General Political Thread

[lost highway]

For those of you who say you can't get rid of the millions of guns in the country here is a viable alternative:

 

[Hixter]

who says that 30 is the standard?  Why isn't 10 the standard?

AR15 variants come with 30-round mags. It's nice to not have to reload/change mags every few seconds at the range while you're trying to zero your weapon.

 

Trying to bring a little sense of order to horrific events, while not infringing on anyone's rights, is all the President is doing.  Those okay with killing humans may not see it that way, but most of the rest of us do.

I've never so much as punched another human being, so I'm as big a pacifist as you are. But let's remember that President Obama personally authorizes every drone strike and has more blood on his hands than you and I ever will, so he deserves to be lumped into the list of "those okay with killing humans." Before jumping on the AR15 bandwagon, I wish the president would address the problem with gun crime in his home of Chicago, where gun laws are already stricter than just about anywhere else.

 

These were all gun owners talking amongst themselves, and a fair number denounced the notion of shooting at an animal with something like that...calling it "silly," and basically making it sound like it is the exact opposite of sportsmanship: "To shoot at a coyote 8 times with tracer rounds out of an ar15 is just plain ignorant IMO, pure lack of respect for the animal."

If you want to watch a bunch of grown men get their panties in a twist, visit a hunting/shooting forum and watch as they argue about different firearms and ammunition and their relative merits.

 

I can say from personal experience that my "assault" rifle is perfectly suited for hunting animals the size of deer or smaller. I've never seen anyone take more than one shot and I've never seen the animal run more than a hundred feet; they usually drop in their tracks. Many of my friends are avid hunters (I'm new and all the 9-year-olds in my neighborhood have killed more deer than I have) and they all choose an AR15 variant when their wives or children want to hunt because the rifle is small, light and accurate without any noticeable recoil. 

[Magnetized]

I cannot stand reading any more of this shit. Boys and their killing toys, talking about "lack of respect for the animal" with a straight face. Are you kidding me?? Yeah, it's very respectful to kill a feeling, sentient creature for fun by using just the right sort of gun. Give me a fucking break! I don't know why that idiotic comment sticks in my craw more than most of the rest of this horseshit, but it does.

 

I won't even go into how disgusting--and yet totally predictable--it is to have the right wingers SO up in arms about some illusory threat of having their precious guns pried from their cold dead fingers by our evil government. It's so fucking ridiculous--and all the fine points of debate over how necessary it is to be able to fire off round after round without reloading. I mean, does this REALLY make any sense to anyone???

 

I have to stay away from this thread or I'm going to get banned, and I wouldn't know what to do with myself if I couldn't get on here and talk about Wilco with you guys. But this topic is so infuriating and appalling to me.

 

Moderators: I promise this is not directed at anyone--and I will do my best to not say another word about it.

[Tweedling]

Sometimes I go have dinner and drinks with my friends and then go home and state my opinion like a boss too.

 

[KevinG]

AR15 variants come with 30-round mags. It's nice to not have to reload/change mags every few seconds at the range while you're trying to zero your weapon.

 

I think you are missing my point here.  You say that it is "nice to not have to reload/change mags."  Not that it is necessary.  There is no need for 30 rounds.  Having a lesser capacity mag might not be as nice, but really is this something you can live with?

 

I have taken a high performance racing course and have a car that can go 200 mph.  I love to drive fast.  But you know what I can't take the car out on the interstate and drive 200 mph.  I have to go 65.  

[Hixter]

Yeah, it's very respectful to kill a feeling, sentient creature for fun

You completely misunderstand hunters and hunting. Suffice it to say that hunting is vital to maintaining a healthy and sustainable deer population and millions of animals would suffer and die without a hunting program that is overseen and maintained by state conservation agencies. I'd estimate that the 10 hunters in my neighborhood pump at least $50,000 into the conservation effort every year. That's a lot of doe. 

 

I have to go 65.  

You should move to Texas. We just opened an 85 MPH toll road.

[Winston Legthigh]

We have to kill them, otherwise they would die.

[Tweedling]

I think you are missing my point here.  You say that it is "nice to not have to reload/change mags."  Not that it is necessary.  There is no need for 30 rounds.  Having a lesser capacity mag might not be as nice, but really is this something you can live with?

 

I have taken a high performance racing course and have a car that can go 200 mph.  I love to drive fast.  But you know what I can't take the car out on the interstate and drive 200 mph.  I have to go 65.  

But someone is allowed to own a car that can go that fast, right? They are allowed to purchase that type of automobile even though it is not necessary, right? They drive that car on a select track or stretch of road that is safe, right? Those types of cars are still available to purchase if you want one....even though they aren't "necessary". I like your analogy, thanks.

[Hixter]

We have to kill them, otherwise they would die.

Exactly. Deer are overpopulated in many parts of the country and that leads to the destruction of forests, an unbalanced ecosystem and, eventually, massive deer die offs due to disease and malnutrition. A well-managed hunting program will prevent this from happening.

[Winston Legthigh]

Exactly. Deer are overpopulated in many parts of the country and that leads to the destruction of forests, an unbalanced ecosystem and, eventually, massive deer die offs due to disease and malnutrition. A well-managed hunting program will prevent this from happening.

Kind of circular.

 

We killed all the natural predators, so now the deer population explodes. There's not enough resources to sustain a high deer population, so rather than introduce the natural predators back into the picture, or let nature take care of the delicate ecosystem balance itself, we HAVE to kill the deer.

[Hixter]

If you want wolves and mountain lions prowling through your back yard, go for it, but remember that your kids and pets make tasty treats for such predators.

[KevinG]

But someone is allowed to own a car that can go that fast, right? They are allowed to purchase that type of automobile even though it is not necessary, right? They drive that car on a select track or stretch of road that is safe, right? Those types of cars are still available to purchase if you want one....even though they aren't "necessary". I like your analogy, thanks.

 

So bring this analogy out even further.  You are fine with driving high performance sports car in a controlled environment, but using such a vehicle on public streets.  I would be totally cool with people having assault rifles, hell even fully automatic weapons, as long as they where only used at a range, kept under range supervision, at all times, and each person that used them were required a full registration and training.  I am going to say this again, there is no NEED to use assault weapons for hunting or protection.   

 

The government requires me to register my vehicles yearly and they keep track of its sale (even if it is a private party).  They know who owns a vehicle and who is responsible for that.  I am also required to have a license from the government (and to get that license I had to take a test).  I am also required to renew that license every 10 years.  These are simple requirements.  What is the problem with having the same standards for firearms?

[Tweedling]

There are a lot of things we as American citizens don't NEED but we want and if I want to go shoot a gun that the government doesn't know I have on private property then I will do it. The car analogy works with guns if people used guns like they do cars.....I guess. Or maybe if cars were in the, i don't know.....constitution? Hahaha this is getting funny again.

I don't believe the government needs to know about my privately owned gun and I'm starting to think the more they try the more I feel like resisting.

[KevinG]

There are a lot of things we as American citizens don't NEED but we want and if I want to go shoot a gun that the government doesn't know I have on private property then I will do it. The car analogy works with guns if people used guns like they do cars.....I guess. Or maybe if cars were in the, i don't know.....constitution? Hahaha this is getting funny again.

I don't believe the government needs to know about my privately owned gun and I'm starting to think the more they try the more I feel like resisting.

 

Really?  The government is in our daily lives.  Deal with it.  The constitution does mention guns either, it does however allow us to wear short sleeves.  

 

Listen people smarter then anyone here have tried to debate the 27 words (and the one verse three commas thing) of the second amendment, and failed I certainly do not want to try.  

 

It comes down to this, gun violence is a terrible thing our society faces, something has to be done.  One of the thing to be done is keeping dangerous people form getting guns.  Registration and full licensure is a way to do this. Yes the government now knows you have a gun.  The government knows a lot about you.  Probably a lot more then you think.  So what if the government knows you have a gun?  You think they are gonna come in the middle of the night and what take it away?  Why does it bother you so much if the government knows you have a gun?  

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I can say from personal experience that my "assault" rifle is perfectly suited for hunting animals the size of deer or smaller. I've never seen anyone take more than one shot and I've never seen the animal run more than a hundred feet; they usually drop in their tracks. Many of my friends are avid hunters (I'm new and all the 9-year-olds in my neighborhood have killed more deer than I have) and they all choose an AR15 variant when their wives or children want to hunt because the rifle is small, light and accurate without any noticeable recoil. 

Shouldn't it be hard to kill? To Wilco Me's point about killing a sentient creature, why make it easier for a nine-year-old boy to destroy an innocent life? At least in the old days, it was hard. The gun was big, it had some serious recoil. Maybe it would knock you on your ass. You knew you just did something very serious, very powerful, when you took that life. Sounds like it's more like a video game now. Piece of cake.

Of course, a ban on these weapons would not eliminate a single one of those already in existence. It would only ban future production at some as-yet-undetermined point. I really cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with that unless they are 1) a gun manufacturer, or 2) a dyed-in-the-wool NRA member who lives and breathes conspiracy theories about black helicopters and whatnot.

[LouieB]

No real time to make any sense of this anymore.

 

If you want to kill deer, go for it.  There are limits on it though..

 

If you want to collect guns, go for it, there apparently are very few limits on that either unless there are.

 

If you want to start killing peope to keep them from taking your guns go for it; there are limits on this too, but you already know that, so deal with the consiquenses.  That's what civil disobedience is about.  You have to pay the price.

 

Two interesting things not directly related to this thread.   There have been sightings of coyotes along the Lakefront in Chicago, so if you need to kill one come to Chicago, but we have strict gun laws.  And early this morning there was a helicopter hovering over my neighborhood for a couple hours, so apparently the black ops copters are active in Chicago too.....

 

LouieB

[ih8music]

There are a lot of things we as American citizens don't NEED but we want and if I want to go shoot a gun that the government doesn't know I have on private property then I will do it. The car analogy works with guns if people used guns like they do cars.....I guess. Or maybe if cars were in the, i don't know.....constitution? Hahaha this is getting funny again.

I don't believe the government needs to know about my privately owned gun and I'm starting to think the more they try the more I feel like resisting.

 

It's precisely this type of paranoia re: guns that I simply don't get.  We don't object to a lot of what the government keeps track of for the purpose of public safety, but somehow tracking the ownership and sale of a lethal firearm is sign of upcoming tyranny?

 

Also, the Constitution was written in a completely different world than today -- and was meant to be a living document that could be amended.  Yes, it is intentionally difficult to change it, but simply because it made sense to give the right to bear arms (for the purpose of allowing the states to have well regulated militias so they could defend themselves against the feds & each other) doesn't mean that's still the case in 2013.  I know some Texans

from the US, but honestly does anyone think that's a realistic notion?

[Hixter]

The government requires me to register my vehicles yearly and they keep track of its sale (even if it is a private party).  They know who owns a vehicle and who is responsible for that.  I am also required to have a license from the government (and to get that license I had to take a test).  I am also required to renew that license every 10 years.  These are simple requirements.  What is the problem with having the same standards for firearms?

You act as if this is already done. I've undergone background checks every time I've purchased a firearm, I've spent hours in the classroom and on the range and been fingerprinted for my concealed handgun license and I pay for a license to hunt -- what more need I do? Then go ask the ex-con on the streets of Chicago with an illegal gun that he's carrying illegally about how many legal hoops he had to jump through to carry a handgun and ask if tougher laws will make him change his ways in the future.

 

It comes down to this, gun violence is a terrible thing our society faces, something has to be done.  One of the thing to be done is keeping dangerous people form getting guns.  Registration and full licensure is a way to do this. Yes the government now knows you have a gun. You think they are gonna come in the middle of the night and what take it away?  Why does it bother you so much if the government knows you have a gun?  

Citizens of other nations have been disarmed in the past and it's infinitely more difficult to do if the government doesn't know where the guns are. I recognize the need for government and I'm relatively pleased with the job it does but I feel that the less it intrudes on my daily life the better.

 

Shouldn't it be hard to kill? To Wilco Me's point about killing a sentient creature, why make it easier for a nine-year-old boy to destroy an innocent life?

You want the firearm and ammunition you use to drop the animal quickly with a single shot. Anything less is inhumane and the animal could suffer for hours or days after running off to die. Trust me, there's still plenty of patience, skill and knowledge involved when it comes to hunting with firearms.

 

I know some Texans

from the US, but honestly does anyone think that's a realistic notion?

Governor Perry recently came out very strongly against the petition that asked Washington to allow secession.

[LouieB]

Guns is the one place (there are others) where the far left and the far right come together.  Those of us on the soft left don't understand the need for guns, because we are basically pacifist hippies.  All the paranoids in the furthest wings of both political ideologies know that when the government comes to get you, you have to be ready to shoot to kill.  Just sayin....

 

LouieB

 

Governor Perry recently came out very strongly against the petition that asked Washington to allow secession.

Of course he did.  If Texas seceeds he is SOL.

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

You act as if this is already done. I've undergone background checks every time I've purchased a firearm, I've spent hours in the classroom and on the range and been fingerprinted for my concealed handgun license and I pay for a license to hunt -- what more need I do? Then go ask the ex-con on the streets of Chicago with an illegal gun that he's carrying illegally about how many legal hoops he had to jump through to carry a handgun and ask if tougher laws will make him change his ways in the future.

 

You can sell me your gun with no background check nor any record of the transaction.  You can't do that with a car.  Let's close that loophole.  In my state (Wisconsin) I can buy a firearm with no training.     

 

Just because people break laws, that means we should stop enforcing them?  I think we need to a better job of enforcement and also look at underlying root of the violence.  

 

 

 

Citizens of other nations have been disarmed in the past and it's infinitely more difficult to do if the government doesn't know where the guns are. I recognize the need for government and I'm relatively pleased with the job it does but I feel that the less it intrudes on my daily life the better.

 

This again is that strange paranoia that ih8Music mentioned.  I don't get it.  "Citizens of other nations" this a a vague concept.  Please provide some examples (I tried to google this but ended up going to some real off the wall sites (apparently China is behind PBO's gun control).  

[Tweedling]

I may be wrong but didn't Hitler, Stalin, Mao ban guns to one extreme or another?

[Hixter]

Please provide some examples 

Australia and the UK spring to mind.

[KevinG]

Australia and the UK spring to mind.

 

And Australia had 266 murders last year, the UK had 722, where as the US had 14,748.  

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

And last I checked there aren't many countries invading the UK and Australia cause they don't have guns.  

 

Just saying.  

[Magnetized]

Australia? The U.K.? What hellholes!

[Griddles]

Oh lets just jump in? 

 

List of causes of death from 2010 from the cdc. Broken down by age range and cuase of death. (ie. 5-9 "unintentonal MV accident). It is only one page and big and bright. 

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Violence_Related_Injury_Deaths_2010-a.pdfhttp://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Violence_Related_Injury_Deaths_2010-a.pdf

 

report from the California attorney general about guns and their use in crime. Not a big sample because; "Although legislation for this report states that the data should be based on information obtained from local and state crime laboratories, the legislation does not require local laboratories to report this information to the Department of Justice. Therefore, local law enforcement agencies submit this information voluntarily, which limits the data received for inclusion in this report"

A few pages, but with big bright graphs. 

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_09.pdf

 

Report from the justice department about the victims of violence committed by strangers. I think this is kind of general knowledge but you are more likely to be killed by someone you know than by a stranger. This goes in depth into the victim characteristics (page 3) and the type of weapon used (page 7). 

 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf

 

Someone asked a while ago for some stats that broke down gun deaths by type making allusions to gangs and things like that. It is hard to find information like this because the CDC is tasked with compiling this information, but is not funded.