Daylife/Getty Images used by permission
In his most extensive comments on gun control since the tragic Aurora theater shooting, President Obama called for tighter gun control measures in a speech at the Urban League in New Orleans…
“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -– that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.
“But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals –– that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial. They should be common sense.”
Noting that lax gun control is only one part of the problem, Obama also touched on the historic new agreement between the New Orleans police department and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to reduce crime and corruption, as well as government programs in Boston, Chicago, and Detroit meant to steer young people away from gangs and street violence…
In his speech Wednesday night, Obama acknowledged that it has been difficult to get stricter gun control laws through Congress; the NRA and other gun rights lobbyists outspent gun control advocates 17 to 1 in Washington just last year. But a new poll found that gun-owning Americans, including NRA members, overwhelmingly support gun control regulations, with 87 percent of NRA members agreeing that “support for the Second Amendment goes hand-in-hand with keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals.”
Overdue.
I live in the Wemenuche Wilderness of Colorado, I frequently have Mountain Lion, bear, coyotes, etc, in my backyard, I have had pets attacked. A woman nearby was attacked by a bear, and I came face to face with a sow and 3 cubs 2 weeks ago. It ended peacefully, as we both backed away, but…..
Not everyone lives in an apartment in NYC. There are a lot of us who prefer the country, a lot. And we can’t call the police.
Second Point, approx 17 years ago I lived on a US owned Caribbean island that was devastated by a hurricane. The power was out for 6 months in a lot of areas. There was a curfew every night at 6PM (it gets dark earlier in the Caribbean). The National Guard was patrolling the streets, but you more to fear from them than from some of the thugs. My company was in the business of rebuilding the computer infrastructure of businesses and hotels/resorts. The banks were mostly out of commission because of the power, so some of the people were paying me in cash, (It’s the West Indian way). Gangs were blocking country roads and car-jacking and killing people for the cash. I didn’t own a firearm at the time because the gun laws there are very strict. But the criminals had many. It’s called a disaster scenario and if you think it can’t happen, you are just naive.
I know bobbo – these are just stories, but to me they were very real and dangerous situation.
You posed a similar scenario to me in a previous thread, and I replied, but it seems to have gotten lost somewhere. Here’s my reply to you re-posted:
These are both good points. I agree with you that there are many scenarios where a gun is a useful tool. I should say upfront that while I do feel that guns should be more restricted than they are currently, I am not so far left as to want to see them all banned (as I think Bobbo would argue).
Let’s start with the wilderness example. I think I’m pretty much in agreement with this one. I grew up in a rural area where bears were a legitimate, though rare, danger. I have gone hiking many times in the wilderness and have encountered bears on 3 occasions. In all three of those cases I did not have a gun, but I wouldn’t begrudge someone for wanting the security of having one. But in this case, this is an openly carried gun in the wilderness, not a concealed weapon in an urban setting.
Second scenario, disaster strikes. I have some mixed feelings on this one. In your case, the situation was complicated by the fact that you were in a foreign country where the institutions and infrastructure were not as solid as here in the US. It is hard to imagine a very likely scenario where the power would be out for 6 months within the continental US (or any significant amount of time) or an extended period of lawlessness. Even in pretty bad natural disasters, this country is robust enough to establish control after a relatively short period of time.
Here’s how I suspect (and maybe you saw examples of this?) that a disaster scenario would play out. In the initial period, people mostly tried to go on with their lives, maybe after several days or a week with no help, people started looting stores for supplies (somewhat understandable). This promotes the feeling of lawlessness, and gradually over the weeks, criminal elements got bolder in stopping and robbing people. My point is that it takes time for things to devolve to the point where we all need to go around armed a-la the old west. It seems very unlikely that a lawless situation like that would happen here for a long enough stretch.
The disaster scenario (at best) seems like an argument for having a gun safely stowed in the home for emergencies, but again, not for routine concealed weapons being carried in an urban setting.
> but again, not for routine concealed weapons
> being carried in an urban setting.
Except for movie theaters and Wal-Marts and internet cafes.
That’s a different situation though.
I agree that good guys having easy access to guns is a good way to counter bad guys having easy access to guns. But what if they both had less access to guns? Isn’t that also a viable solution?
It will never happen. You can’t remove a being’s right to self-preservation based on a fantasy world of no guns.
Bad guys will always find ways to kill people, even if it were nothing more than knives, molotov cocktails, or ricin gas.
It it much more efficient to shoot someone throwing a molotov cocktail at you than to throw one back at him.
I was NOT in a foreign country. I was in the US Virgin Islands. We pay the same taxes to the IRS as you do. We are 35 miles from Puerto Rico. Do you consider Puerto Rico a foreign country.
Perhaps you remember New Orleans? How quickly the authorities stepped in to maintain order.
NOW SAY IT WITH ME…I WILL NOT BE DEPENDANT ON ANYONE ELSE TO RESCUE ME!!!! MOST ESPECIALLY THE US GOV’T.
Repeat 100 times until it sinks in.
My mistake, you said it was a Caribbean island and I assumed it was a foreign country. My point still stands though – this would not occur in the continental US. The infrastructure is too robust to have lawlessness for 6 months.
I would also point to New Orleans as a good example for my argument. That was about as big a hit to law and order as you might expect to see in a major American city. Yes there was chaos for several days, up to about a week at the outside. Then the National Guard was there to restore law and order (a friend of mine was one of those who was sent from Missouri). By that point (as I described above) the situation had devolved to looting of stores, but there wasn’t much in the way of bad guys robbing good guys yet (probably a week or two more away).
How much worse than Katrina hitting New Orleans to you expect things to get in your lifetime in the city where you live? I’d say it’s pretty darn unlikely. And even if it did get to that, just go home and get the guns and other survival supplies you have stashed there. There’s little need to be armed at all times within the city limits.
Except for movie theaters and Wal-Marts and internet cafes.
It’s good to see that Obama is taking a stand in this political season. Too bad the Republican controlled congress will never work to ban assault weapons. If a major Republican politician supported better laws for assault weapons, THAT would be breaking news.
If this article doesn’t tell you that support for gun control is nothing more than political grandstanding, nothing will.
http://tinyurl.com/c3sv2t8
Shhhhhhh… keep this quiet, LibertyLover. The firearms manufacturers will find it harder to meet their sales goals if it ever becomes widely known that Obama has no driving passion to take away our guns. His supposed intent to do so was one of the most popular narratives in Republican circles for the last four years, leading to record sales of firearms and ammo and heightened voter engagement among the gun-toting demographic. Now is no time for a reality check.
Loose lips don’t just sink ships, they also sink gun sales, so please show some consideration. Besides, some people are bound to feel like fools when they realize how masterfully they’ve been played.
LOL. Probably.
But there are people out there who truly believe that removing people’s right to self-preservation is a good thing.
Obama probably DOES believe this but he doesn’t have the stroke to get rid of them. There are battles you win, those you lose, and those you know the outcome of before they begin. He knows what the outcome of this battle will be but he figures he might as well make the best use of the disaster as possible to fire up the sheep — “We need to take away the guns!”
In a way he is creating jobs — it’s in the weapons sector, but I guess that’s better than nothing 🙂
McCULLOUGH–your situation appears to fit into the Swiss Gun control Policy. Why would you think reasonable or even harsh gun control policies would apply to you?
But hypothetically, you continue the ASSUMPTION that guns are the only way you can reasonably protect yourself even when you haven’t needed guns on multiple occasions of the threat you complain of. Oops…. the hypo: would you be willing to give up your guns “if” 13,000 people would be saved from violent gun deaths per year? Just wondering how you deal with statistics and risk assessment.
ORCHI–yes I am for complete elimination of guns==as much as possible. The claimed benefits are too minimal to balance off the demonstrable harm caused. But I am nothing (sic) if not Pragmatic. So let’s go Swiss as the interim and give those afraid of Bears and Masked Villains the pacifiers the clamor for.
LIBERTY LOSER–as usual you have it backwards. Talking about what one is for is not grandstanding. The failure to propose legislation consistent with what one is for is cowardly grovelling fear of special interest single issue low information value voters—the status quo. Two entirely different things.
Methinks you are contradicting yourself. Unless I just misunderstand you….come to think of it, I don’t have a clue what you are talking about regarding my situation(s).
But then since you weren’t there, you have the luxury of pontificating from your anal orifice.
Surely I’m not that ambiguous? …. really?…..
Straightforward question.
Sorry–had to run away there and flip my burgers.
So–the question is rather easy. Using base line psychiatric assessment tools I learned watching “The Mentalist” I can only conclude you simply don’t like the answer.
Unless you provide other info, it appears you would keep your guns even if it meant 13,000 other innocent people would die. Its just a hypothetical: Own it.
As to the non-hypothetical issue–I don’t think my being there or having any other details pro or con make any difference. Not needed, not relevant. More confusion on your part generated by not liking your answer to the hypo.
thats just what hypothetical questions are good at: cutting thru the obfuscations and getting to the base values. Those base values in this case could be expressed in various ways, but it is your hypothetical not mine.
For myself, I go camping all the time and have met 3-4 bears, rattlesnakes, scorpions, alligators, monkeys, coyotes/no wolves, other HIKERS!!!!! I would have been more comfortable with a gun in my possession—but I still go hiking without one. I would give up having a gun to save 13,000 people==hypothetically speaking.
Easy Peasy.
Years ago, when I actually read Bobbo’s posts, I caught him arguing with himself on a particularly slow subject. I guess it was because there weren’t that many posts from other people.
So you are probably more correct than you think you are — he probably was contradicting himself.
I bet if you got a couple of beers in him, he could do all Three Stooges by himself. He’s certainly got the One Stooge down.
Maybe I am dense, but I don’t see how giving up my guns would save anyone. The gov’t. saw fit to supply and train me in the use of firearms as both military and as an FLEO. But now I’m being told that maybe, they don’t trust me with that responsibility anymore.
Again I don’t have the time or patience to go back and read your rationale that responsible, trained, law abiding, tax paying gun owners would save 13000 lives by giving up there weapons. I have no kids, no kids enter my house, I don’t even like the little buggers, I get along great with the wife, and I probably won’t shoot myself, unless I have to read another 100 of your comments, then all bets are off. I did have to finish off a rather large bird the other day, which the house cat obligingly mangled. And I felt badly about that.
But congrats on being poster number 200! 172 of them I believe are owned by you.
You know, I was just struck by how the situation with guns in society is similar to the prisoner’s dilemma (Google it if you haven’t heard of it), just played out on a societal level.
If I give up my gun and you don’t, I’m at a big disadvantage and maybe you’ll rob me or kill me. If you give up your gun and I don’t, you’re at a big disadvantage and you fear I might rob or kill you. If we both keep our guns, it’s not as bad for either of us, but it’s still a little bad as we have to live with a little more paranoia and the occasional gun accident. But if we both give up our guns, then it’s good for both of us and we both get to live happy and safe(r) lives.
The trouble, of course, it how to trust that the other guy will disarm when you do? And in this case, all of society has to disarm together. Very hard to establish that kind of trust.
No real solution here, just an insight that popped into my head.
Enjoy the weekend all.
Yes the conundrum: A law abiding citizen will abide by the law, a criminal of course, will not.
It ain’t rocket science….
Anti gun but pro tech–this is interesting. You can now 3-D print your gun if you have a barrel? I assume the program could “meld” the metal right in the printer rather than having to snap two halves together? I can see some more work on the mediums involved coming close enough to whatever strength/shear/heat characteristics you wanted.
http://extremetech.com/extreme/133514-the-worlds-first-3d-printed-gun
Chris thats an excellent analogy as far as it goes but the “real” dilemma is to accept the fact that you are safer even if “some” of the other guys have guns and you don’t. You don’t have a gun but you do have cops and a criminal system acting as a deterrent. You also have your common sense to minimize your exposure to crime and such.
McCullough–pretty dry delivery if you are being humorous. If you aren’t (and I do find that hard to believe) then: its a hypothetical==unrelated to reality. Thats why they are useful.
The first section is irony, section 2 is humor.
But hey, I could have used a baseball bat, but that wouldn’t have been as much fun.
Again, humor.
It was dry, awful dry===scary dry.
So—for the future, I should just assume you aren’t a dickwad?
….. tough room!
No, don’t assume anything…sometimes I am a dickwad. I think sometimes you are as well.
Yep–it does get monotonous being consistent. Still, most of us draw upon a shallow well of resources to paint our essences.
First, it occurred to me that assuming one thing or the other is fraught with difficulties. Why not just ALWAYS accept what is written at face value? And then I wondered why you chose to go ironic or humorous at this subject while not doing so at all the other opportunities? Could be variable, could be stretching your other enjoyable attributes, or it could be just as I stated.
Yes, lots of value in just taking things at face value.
Am I ever a dickwad? I remember purposefully trying to be so a few years back and I think I came to the same analysis I did just above. Sarcasm and humor ((absent clear identifiers)) is more often lost than found in this format. I don’t like being misunderstood, so I think I mostly dropped it. Do I think/say things I know won’t be popular?==Yes. Been quite a while though since I have presented ideas that I don’t actually hold.
No, I haven’t intentionally been a dickwad==just someone you disagree with.
Similarly–are Orchi and Gary demonstrating dickwad behavior or sharing a private joke? Wingdings or Arabic? I did the same thing with Alfie a while back, but I don’t think he noticed.
אני ה ‘אלהיכם
לך יש את הזכות להגן על עצמך
Now I finally know how Pentecostal Christians feel when they speak in tongues. I have no idea what this means, but it just popped into my head:
אקדח הוא כלי מן השטן, יורקת אש כמו שטן. אם הייתי רוצה בני האדם יש רובים, הייתי נותן אותם אל אברהם ומשה. במקום זאת, נתתי להם חרבות חניתות, אז בכל פעם שהם נהרג אדם אחר, זה לא יהיה מקרי.
שפיכות דמים תמיד צריך להיות בכוונה, אינה מקרית.
רבים נהרגים בטעות בחרבות וברמחים
“Obama stands up for gun control”
You do have more control over a gun if you are standing up.
המיקום נוטה יציב יותר
אני יהוה אלהיכם
מיליציה מוסדרת היטב היא הביטחון הטוב ביותר של מדינה חופשית, זכותם של אנשים להחזיק ולהשתמש בנשק לא תופר.
Better mental care might lead to gun control for the disturbed. More cops might lead to gun control for the violent. Perhaps, gun control is a social issue and not a legal one.
But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals
A. No one thinks any gun of any kind belongs nor ought to be in the hands of a criminal. No one argues this.
B. Why should gun owners not be permitted to have AK-47s? What makes it different than a rifle? Answer: nothing. In fact, AK-47s are mechnically identical to most rifiles and noticably less powerful than many rifles. The problem is that the look scary. The reason they are used by militaries is they are cheap and sufficiently reliable under battlefield conditions. The onus in the government to provide a compelling justification for taking people’s rights not the other way around.
Banning AK-47s or AR-15s would not have stopped the Aurora incident and in fact most incidents in the past 30 years would not have been prevented by gun control laws. Gun control laws simply punish law abiding citizens.
But a new poll found that gun-owning Americans, including NRA members, overwhelmingly support gun control regulations, with 87 percent of NRA members agreeing that “support for the Second Amendment goes hand-in-hand with keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals.
Perfect example of a BS quote. What isn’t said is HOW said control would be implemented. I bet that if you polled NRA members about banning weapons because they look scary that they results would be nearly unanimous against it.
Thomas — been on vacation? Or just re reading a long book?
So, why not ban these items or make them harder to possess by citizens? /// Because cars and guns provide a useful if not necessary service/function to the great majority of people. Guns don’t.
After all, less cars = fewer deaths; less airplanes = fewer deaths etc. right? /// No. Alternative transportation systems don’t have the density to make them viable.
Why not stop insane people from buying ladders, scissors, knives or a host of other items which can cause death? /// We do.
Wrong on every point there Thomas. I’ll put you down under “Stupid Comments” and assume you own several guns?
Because cars and guns provide a useful if not necessary service/function to the great majority of people. Guns don’t.
You are changing your argument. Your original argument was simply that more guns = more death. Well, more cars = more death. More people are killed by cars than by guns by a long shot.You want less death, take away people’s cars, airplanes, knives, scissors and anything else that could cause death. You just want to take away the things you personally think are scary.
Guns do provide a necessary service as others have pointed out numerous times: protection and recreation. They are an effective force multiplier for individuals. Most people are never trained on the use of firearms. Why don’t we ban martial arts since it does not provide a service/function to most people?
You don’t understand how rights work. You have to provide a compelling reason to take people’s rights. So far your reasons are:
1. Guns kill people. But so do a host of other things
2. Guns do not provide a function/service. As I’ve established, they do: protection and recreation.
Why not stop insane people from buying ladders, scissors, knives or a host of other items which can cause death? /// We do.
Actually, we do not. There are no background checks for knives, scissors or a host of other items wihch can be used for killing.
Wrong on every point there Thomas. I’ll put you down under “Stupid Comments” and assume you own several guns?
Says that child that is actually in the wrong on every point. I’ll put you down under “Clueless Comments” and assume you do not own a gun nor have ever used one.
Thomas as a card carrying gun NUT says:
7/29/2012 at 9:56 pm
But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals
A. No one thinks any gun of any kind belongs nor ought to be in the hands of a criminal. No one argues this. /// Thats what they “say” but what they DO is prevent common sense restriction and prevent the closure of loopholes that allow criminals to get guns very easily===and then to equip them with extended clips and what not. So like a NUT to focus on a word, phrase, talking point, bit of DOGMA to avoid the bigger picture. Almost like lying….oops, more like a subtle form of lying!
B. Why should gun owners not be permitted to have AK-47s? What makes it different than a rifle? Answer: nothing. /// Because they too easily shoot too many bullets. All guns should be banned, but up the ladder where someday restrictions might be applied is guns like this. Bolt action guns provide all the functionality needed by law abiding citizens. Only CRIMINALS need the other functions.
In fact, AK-47s are mechnically identical to most rifiles and noticably less powerful than many rifles. The problem is that the look scary. The reason they are used by militaries is they are cheap and sufficiently reliable under battlefield conditions. /// Agreed–good reasons to ban them all.
The onus in the government to provide a compelling justification for taking people’s rights not the other way around. /// 13,000 dead. No offsetting benefits.
Banning AK-47s or AR-15s would not have stopped the Aurora incident and in fact most incidents in the past 30 years would not have been prevented by gun control laws. Gun control laws simply punish law abiding citizens. //// Faith statement wrapped in UNTHINKING DOGMA. Must be very satisfying to know what counterfactual hypotheticals would result it. Answer me this OH SWAMY–if guns didn’t exist, how many people would be killed by guns?
But a new poll found that gun-owning Americans, including NRA members, overwhelmingly support gun control regulations, with 87 percent of NRA members agreeing that “support for the Second Amendment goes hand-in-hand with keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals.
Perfect example of a BS quote. What isn’t said is HOW said control would be implemented. /// You don’t see that as a separate question???? Evidently you don’t know how to parse an issue.
I bet that if you polled NRA members about banning weapons because they look scary that they results would be nearly unanimous against it. /// So you are testifiying that NRA members are just that stupid but you want them to have guns anyway huh? So, how much Colt stock do you own?
As stated–I enjoy a disagreement, but not talking to a retard.
Thats what they “say” but what they DO is prevent common sense restriction and prevent the closure of loopholes that allow criminals to get guns very easily===and then to equip them with extended clips and what not.
Apparently, you think that the only way to prevent a criminal from having a gun is to take *everyone’s* guns. As I said, no one, gun enthusiasts or not, thinks that criminals should have guns. On what everyone disagrees, is HOW to go about achieving that goal. The guy at Aurora was not a criminal. Trying to restrict magazine sizes will not help either as most clips can easily be reworked to provide additional capacity.
Because they too easily shoot too many bullets. All guns should be banned, but up the ladder where someday restrictions might be applied is guns like this.
Says the child that does not understand how guns work. There is nothing MECHANICALLY different between an AK-47 and many hunting rifles. They shoot the same speed. They are all semi-automatic weapons and shoot as fast as the person pulls the trigger.
Bolt action guns provide all the functionality needed by law abiding citizens. Only CRIMINALS need the other functions.
You are under the mistaken impression that all hunting rifles are bolt action. Many are not and that has been true for many years. Further, 9 MM and 45 caliber pistols have been semi-automatic since their inception which is about 70 years ago. In addition, an experienced shooter can shoot nearly as fast with a bolt action as with a semi-automatic.
Agreed–good reasons to ban them all.
“OMG, OMG, OMG, scary weapon!!! Ban anything scary from anyone.” Again, you are a child that finds the big bad guns scary.
13,000 dead. No offsetting benefits.
No offsetting benefits that your little mind can see.
Faith statement wrapped in UNTHINKING DOGMA. Must be very satisfying to know what counterfactual hypotheticals would result it. Answer me this OH SWAMY–if guns didn’t exist, how many people would be killed by guns?
A. In Aurora, the killer’s AR-15 jammed and most of the people were killed using the shotgun and pistol.
B. If cars did not exist, think how many people would not be killed by cars! Come back from your kumbayah cloud and back to reality. Guns do exist. If you think guns have no benefit, then let’s take them from the police first.
Perfect example of a BS quote. What isn’t said is HOW said control would be implemented. /// You don’t see that as a separate question???? Evidently you don’t know how to parse an issue.
The issue is ENTIRELY about HOW to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. THAT we all want to keep them out of the hands of criminals, including those in the NRA, is so obvious as to be meaningless. This is the problem with the liberal mindset. They only think of “what” they want and never about “how” to achieve it. Banning all guns will not do nothing. The guy in Aurora would have simply cooked up a bomb that can be made from household items in order to do his killing. Another choice would be to make a gun which if you have ever watched Mythbusters, you will know can be done with stuff at the hardware store and explosives (which can also be made or bought legally).
So you are testifiying that NRA members are just that stupid but you want them to have guns anyway huh? So, how much Colt stock do you own?
I am testifying that you are a cowardly liberal that finds something you do not understand and in which you personally find scary and thus you want to take it from everyone.
Small typo:
Banning all guns will do nothing.