Bloomberg's anti-gun ads feature irresponsible firearm handling

[twintornados]

double post**

Edited March 29, 2013 by twintornados

[Langston Hughes]

It's good to see you fall into the trap TT. Nothing like someone to come along and prove my point. Cars cause more deaths. Yes, they do but it's intellectually dishonest to compare them.

 

Cars and firearms are used differently and under different circumstances. I'd bore you with the scientific reality of how traffic works and how the complexities of such makes vehicles more prone to accidents but your not interested in debate.

 

Suffice it to say that we spend hundreds of thousands perhaps millions more hours of our lives driving than actually handling a firearm as a nation. Maybe tens or hundreds of millions.

[TomServo92]

Here's an interesting tidbit...

 

The Gun Control Act of 1968 has language that was literally translated word for word from the German Weapons Law of 1938. In fact, Senator Thomas Dodd, who introduced the bill, was known to have a translated copy of the Nazi German legislation. I'm sure we all understand the purpose of the German law and it's ultimate outcome.

 

I believe that if the 2nd Amendment ever falls, the door is open for a dictatorial government as the 2nd is the shield that protects the rest of the Bill of Rights. I find it beyond belief that some would give away inalienable rights in the belief that a "benevolent" government will take care of them. History has shown that when governments possess complete power over their citizenry, they abuse that power. Will that happen in the US? I don't know but I certainly don't want to take the chance to find out.

Edited March 29, 2013 by TomServo92

[Langston Hughes]

If the government was dictatorial, firearm confiscation would be one of the last things to happen. You all keep talking about Hitler and the Nazi's but they are not the only country to come under the control of power hungry rulers. Most of the more recent went after the press and opposition parties first.

 

So if you see Rupert and Roger get charged with treason by the Justice dept then worry about your guns.

[NickF1011]

So if you see Rupert and Roger get charged with treason by the Justice dept then worry about your guns.

 

Yeah, no need to worry about losing our rights before it happens, guys.

[RangerM]

Yeah, no need to worry about losing our rights before it happens, guys.

The ACLU certainly isn't worried in this matter.

[FiredMotorCompany]

The ACLU certainly isn't worried in this matter.

Our downfall will be the result of activists redefining legal definitions in federal code and the constitution.

 

Much easier to change the definition than changing the code.

 

Just watch the next couple of years while both parties become orgasmic with glee at their new-found powers that heretofore were beyond contemplating.

 

Remember, once a right is established, it is all but impossible to restrict or rescind.

 

And, I am not talking about gay marriage or DOMA. I am talking about the executive powers and such. One day, YOUR party will be out of power and the other guy will wield the same sword you handed your guy.

 

Oh, what blissfully ignorant but well intentioned citizens have wrought upon this country.

Edited March 29, 2013 by FiredMotorCompany

[cal50]

[Langston Hughes]

Yeah, no need to worry about losing our rights before it happens, guys.

 

There's a difference between watching for it and standing on the corner screaming that the end is near. They are the latter.

[Trimdingman]

No government gun control measures reduce gun-related violence. They increase it, as criminals have no fear if they know that nobody is going to be shooting back. The government should forget about trying to keep track of guns. It is impossible, and a waste of money, and useless in preventing shootings. They should concentrate on security where citizens are likely to be unarmed, and thus vulnerable. Citizens should be encouraged to take firearms safety and skills training, and to possess firearms and carry them when they deem it necessary. This would put an end to bank robberies, home invasions, street shootings, to name a few. The problem with this, as the government and police see it is that they will no longer be needed as much, and they will lose some of the control they have over the people. Many people have been brainwashed to fear guns. A gun can no more harm you than a parked car. For a child to fire an unloaded handgun, he would have to press the bullets into the magazine, which requires more strength than a child has, install the magazine, cock the gun, and fire. The shot would probably damage some drywall, and scare the daylights out of him. Getting his hands on the keys to a car, or getting the lid off a prescription pill bottle or cleaning fluid bottle would be far more dangerous than having access to Dad's 9 millimeter. All of this gun-fearing paranoia makes no sense unless you want bigger government. Historically, governments that want to dis-arm their law-abiding citizens are up to no good. It has nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with tyranny and Totalitarianism.

 

What about background checks for people buying firearms? Who could be against that? It is an expensive waste of time. How can you tell from someone's backgroung what he will do with a gun. Maybe he is too shaky, or has bad vision. These things are hazards that people face in everyday life. Bad accidents happen. Guns can be obtained through many sources. The more government tries to eliminate them, the more they come into existence, along with the related crime; for instance black market sales and gangs and turf wars. It is like concentrating on fixing one hole in a bucket that has ten holes in it. The argument doesn't hold water.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Trimdingman

[TomServo92]

There's a difference between watching for it and standing on the corner screaming that the end is near. They are the latter.

 

One thing I've learned in life is it's better to be proactive rather than reactive.

[Langston Hughes]

On that note, with the big rush to grab ammo and firearms do you see any unintended consequences?

 

I wonder if ammo becomes a sort of gray/black market currency. Crackhead hits a house with hundreds or even thousands of rounds, there's gotta be a lot of people out there they can ditch them to.

[TomServo92]

On that note, with the big rush to grab ammo and firearms do you see any unintended consequences?

 

I wonder if ammo becomes a sort of gray/black market currency. Crackhead hits a house with hundreds or even thousands of rounds, there's gotta be a lot of people out there they can ditch them to.

 

I have a strong suspicion that anyone who has invested in a large inventory of ammo, has it secured. I don't have a large amount but it is secured (it's locked up plus my home has a monitored alarm system). All the people I know have theirs secured.

 

I suppose a crackhead would have to know a house has a large amount of ammo in it in the first place. Secondly, they'd have to believe it's worth the risk of facing an armed homeowner (which is quite possible). Trying to steal someones ammo has an obvious inherent risk to it. Granted, a crackhead might not see or even care about the risk.

 

I suspect any large amounts of ammo stolen will be in the news given the focus on gun control right now. I guess we'll see.

[fmccap]

On that note, with the big rush to grab ammo and firearms do you see any unintended consequences?

 

I wonder if ammo becomes a sort of gray/black market currency. Crackhead hits a house with hundreds or even thousands of rounds, there's gotta be a lot of people out there they can ditch them to.

Are you talking about the "rush" from the government?

[FiredMotorCompany]

Wondering if the massive government buys of ammo was intentional to drive up the cost by limiting availability due to production commitments to the government. As a side benefit, taxes are calculated on the sales price of merchandise so these rising prices boost revenues. Unintentional?

[Langston Hughes]

Are you talking about the "rush" from the government?

 

No, i'm talking about the stories after New Town that some stores had to restrict the amount of ammo that could be bought per visit.

[Langston Hughes]

I have a strong suspicion that anyone who has invested in a large inventory of ammo, has it secured. I don't have a large amount but it is secured (it's locked up plus my home has a monitored alarm system). All the people I know have theirs secured.

 

I suppose a crackhead would have to know a house has a large amount of ammo in it in the first place. Secondly, they'd have to believe it's worth the risk of facing an armed homeowner (which is quite possible). Trying to steal someones ammo has an obvious inherent risk to it. Granted, a crackhead might not see or even care about the risk.

 

I suspect any large amounts of ammo stolen will be in the news given the focus on gun control right now. I guess we'll see.

 

The assumption that people would take care of their ammo and weapons is not really inline with what happened in New Town where the mother had did not have her collection secured from her son. Many people don't secure their weapons in gun safes, let alone their ammunition. It's good that you do, as I and many others do also.

 

And you have to remember that many people have sons and daughters that talk about their fathers or mothers guns. How did the Clackamsas shooter know where to find the weapon he took? Many robberies happen because people see or hear about valuables.

[FiredMotorCompany]

So limiting lawful gun carry rights will prevent someone bent on crime from committing crime?

No, it will only provide more victims.

[fmccap]

No, i'm talking about the stories after New Town that some stores had to restrict the amount of ammo that could be bought per visit.

I would think that was caused by the biggest consumer, the government.

[TomServo92]

The assumption that people would take care of their ammo and weapons is not really inline with what happened in New Town where the mother had did not have her collection secured from her son. Many people don't secure their weapons in gun safes, let alone their ammunition. It's good that you do, as I and many others do also.

 

And you have to remember that many people have sons and daughters that talk about their fathers or mothers guns. How did the Clackamsas shooter know where to find the weapon he took? Many robberies happen because people see or hear about valuables.

 

It's an assumption based on the millions of gun owners who own millions of guns and the relatively low number of instances of accidental shootings or situations like New Town. I'd say the facts point more toward the majority of owners properly securing their firearms and ammunition than the other way around.

[Langston Hughes]

It's an assumption based on the millions of gun owners who own millions of guns and the relatively low number of instances of accidental shootings or situations like New Town. I'd say the facts point more toward the majority of owners properly securing their firearms and ammunition than the other way around.

If FBI data is correct than over a million firearms have been stolen since 2005. The average is 172, 000 a year which might be a small percentage but it's still a lot of weapons. That's 400+ a day.

[TomServo92]

If FBI data is correct than over a million firearms have been stolen since 2005. The average is 172, 000 a year which might be a small percentage but it's still a lot of weapons. That's 400+ a day.

Nobody said "everyone" secures their firearms. But that data proves to me that most are secured.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Here's an interesting tidbit...

 

The Gun Control Act of 1968 has language that was literally translated word for word from the German Weapons Law of 1938. In fact, Senator Thomas Dodd, who introduced the bill, was known to have a translated copy of the Nazi German legislation. I'm sure we all understand the purpose of the German law and it's ultimate outcome.

 

I believe that if the 2nd Amendment ever falls, the door is open for a dictatorial government as the 2nd is the shield that protects the rest of the Bill of Rights. I find it beyond belief that some would give away inalienable rights in the belief that a "benevolent" government will take care of them. History has shown that when governments possess complete power over their citizenry, they abuse that power. Will that happen in the US? I don't know but I certainly don't want to take the chance to find out.

Do you have a citation for the first paragraph? Dodd did sponsor the 1968 Act and he undoubtedly had some knowledge of pre-war German laws since he was Executive Trial Counsel for the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal. I don't think you can show a connection. The '68 Act came about after the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy.

 

Then there is the old saw that if only the Jews and others in Nazi Germany had guns, Hitler would have been stopped. Nonsense. None of the Nazi occupied countries in Europe with standing armies could stop Hitler. He came close to taking Russia and Great Britian. It is fantasy to believe that armed civilians could have done so when the government was popularly elected. The mass of the German people went along with Hitler.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Here's an interesting tidbit...

 

The Gun Control Act of 1968 has language that was literally translated word for word from the German Weapons Law of 1938. In fact, Senator Thomas Dodd, who introduced the bill, was known to have a translated copy of the Nazi German legislation. I'm sure we all understand the purpose of the German law and it's ultimate outcome.

 

I believe that if the 2nd Amendment ever falls, the door is open for a dictatorial government as the 2nd is the shield that protects the rest of the Bill of Rights. I find it beyond belief that some would give away inalienable rights in the belief that a "benevolent" government will take care of them. History has shown that when governments possess complete power over their citizenry, they abuse that power. Will that happen in the US? I don't know but I certainly don't want to take the chance to find out.

Do you have a citation for the first paragraph? Dodd did sponsor the 1968 Act and he undoubtedly had some knowledge of pre-war German laws since he was Executive Trial Counsel for the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal. I don't think you can show a connection. The '68 Act came about after the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy.

 

Then there is the old saw that if only the Jews and others in Nazi Germany had guns, Hitler would have been stopped. Nonsense. None of the Nazi occupied countries in Europe with standing armies could stop Hitler. He came close to taking Russia and Great Britian. It is fantasy to believe that armed civilians could have done so when the government was popularly elected. The mass of the German people went along with Hitler.

[grbeck]

Many states have liberalized the process by which one can obtain a concealed carry permit, and we let the national ban on assault weapons expire in the early 2000s, and the crime rate (including murder) has continued to...drop.

 

By this point, it should be apparent that targeting law-abiding citizens who own firearms is a waste of time. We're having a mini-version of this debate in Harrisburg. There have been several homicides in the city in 2013. The usual solutions profferred in response to these crimes will have no effect. Why? Because the people who committed these murders were not allowed to have a firearm in the first place. (They were too young to possess a firearm outside their home, or had a criminal record that prevented them from legally owning any firearm.) They were breaking current laws...so it's highly unlikely that they will obey new ones.

 

Of course, the unspoken elephant in the room is that every homicide has involved an African-American male shooting either another African-American male or a Hispanic male. The solution - stiffer penalties for crimes involving firearms - will result in these perpetrators serving more jail time. Which will lead to cries about the "prison-industrial complex" and "why are so many African-Americans in jail" (as if the authorities were just picking random people off the street and throwing them into county or state prison).

 

So it's easier to keep pretending that the NRA or white firearms owners from "Pennsyltucky" are the problem.