvers.

What were you saying again?

Yeah that's why I think he's just ignorant of the subject. He honestly believes a high capacity magazine is somehow inherently more dangerous than one with ten rounds in it. It's the same bullets doing the same damage. All you've gained if somehow you managed to keep a criminal from getting one and he's restricted himself to only 'legal' mags is slowed him down by about two seconds. When the cops are only minutes away. It's a fantasy. And it's got nothing to do with safety and everything to do with indoctrinating the public to be more accepting of gun control laws, one step at a time.

What was the first thing you thought when you heard that nut shot up a movie theater with a 100rd drum mag?

In my case the first thing I thought before I got any information whatsoever was, I'll bet it jammed.

And come to find out... yep. It jammed. Those things are practically useless.

And then I heard he also had an 870 and suddenly his body count made MUCH more sense.

But if you talk to one of these liberals about that incident they'll swear up and down that it was the drum mag on an AR that killed and wounded all those people when what caused the most damage was the good ole pump action shotgun.

My son wanted a .22 with a drum magazine for the zombie apocolypse. Told him it would jam then would fall off when he butt-stroked a zombie. Then he would be eaten.

quote:

---

4) What are the potential negatives of this fix?
-Some people won't have access to particular guns.

The same thing you said in part one was a goal is now a negative. Double talk.

---

No double talk. By requiring licenses for ownership of any gun (required education, training), some people will be excluded from gun ownership. Some people won't access to particular guns.
By having longer waiting periods, maybe year...two years, etc. for a particular gun, you won't have access to particular guns for a period.

quote:

---

In other words, you don't want to deal with the NRA so we need to make them illegal or somehow irrelevant in a society built on one man, one vote where they represent many millions of those who are dead set on stopping this from happening. Would you also like to see the ACLU silenced? Same thing. I suspect your idea of a good faith effort on the part of gun rights advocates is to simply concede defeat.

---

I guess I should have been more specific, Any change will have to go through legislation. My wish is to keep the money and the propaganda involved with the NRA, gun manufacturers, and others out of the process.
Yes, everyone deserves a seat at the table, just not many bought seats.

quote:

---

No offense but I think you are showing your ignorance of the subject here. Certain guns are already not accessible to most people via the National Firearms Act of 1934. As for high capacity magazines, what education do you propose that would be any different from an education of how to use a low capacity magazine? And you think someone should have a license for a magazine that holds one more round than one that you think they don't need licensing on? How does that make sense?

---

I'm fully aware that certain guns aren't accessible to certain people right now.
I tried not to get into too many specifics, rather relying on broader policy arrangements because it would take far too long for every type of gun and restriction.

Nonetheless, I think there could be some type of training, practical field test, waiting period to get a license for guns of a particular
capacity.
Just IMHO.

quote:

---

If the goal of liberals was actually to reduce violence I don't believe for a second they'd be starting with assault rifles since they are an insignificant percentage of violent crimes. And no we aren't going to agree that rifles are more dangerous than knives when knives kill way the hell more people than rifles ever will. So do fists. So you are being disingenuous. That's why we don't trust you.

---

Capacity is the key word in all of this. I realize that many disagree when I say that some guns have a greater capacity for violence than others. That's a different argument all together, but that is what worries people.
We have had a string of major incidents in the past year involving guns that are what I would describe as "high capacity" guns.

Had they not had those guns, would the result be different?
Maybe, maybe not. There lies the argument, I say yes, you would say no. Just my opinion.


I wouldn't call it disingenuous, rather different rational.

quote:

---

The problem is licensing ownership does nothing to address that that isn't already done with a background check on purchase. Registration is the line in the sand we won't cross because registration always ends in confiscation.

---

The reason I bring up licensing and registration is to ensure the proper education, training, etc. has taken place, not confiscation.
I can acknowledge the problems with registration, but it's my opinion that those risk are minimal when weighed rationally with the potential benefits (coupled with training, education, etc.)


For this arguments sake, we'll agree that a person has a right to own and possess a gun. However, that does not mean there shouldn't be limits or rules and procedures to follow so guns don't get into the wrong hands.

Maybe we are at the point of no return because our society is so saturated with all types of guns that we couldn't implement a clear form of licensing and training.
Maybe not, again, that's a subjective determination.

frick your stupid fricking opinion.