Intelligent Conversation

[Crispin]

Good evening All,
I spent the weekend in St. Augustine hunting with a good friend of mine. I have some pics to post and will do when I get the chance. I was away from any computer access for 48hours and I enjoyed the meditative hours I spent on the beach. I have contimplated some of the new thoughts provided to me by this site and I would like to further explore some of these issues. I have noticed many intelligent, insightful, and educated opinions being stated. I would like to open this thread for those who have positive thoughts and opinions. I ask the mods to be more then liberal in limiting the aggressiveness of this thread. My goal is to learn and not be attacked. If you respond to this thread please do not invoke either of the following: 1. The slipperly slope. 2. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." I am not proposing, at this time, that either one of those responses are incorrect. However, I have no desire to discuss those issues in this thread. I hope I have implied my intent adequately. Let's get to the fun stuff.

1. NRA response: The NRA suggests keeping armed guards in schools. Schools are meant to be a safe haven for children. The very presence of security and lethal weapons will have a profound effect on their underground psyche. It will create doubt in children's minds and make them feel unsafe. After all, if guards exist to protect them then they must be in danger. Is this atmosphere best for children?

2. Increasing the number of armed people: If we increase the number of firearms on the street then we increase the chances of these firearms being used. Do you think fire arm related deaths would increase if every single American was armed? (Please answer this with a yes or no and then explain.)

3. I would like to make a comparison to "1984." Repeating a rhetoric of fear of paranoia. The invasive presence of a armed security eliminates all rights and creates a police state. This is clearly unacceptable for everybody; however, in order to have a functional society we must sacrifice some of our own personal liberties. I previously acknowledged and respected the opinion of "Jeff"; in that, he feels no liberties should ever be limited. I still respect and appreciate this standpoint, but I think we should make an attempt to create some limits in regards to gun ownership. Just as we have limits to the sale of alcohol, the sale of sex, and the sale of controlled substances (ie...benzos, stimulants, and narcotics.) Several would argue for the legalization of MJ. I think that is reasonable. However, I would argue against society having free access to dilaudid, demerol, propofol, and many other drugs. Is this a fair comparison? Can we have some limits on firearms just like to we do on the aforementioned traded commodities?

4. Lastly, I would ask the mods to strictly eliminate any talk of mental illness on this thread. I have no interest in debating that with anybody. I will be happy to answer questions on the subject but unless somebody has an MD behind their name I do not want that to become a facet of this thread.

Regards and I welcome ALL intelligent responses,
Crispin

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[bill from lachine]

Crispin,

Glad you had a 48 hour respite to digest some of the goings on recently....unfortunately not always pleasant regardless
of which side of the spectrum you support....that said here's my global take on your well thought out post.

I also had some time for reflection and it's best summarized by a quote by Winston Churchill who I admire as a pretty good intellect...."Democracy is the wise use of a very dull sword"....I might be a bit off on the quote but the gist is this in my perception.

Democracy is not the perfect form of government but pretty much the best we've got under the present systems out there and my interpretation is you have to forge a middle ground that protects the vast majority of society and unfortunately with that approach.....you have to accept a certain level of compromise for the common good.

In other words give up a little from the extreme ends of the spectrum for the common good....it's not a winner take all
situation but rather a bit of give and take....otherwise you end up with gridlock and nothing moves forward.

Thanks for giving me a chance to express my views in a non-confrontational context.

All the best to you and yours for the holidays.

Regards + HH

Bill

 

[smokeythecat]

Merry Christmas all. People are reacting at a true gut level to the murders in Connecticut. That is good, it still means some of us have a conscience. But the main point is being missed. The main point is, that people will always kill other people, for a variety of reasons, and sometimes with no reason and a lot of times with no intent to kill. Practically speaking, what we all want is to be protected from wickedness while being able to enjoy absolute freedom. Good luck with that. There is no such thing as absolute safety. Or absolute freedom.

Now to some facts.

The Connecticut incident is unique. I can remember no time in American history something like this has happened. Columbine and VA Tech were committed by classmates, not outsiders, although the Connecticut murderer did have a tie to the school thru his mother. And yes, he had mental issues.

In 2011: there were 14,612 murders in the US. My 2nd cousin was one of the victims on that list, in Louisiana. 9,829 were males, 2,813 were females. 67% of the murders were committed with firearms, of that 7,398 were done with handguns. Murder by assault rifle was way down on the list. Most of the murders were done by somebody the victim KNEW (as it was with my cousin). 1,817 of the murders were done with knives. 869 people killed other people with the bare hands (or feet). The most murders were in California, Texas and Pennsylvania in that order.

10,905 of the murders were committed in cities of 250,000 or more. Furthermore, the murder rate in the US is DECREASING consistently over the last 10 years.

Also, there were 36,909 suicides in the US in 2011. There were approximately 36ooo fatalities in car accidents in the same time frame.

Here's a shocker - between 2001-2008 there were 544,133 child poisonings which required a visit to the emergency room, poisonings were either accidental or otherwise.

The source of this information is the FBI and the Center for Disease Control.

There is no perfect solution. Firearms are not at the heart of the problem. People are at the heart of the problem. Some people should not have a firearm. Apparently, some people should not have a car, either, or prescription drugs and apparently some people should not have knives. And what is it with half a million children poisoned by their caretakers? There is no perfect solution. There is no one good solution. That's why we have police and judges and juries and courts. We do probably need to open more places to help the truly mentally ill though. Cl

 

[Crispin]

Smokey: All very good points. I will have to take some time to digest them before I respond. The only statistic I find fault with is "child poisonings." I do not disagree with the numbers; but, I think the label of "child poisonings" is misleading. I have worked in an ER and I have seen thousands of overdoses. If a parent gives a child two tylenol instead of one they consider it an "overdose." I assure that you that very few, if any, children are dying from "poisonings."

I would like to compare this to the defintion of an "assualt rifle." Clearly, there are many anti-gun antagonists that feel they have a good definition of an "assualt rifle," but when pressed have no idea. Prior to previous conversation on this site, I thought I had a good idea of what an "assualt rifle" was. I now realize I do not. I hope that you will extend me the same curtesy in regards to the aforementioned, "child poisonings." I feel that particular statistic is not relevant to the current discussion; however, I thank you for providing me with the others. I will apply copious amounts of thought before I reply to them.

Sincerely,
Crispin

 

[worldtalker]

If you don't protect yourself and family,who will? GodBless Chris

 

[smokeythecat]

Only God can truly protect. "Poisonings" is a great catch all the Government used in their report, it includes everything, but remember Tylenol can be a very deadly drug. The FBI's and CDC's website can give more detailed statistics.

 

[bill from lachine]

smokeythecat,

Good to see you're open minded enough to realize that there isn't an easy fix to the situation.....I wish I had the wisdom to come up with a magic cure to the problem.....unfortunately it's a complex situation but maybe....just maybe if everyone puts their heads together and stays open minded just maybe things can move forward in a positive direction....

Otherwise it's just everyone throwing rocks at each other with the results being the status quo....

All the best to you and yours for the holiday season.

Regards + HH

Bill

 

[smokeythecat]

Now I messed up my reputation as ignorant and opinionated! Merry Christmas and may your new year be filled with gold and silver filled dig holes! Or silver filled coin wrappers or pirate treasure! Or an inheritance!

 

[bill from lachine]

smokeythecat,

Naw I wouldn't sweat it.....much like my approach to metal detecting where I've gone from digging it all to cherry picking and back again.....

I've done the same thing with my philosophy on life.....I digest other peoples inputs along with my own opinions and try to evolve over time....I think Crispin's opening post asking for input on a non confrontational basis helped to set the tone...

If you come up with some other nuggets of wisdom....feel free to add to the thread.

Regards + HH

Bill

Now I messed up my reputation as ignorant and opinionated! Merry Christmas and may your new year be filled with gold and silver filled dig holes! Or silver filled coin wrappers or pirate treasure! Or an inheritance!

 

[releventchair]

Hoo boy. Some partial response here. The N.R.A. paused as it usually does before a statement. I don,t object to their reasoning of letting people recover from shock and not exploit incident. Feel free to disagree if you will. Not sure if suggestion given is "the"answer but one should be offered when confronted by a problem. No, not every American should be armed. And those that are need to recognise consequences.
While i would be armed i would not insist you be. One thing i would like to see for this thread is a discussion with out needing roberts rules of order or making the mod(s)need to intervene. It would prove its possible to be civil,not my forte but doable. Its different typing on a forum but subject deserves fair discussion.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

I'm OK with the Right to bear Arms (guns, etc... per 2nd Amend.). IMHO, it is the AMMO that needs to be regulated... How? DUNNO. When you are ex-military, used to fighting with HEAVY WEAPONS, etc.; "coming back" and seeing the PUNY stuff the civilians have (except for cops, etc.)... let 'em have ALL the guns, they want; just regulate the AMMO.

 

[bill from lachine]

releventchair,

Good to see you participating in the thread...heck I live north of the border so the main reason I participate in these type of threads is I appreciate the abuse....lol....just kidding....I'm still hurting from the 9/11 loss of my American cousins..

In my mind your 2nd amendment rights are a given...but arming everyone and their brother in schools, hospitals, malls, theaters and various other public venues ain't going to fix the problem....if a determined and smart shooter decides to take out a bunch of civilians they'll find a way....

Maybe giving up a smidgen of firepower such as assault/military type weapons out of the general public hands might take
the steam out of the volume of deaths involved...food for thought.

All the best to your and yours for the holiday season.

Regards + HH

Bill

Hoo boy. Some partial response here. The N.R.A. paused as it usually does before a statement. I don,t object to their reasoning of letting people recover from shock and not exploit incident. Feel free to disagree if you will. Not sure if suggestion given is "the"answer but one should be offered when confronted by a problem. No, not every American should be armed. And those that are need to recognise consequences.
While i would be armed i would not insist you be. One thing i would like to see for this thread is a discussion with out needing roberts rules of order or making the mod(s)need to intervene. It would prove its possible to be civil,not my forte but doable. Its different typing on a forum but subject deserves fair discussion.

 

[bill from lachine]

Rebel - KGC,

Yup....2nd amendment is untouchable.....the level of firepower to the general public....maybe restricted from having military/assault type weapons....and no I'm not going to define what an assault weapon is..lol...I'll leave that to you and other more informed members to describe.

All the best to you and yours for the holidays.

Regards + HH

Bill

I'm OK with the Right to bear Arms (guns, etc... per 2nd Amend.). IMHO, it is the AMMO that needs to be regulated... How? DUNNO. When you are ex-military, used to fighting with HEAVY WEAPONS, etc.; "coming back" and seeing the PUNY stuff the civilians have (except for cops, etc.)... let 'em have ALL the guns, they want; just regulate the AMMO.

 

[Crispin]

Smokey: I put some thought into your statistics. I think the main idea you are expressing is that life is a precious commodity and people can die in a variety of ways. Where I would disagree is comparing gun violence to deaths associated with driving, having cancer, lightening strikes, etc...etc. Obviously, any of us can die at any time in any different number of ways. In order to have a conversation on the topic we have to limit the scope of discussion. I propose we stick to murders and violence perpetuated against others. Here are some ideas your post has sparked in me.

1. The number of gun related deaths in the United States is a lot smaller then I expected but still significant. I think it is significant enough to warrant legislation of gun posession. Do you disagree?
2. Did the CDC give a break down of the percentage of suicides that were successful via firearms? It is a lot easier to survive a suicide attempt from an OD then it is a self inflicted gun shot wound to the head (although, I have seen several people survive this.) As a side point: Suicide is a violent act against the living. By design, it is meant to inflict pain on those who are left behind. This does not include people who commit suicide due to terminal illness, that is a totally different discussion.

Rebel-KGC: Thank you for serving our county. I think your point about limiting ammo is a valid one. However, I disagree with giving civilians free reign to any type of weapon. When you sign up for the military the government does not hand you a high powered assault rifle in Day 1 of basic. You are a highly trained professional and in expert in weapons. Through your education and training you have earned the right to possess these firearms.

I would compare this to the education of a doctor. A physician spends years and years dedicating their life to the science of medicine in order to appropriately give prescriptions. No country I know of allows its citizens free reign to any medication they want. That would be disasterous!

What would you think of the idea of having a group of highly educated, trained experts (such as yourself) who would be able to prescribe guns for citizens? If people had to have a prescription to carry a gun we would be able to have some limits. The threshold to prescribe a hand gun could be exceedingly low. The same could be done for simple hunting rifles. However, the threshold to prescribe high powered assault rifles would be extremelly high and limited to people such as yourself; who have earned and demonstrated the ability to be responsible for them.
As Bill has pointed out, the definition of a 'high powered assault rifle' would be defined by you, the experts. It would make no sense for me to define it when you clearly have a superior knowledge base and extensive experience. Again, when you are sick and go to the doctor you do not tell the doctor what to prescribe you. He/she listens to your symptoms, does an examination, and then prescribes what you need. Is he/she always right? Heck no, but he/she has a lot better chance of getting it correct then somebody who did not go to med school.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Crispin; TY for your response; re. the "medical stuff"; I DO refuse doctors' stuff at times, bc I am into alternative medicine, plants, herbs, etc. They DO NOT know EVERYTHING. In Special Forces, you can "live off the land", "heal"; MOSTLY berries, water cress, etc. All kinds of neat stuff; not much heed paid to civilian stuff, such as doctors, etc. "High-powered assault rifle" is simply to kill PEOPLE! I will share MORE personal "insight"; I was an Administrator in in MAX Security prison in Va., with a weapons permit, issued a "snub-nose" 38 ("left-over" from State Police); trained on weapons range at prison; AR-15 was my "fave"... BETTER than a "puny" shotgun or 22... HA! I had VETS (MOSTLY "Nam" Vets) incarcerated for MOSTLY drug-related crimes. Started out as a Corrections Counselor with a case-load of @ 98 inmates... murderers, sex offenders, "druggies"... Christians, non-Christians; young & old, all "races"... infected with AIDS, etc; WONDERFUL work environment... "they" have their own "society" & "pecking order". Insights from killers, murderers... the guns are USELESS w/o the ammo. It all has to do with INTENT. Murder is INTENDED for specific "target(s)". Killers are more "general" as in mass-killing w/o a specific "target" of a personal nature. It ALL has to do with INTENT; regulate the AMMO. I ended up as an Administrator/Top Administrator on Duty (ie WARDEN when actual Warden needed "time off"), OR... when Major of Security retired and I was TAoD) the LAST month I was there; working 3-11pm, 7am-3pm... WHOO! Then my AVM busted... (stress) and I had a bad "brain bleed" & brain surgery; was in "locked-in-state" coma for 2 1/2 months. BEFORE a year after wife & I got married; life has NOT been the same... BUT! Again.. regulate the AMMO.

 

[dieselram94]

Crispin, I have read your last post regarding prescribing guns. I would say this already exists, look at it this way in this country if you are of age and have not done something to loose your "precription" for guns it is automatically granted. But if you screw up your prescription is revoked. Every time I have bought a gun they have done a background check...no bad history like a felony so my "prescription" is renewed.If I had a felony my "prescription" would be revoked. As far as fully automatic weapons goes the "prescription" is a federal class three licence is required.

 

[bigscoop]

What, exactly, is the definition of a sporting arm?
What, exactly, is the definition of a personal protection firearm?
What is a "military style or law enforcement" style firearm?
How many firearms does one need/require?
Tighter tracking of firearms.

I think it could/should possibly begin here:
Firearms need to be re-evaluated and re-classed. I seen no reason why civilians/consumers need a firearm that has the ability to maintain/contain more then three to six rounds.

Quantity, we all have the right to bare arms, but how many? My grandfather had an entire arsenal of guns, when he passed away the family divided them up. Where are they now? Who owns them now? Nobody really knows where they all ended up.

"The right to bare arms"....we all understand why, but when this same right also posses a threat to citizens the issue needs to be amended to address the present day circumstances.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Crispin my friend, I see no difference in armed guards on school grounds than kids in child seats asking why. If they are told the truth " to keep you safe" , the answer is the same, "to keep you safe".

Remember kids dealt with seeing armies and armed guards for thousands of years.

I believe it is wrong to raise kids with the false belief that the world is a safe place, its not, I believe kids are better prepared for life if they know the truth.

We already teach them don't talk to strangers, why do we teach them that, because the truth is the world is not safe.

We are not teaching them to be afraid, we are teaching them to be vigilant and safe and preparing them for the real world.....

 

[worldtalker]

Crispin my friend, I see no difference in armed guards on school grounds than kids in child seats asking why. If they are told the truth " to keep you safe" , the answer is the same, "to keep you safe".

Remember kids dealt with seeing armies and armed guards for thousands of years.

I believe it is wrong to raise kids with the false belief that the world is a safe place, its not, I believe kids are better prepared for life if they know the truth.

We already teach them don't talk to strangers, why do teach them that, because world is not safe
We are not teaching them to be afraid, we are teaching them to be vigilant and safe and preparing them for the real world.....

This is good,but,how many parents do this?

 

[releventchair]

Trying to tip toe around limits of o.p., Reb touches on criminal behaviour .not having same attitude makes it difficult to know for laymen how to effectively anticipate or predict their responses to law. currently a machine gun owner is well regulated. Handgun owners here go through class and range work and are strongly aware of the implications of shooting some one in self defence. One is not left with a desire to that's for sure.
While weapons that are current topic are involved in small percentages of crimes one argument to leave regulations as are is no comfort to the aggrieved and "should"if more highly regulated be involved in less crimes,they were not that long ago and the next i.m.o. step would be what's available to use.
Criminals and would be are what brought us here and laws are not effective at denying there use,some being unenforced and others plainly skirted.
Common sense not law should see what's not in use secured. Not where you can not have one at hand but where others are denied access when your not with it/them. I,m not promoting new laws but thinking out loud if firearm purchase required affidavit of how they would be secured from restricted people would do any thing. Hard to require a safe or vault and restrict access to key/combo like an armory for weapons not being used but is my preferred storage. used meaning in my immediate control. In our no carry zones law exists as to how hand guns can be secured. Part of our training, Part of responsibility.

Happy holidays all. Peace to the oppressed.