Gun Control Debate

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Wed May 02, 2007 11:33 am

@Moonbiter: Nice system, and I see why it works. Linking gun ownership to concrete reasons for ownership other than "self-defense" is absolutely the way we ought to go in my country. Overcoming the deep pockets of the NRA would be the chief obstacle in any attempt to introduce common sense firearm leglislation like that. The corporate backers of the NRA do not want their livelihood and way of life threatened in any way. Concepts such as accountability, honesty, and a less violent society mean nothing to them. $$$ does.

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Thu May 03, 2007 2:35 pm

@Moonbiter: Nice system, and I see why it works. Linking gun ownership to concrete reasons for ownership other than "self-defense" is absolutely the way we ought to go in my country. Overcoming the deep pockets of the NRA would be the chief obstacle in any attempt to introduce common sense firearm leglislation like that. The corporate backers of the NRA do not want their livelihood and way of life threatened in any way. Concepts such as accountability, honesty, and a less violent society mean nothing to them. $$$ does.

From their point of view the NRA is working for accountability, honesty, and especially a less violent society. It all just depends on which side you look at it form

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu May 03, 2007 2:55 pm

TEMPLAR67 wrote:From their point of view the NRA is working for accountability, honesty, and especially a less violent society. It all just depends on which side you look at it form

Then why has it thrown such huge sums of money into advertising to defeat various state propositions designed to ban the private ownership of automatic assault rifles? There's no "side" involved in that fact.

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Thu May 03, 2007 3:11 pm

Then why has it thrown such huge sums of money into advertising to defeat various state propositions designed to ban the private ownership of automatic assault rifles? There's no "side" involved in that fact.

No side? the "sides" are as clear as republican and democrat, its pro-gun vs. anti-gun. The NRA on the pro-gun side throw huge sums of money into that because that is what they do; shoot down any propsed law that they believe to be unconstitutional, and they are very good at it. The other side is determined to to get rid of guns, the sides are clear as day.

Fiberfar · Post by **Fiberfar** » Thu May 03, 2007 3:17 pm

TEMPLAR67 wrote:No side? the "sides" are as clear as republican and democrat, its pro-gun vs. anti-gun. The NRA on the pro-gun side throw huge sums of money into that because that is what they do; shoot down any propsed law that they believe to be unconstitutional, and they are very good at it. The other side is determined to to get rid of guns, the sides are clear as day.

But how would more guns make society less violent?
Everyone can protect themselves with it, sure, but it wouldn't reduce the number of killed.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu May 03, 2007 3:20 pm

fable wrote:Then why has it thrown such huge sums of money into advertising to defeat various state propositions designed to ban the private ownership of automatic assault rifles? There's no "side" involved in that fact.

The side lies in your comment I quoted, which you haven't dealt with:

From their point of view the NRA is working for accountability, honesty, and especially a less violent society. It all just depends on which side you look at it form

I highlighted the relevant passage. If the NRA has fought to prevent bans on automatic assault rifles, then how does this promote a less violent society?

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Thu May 03, 2007 3:54 pm

I highlighted the relevant passage. If the NRA has fought to prevent bans on automatic assault rifles, then how does this promote a less violent society?

If it is your belief that more guns = less crime then that would be what they are fighiting for, and if i recall correctly, the vast majority of gun crimes are comitted with handguns, the last assutlt rifle action i can recall was the north hollywood shootout.

The side lies in your comment I quoted, which you haven't dealt with:

Not sure what your ? is there, what have i not dealt with, ill be happy to answer if i no the ?

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu May 03, 2007 4:13 pm

TEMPLAR67 wrote:If it is your belief that more guns = less crime then that would be what they are fighiting for,

I didn't discuss this point at all. You stated, "from their point of view the NRA is working for accountability, honesty, and especially a less violent society." Logically, if an organization wanted a less violent society, they wouldn't oppose bans for private ownership on automatic assault rilfes, which are not used for hunting, and are only used for person-on-person violence. The two points are mutually exclusive.

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Thu May 03, 2007 4:26 pm

Logically, if an organization wanted a less violent society, they wouldn't oppose bans for private ownership on automatic assault rilfes, which are not used for hunting, and are only used for person-on-person violence. The two points are mutually exclusive.

And like i just said, if that organisation believes that more law abiding citizens owning those weapons will reduce crime then yes they would oppose it. You have to be able to look at it from both sides, can you at least see what the NRA is trying to say?

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu May 03, 2007 4:31 pm

TEMPLAR67 wrote:And like i just said, if that organisation believes that more law abiding citizens owning those weapons will reduce crime then yes they would oppose it. You have to be able to look at it from both sides, can you at least see what the NRA is trying to say?

Let me see if I understand you. You're saying that the NRA opposes bans on the personal ownership of automatic assault rifles because owning these weapons helps reduce crime? Is that what you mean? Because there isn't, in as far as I know, a single instance of a person reducing crime by owning an automatic assault rifle. But am I misunderstanding what you're saying, here?

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Fri May 04, 2007 3:15 am

TEMPLAR67 wrote:No side? the "sides" are as clear as republican and democrat, its pro-gun vs. anti-gun.

It's us versus them. God forbid anyone has a nuanced stance on an issue.

The NRA on the pro-gun side throw huge sums of money into that because that is what they do; shoot down any propsed law that they believe to be unconstitutional.

I thought you guys have courts and lawyers and all that jazz to interpret what's constitutional. Glad to know it's done by interest groups instead.

Grombag · Post by **Grombag** » Fri May 04, 2007 4:07 am

Not among "you guys", but you can have an interpetation of the constitution if your not a lawyer. Besides I think the NRA has some lawyers in its service to take a look at the laws/constitution.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Fri May 04, 2007 4:20 am

Grombag wrote:Not among "you guys", but you can have an interpetation of the constitution if your not a lawyer. Besides I think the NRA has some lawyers in its service to take a look at the laws/constitution.

Sure you can, it just doesn't mean jack. A special interest group can interpret whatever they want however they want and that doesn't qualify them to shoot down laws on the basis of them conflicting with the constitution.

Grombag · Post by **Grombag** » Fri May 04, 2007 8:15 am

1: to cause to fall by shooting <shot down the helicopter>; especially : to kill in this way <was shot down in cold blood>
2: to put an end to : defeat, reject <shoot down legislation>
3: deflate, ridicule
4: discredit 2 <shoot down a theory>

[url="http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shoot%20down"]Source[/url]

The nra is an organization who (among other things) represent its members through [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbyist"]Lobying[/url]. This means it tries to reason with politicians to not put through a law. If it fails in its attempt it could do it through the legal system. After all what is the legal difference between an organisation and a actual person?

In short, what gives them the right:
lobying is legal in the US(see 2nd link) and they can act against a law they feel is wrong (just like an ordinary person can).

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Fri May 04, 2007 8:52 am

Grombag wrote: In short, what gives them the right:
lobying is legal in the US(see 2nd link) and they can act against a law they feel is wrong (just like an ordinary person can).

Lobbying because they feel it's wrong is fine and dandy (if we assume lobbying in general is fine and dandy); my gripe was that TEMPLAR said they lobby against it because it's unconstitutional which doesn't make any sense unless you take unconstitutional to be equivalent to ethically wrong. Think about it, if gun control was unconstitutional, they wouldn't need to lobby against it since it'd be illegal. If is legal, it's not unconstitutional and his point is moot. His post only makes sense if you take the constitution to be an authority on what is right and wrong, and not on what's legal and illegal. To be honest, what I posted was only tangentially related to gun control and was mostly a visceral reaction to something that annoyed me; I promise not to bring it up again

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri May 04, 2007 3:09 pm

NRA: Don't Ban Gun Sales to Suspects

SAM HANANEL | AP | May 4, 2007 04:51 PM EST
WASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat. As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties," Cox wrote.

In a letter supporting the measure, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said the bill would not automatically prevent a gun sale to a suspected terrorist. In some cases, federal agents may want to let a sale go forward to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation. Hertling also notes there is a process to challenge denial of a sale.

Current law requires gun dealers to conduct a criminal background check and deny sales if a gun purchaser falls under a specified prohibition, including a felony conviction, domestic abuse conviction or illegal immigration. There is no legal basis to deny a sale if a purchaser is on a terror watch list. "When I tell people that you can be on a terrorist watch list and still be allowed to buy as many guns as you want, they are shocked," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports Lautenberg's bill.

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, lawmakers are considering a number of measures to strengthen gun sale laws. The NRA, which usually opposes increased restrictions on firearms, is taking different positions depending on the proposal. "Right now law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it."

A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Fri May 04, 2007 3:59 pm

while i would like to hear the NRA's full argument, i will say that terrorists dont normally use guns to cause terror, they prefer to strap bombs to themselves.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Fri May 04, 2007 6:46 pm

TEMPLAR67 wrote:...i will say that terrorists dont normally use guns to cause terror, they prefer to strap bombs to themselves.

This is straying off-topic, but pray tell: where does a comment like that stem from? I'm curious, since terrorism assumes many forms and happens in many different places around the world.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sat May 05, 2007 8:29 am

It's too bad TEMPLAR is no longer among us. I wanted his opinion on the recent news of the NRA defending terror suspects' gun rights. I mean on one hand, it's the NRA and the can do no wrong, but on the other they're defending terrorists.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat May 05, 2007 8:33 am

Vicsun wrote:It's too bad TEMPLAR is no longer among us. I wanted his opinion on the recent news of the NRA defending terror suspects' gun rights. I mean on one hand, it's the NRA and the can do no wrong, but on the other they're defending terrorists.

I already posted an article about that earlier on this page. His reply made no sense to me, and I queried it, but he never responded.

Templar67 isn't permanently gone. So hopefully he'll deal with these issues when he shows up, again. In the meantime--and this is directed at everybody, and no one in particular--please do not disparage him at GameBanshee. I've already removed one post for flaming and its followups, along with issuing an infraction. The rules are for everyone, not just folks who get banned.