# New York Times - Front Page Editorial



## Warrigal (Dec 5, 2015)

I don't know who is behind the NYT but I'm assuming that it isn't Rupert Murdoch.

They have have, for the first time since 1920, placed their editorial on the front page.
It must be of the utmost importance.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-...-front-page-editorial-on-gun-violence/7004628


----------



## oldman (Dec 5, 2015)

Dame--I believe it is owned by a Jewish family. I think the climate toward stiffer gun control laws is on a lot of people's minds. I know for me, I have been giving it some thought, even with being a gun owner. However, this is one of those things that we have to tread softly on, so as not to violate anyone's constitutional rights. I know that we have all heard that along with owning a gun comes responsibilities, but the people that are using them for unlawful acts are not concerned about responsibilities. They buy guns for one intended purpose. I guess that we will just have to wait and see where we go from here, but I also think it will be a huge topic during the presidential campaign.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 5, 2015)

Time to grasp the nettle, which is never a comfortable experience.


----------



## oldman (Dec 5, 2015)

Grasp the what? Nettle must be Aussie talk for 'what?'


----------



## Jackie22 (Dec 5, 2015)

I agree Warri......here is the editorial..



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html 
*End the Gun Epidemic in America 
​It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. 

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper. 

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms. 

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism. 

... What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?*


----------



## drifter (Dec 5, 2015)

I applaud and support the New York Times leadership.


----------



## BobF (Dec 5, 2015)

Not sure why all this constant fear of weapons in the US driven by some out of country folks that have their own problems at home.   This is a US problem and it will be taken care of the proper US way of changing our laws.   I keep asking why the Swiss don't get attacked as the US is but never get any real answers.   They all get weapons issued to them, they carry weapons with them on transport and into restaurants.   To me that is fine and should be fie in the US as well.

Today we, the US country, is catching all kinds of nasty talk for a gun rampage run by some that think we should all be driven by some foreign countries willingness to kill any and all for a distorted religion belief the US does not support at all.

Can there be some more ways to control the owning or using of guns in the US?   Yes, and there will be some changes made in time as more is learned.   Nothing should happen every time some outrageous gun event happens as this one did.   These folks used the gun rules to their advantage.   But their were explosives, not under popular gun rules at all.   They use surprise to entrap and kill many folks.    War like activity on peaceful people.   None of that is preventable when trying to defend from those willing to lie and cheat in order to kill folks.   Remember in a peaceful foot race that some folks decided to try to blow a bunch of innocent folks up.   There is no end to all the hate and crime of some folks, no matter how strong some think about things. 

It is not the guns that is the problem at all.   It is the mind set of some folks that is the problem.   They will attempt to do what ever is possible in order to make their evil point more obvious.

We do need to be ready to take out these foreign haters and make them live elsewhere.   Just need a way to find how they are able to get the knowledge and ability to buy or build explosives.

The scary part is the need to change our Constitution in order to end personal gun ownership and usage.   There should be no usage for doing so.   They can certainly take those military style weapons and lower their effectiveness or disable them so their would be no automatic shooting by holding the trigger back.    Reduce them to just shooting, single shot, when the trigger is pulled.

Plenty the US can do to lower the gun killing without just going into panic when ever some out of country mentality or criminal mind sets takes over and causes these killing events.

Where were those legally owned, self defense, guns during this nasty raid.   Obviously none were carried to that party.   Only those purchased for the killing event.   Maybe more should be carried as self defense weapons and used if necessary.

I don't own a gun but it seems more likely that all should carry for self defense.


----------



## Bobw235 (Dec 5, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> I agree Warri......here is the editorial..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First off I applaud the NY Times for the editorial, though it won't do a bit of good beyond continuing the debate over gun laws for a few days more.  The sentence above struck me as being most important, as we yet again have this national debate.  Until enough citizens in this country rise up and vote out of office those who show zero interest in sensible changes to our gun laws, this national nightmare will go on and on.  As one commenter noted on the NY Times website, "When Congress failed to act following the shooting and killing of children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School, I lost all hope that those who favor unfettered access to guns and those who support reasonable controls would somehow find common ground. Americans are too deeply divided over guns to find common ground; it's not going to happen. Ever."
Sadly, I now share this rather dim view of reality.


----------



## NancyNGA (Dec 5, 2015)

oldman said:


> .....I also think it will be a huge topic during the presidential campaign.



It may be an issue but I doubt it will be huge.   The Republicans may not push gun rights too hard, because it would be a sensitive topic right now.   If the Democrats make it a big issue, they will probably only lose votes. The election usually comes down to how the independents go.  And what matters with those folks is the climate a month or two just before the election.

This is just my guess based on the last few elections.


----------



## BobF (Dec 5, 2015)

oldman said:


> Grasp the what? Nettle must be Aussie talk for 'what?'



This is what I thought when the word nettle was mentioned.    We had them in Ohio when I was a kid.

*nettle*

   [net-l] 


Word Origin  
 noun    

1.  any plant of the genus Urtica, covered with stinging hairs. 

Compare nettle family. 

2.  any of various allied or similar plants. 

verb (used with object), nettled, nettling.    

3.  to irritate, annoy, or provoke. 

4.  to sting as a nettle does. 

Idioms    

5.  grasp the nettle, Australian. to undertake or tackle an unpleasant task.


----------



## WhatInThe (Dec 5, 2015)

Bobw235 said:


> First off I applaud the NY Times for the editorial, though it won't do a bit of good beyond continuing the debate over gun laws for a few days more.  The sentence above struck me as being most important, as we yet again have this national debate.  Until enough citizens in this country rise up and vote out of office those who show zero interest in sensible changes to our gun laws, this national nightmare will go on and on.  As one commenter noted on the NY Times website, "When Congress failed to act following the shooting and killing of children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School, I lost all hope that those who favor unfettered access to guns and those who support reasonable controls would somehow find common ground. Americans are too deeply divided over guns to find common ground; it's not going to happen. Ever."
> Sadly, I now shrare this rather dim view of reality.



The title basically/beginning is a perfect example why the anti gun rage machine hasn't been able to get their way.

Some can and/or will interpret the words 'disgrace' or 'moral outrage' as them being labeled a disgrace or immoral in a backdoor fashion. Not the only media or issue to word stories & editorials like that either. And by implying lobbying is the only reason guns & ownership currently exists it also implies that public is following the whims of an organization like sheep in a herd. 

When the anti gun rage machine flares up they also wind up insulting the public especially those who never even thought of using their gun in crime or negligently. Again not the only issue to suffer this effect but it is that strategically constructed kind of verbage used to imply, shame, guilt, scare or manipulate the public and politicians to follow their lead. Marketers have used this strategy for centuries. Some buy some don't. Either decision does necessarily reflect on the quality of the product.


----------



## Bobw235 (Dec 5, 2015)

What I find particularly unsettling is the absolute unwillingness to even have a civil discussion about sensible gun control, or even begin government sponsored research on the subject.  I've said this before, folks have a right to own a gun.  I don't think that's ever going to change.  But shouldn't there at least be a discussion about the kinds of weapons that one can own and the background checks/licensing that one must undergo in order to possess something that can easily kill lots of people in under 30 seconds?  

Lots of folks will quickly dismiss a NY Times editorial as just another "liberal" voice trying to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens, but I think we have to look beyond that.  We have to start looking inward and examine why this country has such a culture of violence and mass murder that seemingly doesn't exist in other civilized countries.  We must ask ourselves why nothing EVER gets done when it's becoming increasingly common to read about yet another mass shooting in this country.  Are we ever going to prevent all such tragedies?  Probably not, but as long as there's such a divide in this country when it comes to even having a discussion about making it more difficult to possess a weapon meant to kill lots of folks in a short period of time, nothing will ever change.  

You know when things will start to change?  When the families of people in the House and Senate start being counted amongst the dead bodies in the next mass shooting.  God forbid it ever happens, but if a school full of dead children in Newtown, CT didn't do it, and one of their own (Gabby Giffords) didn't do it, what will????  How tragic must the next mass shooting be to get folks to wake the F*&% up and realize that we have a serious problem with gun violence in this country that goes way beyond the latest tradgedy-du-jour?

I'm sick of it.


----------



## BobF (Dec 5, 2015)

Call your Representative and Senator and voice your opinion.   They are the only ones who will attempt to get a good conversation going.    None of these newspapers or forums are able to get our Congress to work on this problem.   I think that some of these weapons should be disabled, as I spoke of before recently on this forum.   We really do not need to have full functioning machine guns available in individual hands.   Until the Second Amendment is altered the freedom too own guns is protected for all.    But under the gun ownership rules their should be certain things like full automatic denied and only single shot or finger pull repeating action allowed.

I think full automatic should be restricted to military and policing units of all levels of work.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 5, 2015)

oldman said:


> Grasp the what? Nettle must be Aussie talk for 'what?'



Sorry, I thought the meaning was well known

*grasp the nettle (*_British & Australian_)to take action immediately in order to deal with an unpleasant situation 
Usage notes: A nettle is a plant which can sting if you touch it.

_I've__ been putting off tackling the problem for too long and I think it's time to grasp the nettle._


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 5, 2015)

Bobw235 said:


> What I find particularly unsettling is the absolute unwillingness to even have a civil discussion about sensible gun control, or even begin government sponsored research on the subject.  I've said this before, folks have a right to own a gun.  I don't think that's ever going to change.  But shouldn't there at least be a discussion about the kinds of weapons that one can own and the background checks/licensing that one must undergo in order to possess something that can easily kill lots of people in under 30 seconds?
> 
> Lots of folks will quickly dismiss a NY Times editorial as just another "liberal" voice trying to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens, but I think we have to look beyond that.  We have to start looking inward and examine why this country has such a culture of violence and mass murder that seemingly doesn't exist in other civilized countries.  We must ask ourselves why nothing EVER gets done when it's becoming increasingly common to read about yet another mass shooting in this country.  Are we ever going to prevent all such tragedies?  Probably not, but as long as there's such a divide in this country when it comes to even having a discussion about making it more difficult to possess a weapon meant to kill lots of folks in a short period of time, nothing will ever change.
> 
> ...


Why questions are the most important of all. After that comes the how questions.


----------



## BobF (Dec 5, 2015)

Warrigal said:


> Sorry, I thought the meaning was well known
> 
> *grasp the nettle (*_British & Australian_)to take action immediately in order to deal with an unpleasant situation
> Usage notes: A nettle is a plant which can sting if you touch it.
> ...



I published 4 hours earlier and it said it was a Australian comment.   Not heard much at all in the US and elsewhere.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 5, 2015)

Yes Bob but I've only just woken up and I'm trying to catch up.
I saw your post after I had responded to the question.


----------



## imp (Dec 5, 2015)

*Nettles and Full-Automatic*

The National Firearms Act of 1934 effectively removed full-automatic firearms from unrestricted general public ownership. All full-automatic weapons were required to registered in a Federal Registry. The Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986 further restricted full-automatic weapons by prohibiting manufacture of new weapons; that little "protective piece" became known as the "Hughes Amendment", an addition by a Congressman which was included at the very end of discussion period. Interestingly, historically, no firearm included in the 1934-established registry has ever been used in  a crime. 

As kids while vacationing in Michigan, we often cut short twigs of Nettle from the bushes and swatted the unsuspecting across their bare arms, producing angry cries of pain and often nasty-looking welts.    imp


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 5, 2015)

Not an editorial but an opinion piece by one of our America watchers, John Barron.



> *Thoughts and prayers: The sad truth about the response to the San Bernardino shooting*
> 
> *Opinion*The Drum
> By                                  John Barron
> ...



Two things jumped out at me. 
One, the number of guns in private hands is huge and growing but the number of people owning them is declining?
And two, the majority of Americans are in favour of stricter gun controls.

Is this a case of the minority imposing its will on the majority?


----------



## AZ Jim (Dec 5, 2015)

Simple question to all gun owners.  Why do you need an AR 15 or any similar weapon?  Why do you need large capacity clips?


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 5, 2015)

Why do you need more than one of them? Or even want more than one?


----------



## Agman (Dec 5, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Simple question to all gun owners.  Why do you need an AR 15 or any similar weapon?  Why do you need large capacity clips?View attachment 24424


*Jim, it is just a matter of matching up one's firearm needs with the right firearm.  AR-15s are not made for metropolitan usage.  Most town folks carry pistols with proper licensing. The ARs are real popular in the country around our ranch but when you consider that we have 400 pound wild hogs, javelinas, cougars, coyotes, bob cats, etc. to contend with you can understand. Regarding the large clips, have you ever tried to hit a moving target with a rifle as the critter is rapidly headed directly for you?  It is much harder than old timey Western movies would indicate.  Other types of carbine style rifles of the 223 persuasion are very popular as well.  As Captain Woodrow F. Call said, "It is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it." *


----------



## AZ Jim (Dec 5, 2015)

Agman said:


> AZ Jim said:
> 
> 
> > Simple question to all gun owners.  Why do you need an AR 15 or any similar weapon?  Why do you need large capacity clips?View attachment 24424[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## Agman (Dec 5, 2015)

*Winchester came out with the Model 94 carbine in 30 caliber 100 years ago and the purpose for which the Model 94 was manufactured is very similar to the purpose of more modern carbines like the ARs.  Your post asked all gun owners to respond and what I gave you is our particularly unique requirements for a long gun here in the woods.  You asked the question and I told you the answer.  It appears that we have a difference of opinion but I would still like to invite you to accompany us on our next hog hunt so that you can teach me how to shoot.  Based on your language, it appears that your ego has outweighed your trigger finger.  *


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 5, 2015)

I am not pro gun Agman, but this "round" goes to you! I applaud both your debating skills, and your sense of humour. Lolol. Don't want to go piggy hunting with you though. However there are a few people I might like to use as target practice now and then.(joking.)


----------



## AZ Jim (Dec 5, 2015)

Agman said:


> *Winchester came out with the Model 94 carbine in 30 caliber 100 years ago and the purpose for which the Model 94 was manufactured is very similar to the purpose of more modern carbines like the ARs.  Your post asked all gun owners to respond and what I gave you is our particularly unique requirements for a long gun here in the woods.  You asked the question and I told you the answer.  It appears that we have a difference of opinion but I would still like to invite you to accompany us on our next hog hunt so that you can teach me how to shoot.  Based on your language, it appears that your ego has outweighed your trigger finger.  *



I'll be 80 next BD and my "hunting" days are behind me but I did qualify "Expert" on the range in the military.  I assure you I know a little about "country ways".  I have lived in South Dakota and Idaho and big game were abundant in both places.  I still maintain that "assault weapons" are NOT needed anywhere but the battlefield.  My position and my "ego" are intact. I did say not to take my opinion personally and it seems you could not do that to which I can only retort, oh well....BTW I have no argument with any "long gun" (rifle) my post refers to large capacity assault rifles only.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 5, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Simple question to all gun owners.  Why do you need an AR 15 or any similar weapon?  Why do you need large capacity clips?



Simple answer, we don't have to _need _a firearm, or offer any explanations to buy one.  Maybe we just enjoy shooting it, maybe we're just collectors or maybe we just want one because we feel like it.  That's the beauty of being an American, we have the freedom to buy and do what we want, as long as it's within the law, we need no excuses.


----------



## imp (Dec 5, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I'll be 80 next BD and my "hunting" days are behind me but I did qualify "Expert" on the range in the military.  I assure you I know a little about "country ways".  I have lived in South Dakota and Idaho and big game were abundant in both places.  I still maintain that "assault weapons" are NOT needed anywhere but the battlefield.  My position and my "ego" are intact. I did say not to take my opinion personally and it seems you could not do that to which I can only retort, oh well....BTW I have no argument with any "long gun" (rifle) *my post refers to large capacity assault rifles only*.



Jimmy, calm down, eh? Your military background suggests that you fully understand that NO ASSAULT RIFLES have ever been sold publicly, in the U.S. Assault rifles are b y definition, select-fire weapons, capable of firing more than one round per trigger pull. I.E., machine guns. Illegal since inception of the NFA 1934 regulations I outlined previously. If you missed them, go back and read, if you do not understand this, eh? 

Any number of sporting style hunting rifles sold publicly for the past hundred years or so, are magazine-fed, just like your asserted "no-nos". Remington's Model 740, 741, 742, 7, and a few others all are "high-capacity" capable, yet have been the mainstay of hunters all along. Absolutely no difference between those perfectly acceptable sporting rifles and AR-15s. Except the absolutely ridiculous Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives insistence that "black rifles", collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, "pistol grips", AND high-capacity magazine capability, are to be considered "illegal weapons". 

You ought to know better, Jim. In fact, I know you do. AR-15s are no damned different than any semi-automatic sporting rifle. Sorry, Jim. I had to point out these discrepancies in your arguments, in deference to Agman.      imp


----------



## mitchezz (Dec 5, 2015)

So if someone felt like owning a hand grenade or army tank would refusing them these impinge on their freedom?


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 5, 2015)

A rocket launcher?


----------



## Robusta (Dec 5, 2015)

How about we just start enforcing the gun laws on the books.  Read your local paper, see how many get arrested for, say distribution of drugs and possession of a firearm by a felon.  Follow that case to court, the weapons charge is almost always dropped or plea bargained. Perhaps if we took away the DA's ability to drop the weapons charge, there would be fewer on the street!
 This would involve forcing the justice department to enforce federal law


----------



## AZ Jim (Dec 6, 2015)

imp said:


> Jimmy, calm down, eh? Your military background suggests that you fully understand that NO ASSAULT RIFLES have ever been sold publicly, in the U.S. Assault rifles are b y definition, select-fire weapons, capable of firing more than one round per trigger pull. I.E., machine guns. Illegal since inception of the NFA 1934 regulations I outlined previously. If you missed them, go back and read, if you do not understand this, eh?
> 
> Any number of sporting style hunting rifles sold publicly for the past hundred years or so, are magazine-fed, just like your asserted "no-nos". Remington's Model 740, 741, 742, 7, and a few others all are "high-capacity" capable, yet have been the mainstay of hunters all along. Absolutely no difference between those perfectly acceptable sporting rifles and AR-15s. Except the absolutely ridiculous Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives insistence that "black rifles", collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, "pistol grips", AND high-capacity magazine capability, are to be considered "illegal weapons".
> 
> You ought to know better, Jim. In fact, I know you do. AR-15s are no damned different than any semi-automatic sporting rifle. Sorry, Jim. I had to point out these discrepancies in your arguments, in deference to Agman.      imp


 I find you very condescending and I have no need to "calm down" as you suggest.  My using the term "assault weapon" has more to do with clip (magazine) capacity.  As to the rifles featuring 10 round mags, I believe most agree that should be the maximum allowed, I don't argue against that.  Our biggest problem is the John Wayne syndrome which has developed here in America.


----------



## AZ Jim (Dec 6, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> Simple answer, we don't have to _need _a firearm, or offer any explanations to buy one.  Maybe we just enjoy shooting it, maybe we're just collectors or maybe we just want one because we feel like it.  That's the beauty of being an American, we have the freedom to buy and do what we want, as long as it's within the law, we need no excuses.


So the simple "desire" to own this weapon trumps the safety of people all over America.  Sorry, some want to do many things "because they find pleasure in it" but not all our desires are good for the majority.


----------



## WhatInThe (Dec 6, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> So the simple "desire" to own this weapon trumps the safety of people all over America.  Sorry, some want to do many things "because they find pleasure in it" but not all our desires are good for the majority.



It's as much about choices & freedom. The freedom to chose to be a responsible law abiding citizen or the choice to be a criminal and commit criminal acts with consequence. And at what point should any hobby, tool, sport etc be outlawed? When does it end? Is actually good for the majority.

And what would another version of/or prohibition. Alcohol rohibition helped fuel and build the first modern gangs/gangster.  A model and heritage that being used today by drug gangs. Yet prohibition was supposed to help society. Another day, I digress.

I should add that many are willing to accept risk, they realize there are no absolutes. It's simply part of life. Criminal acts shouldn't be but there is a chance or potential danger with many things that are part of daily life in the US and citizens accept it.  

People can do a lot of evil stuff but they chose to do illegal and immoral acts. It's the crime and criminal, not the thing.

I don't want to stray too much but I find a similar situation with drugs and junkies. Why should anyone have to sacrifice their personal privacy and have legal purchases tracked(like sudafed) because some two bit drug addict wants to lie, cheat or steal. They chose criminal behavior to enable their personal habit. Why should anyone who has used legal prescription drugs without incident have to jump through hoops to get legal medication they have used for years.

Blaming drugs or guns is blaming and trying to control a thing rather than the actual individuals that commit illegal & immoral acts.   Or the processes or lack there of that supposedly perpetuate their personal criminal choices/behavior.


----------



## AZ Jim (Dec 6, 2015)

Clearly the lines are drawn on this issue so realizing that no minds will change, I withdraw from this thread and wish all a good day!


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 6, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> So the simple "desire" to own this weapon trumps the safety of people all over America.  Sorry, some want to do many things "because they find pleasure in it" but not all our desires are good for the majority.



Well, the great majority of gun owners in America are good, responsible, law abiding citizens.  They are no threat to the safety of people "all over America", if anything, if there were a serious uprising with domestic terrorists, they would assist in the safety of Americans, at least be able to take care of themselves, their own families and perhaps their neighbors.

  Even with disasters like Katrina, people were breaking into cars and homes, looting and threatening the residents.  Those who had no way to protect themselves and their property were victims.  Like many other good Americans, I don't _ever _want to be a victim. 

 I'm in my sixties and have never had to use our guns for protection, but if I need them, they're there.  In the meantime, I'll enjoy the pleasures of occasional target practice with my husband and enjoy my life.  I treat others the way I would like to be treated, I respect them and their property, _that_ my friend is good for the majority, not my personal choices of what I'm going to buy with my own money.

By the way, I'm not out to change anyone's mind, they have the right to their own opinions and do what they feel is best for _them._


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 6, 2015)

WhatInThe said:


> People can do a lot of evil stuff but they chose to do illegal and immoral acts. It's the crime and criminal, not the thing.
> 
> Blaming drugs or guns is blaming and trying to control a thing rather than the actual individuals that commit illegal & immoral acts.   Or the processes or lack there of that supposedly perpetuate their personal criminal choices/behavior.



So true, I remember years ago being shocked when reading about this guy who brought women to his apartment, strung them up high and "dressed" them like a deer.  Just the thought of it made my skin crawl, and he didn't need a gun to kill those ladies, just a nice sharp knife did him just fine.


----------



## Jackie22 (Dec 6, 2015)

I agree with all that Jim said, there will always be crimes and violence, but the overwhelming AVAILABILITY  of guns and especially the assault weapons and ammunition make it too easy for the ones that commit violence.

I have a really hard time understanding why anyone would be against more and better gun control laws to save lives and it would save lives, that is already proven by other countries. 

Also note, I DID NOT SAY anything about taking everyone's guns and I don't see anyone else wanting to do that.


----------



## fureverywhere (Dec 6, 2015)

I have a really hard time understanding why anyone would be against more and better gun control laws to save lives and it would save lives, that is already proven by other countries.

It doesn't make any sense that the job application for McDonalds is more thorough than if you want to buy a gun. And nothing anyone says can change that. I understand that there are people who own weapons and feel passionate about that right. I would also think that you are all law abiding citizens and if they gave you a background check you would pass with flying colors. Right? So what's the problem?


----------



## Jackie22 (Dec 6, 2015)

fureverywhere said:


> I have a really hard time understanding why anyone would be against more and better gun control laws to save lives and it would save lives, that is already proven by other countries.
> 
> It doesn't make any sense that the job application for McDonalds is more thorough than if you want to buy a gun. And nothing anyone says can change that. I understand that there are people who own weapons and feel passionate about that right. I would also think that you are all law abiding citizens and if they gave you a background check you would pass with flying colors. Right? So what's the problem?



....good point, fureverywhere!


----------



## BobF (Dec 6, 2015)

Then should the Swiss have their guns taken away too?    To make their country as safe as others?


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 6, 2015)

The Swiss rarely murder each other. Fewer than fifty murders in a year indicates they do not need gun control.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 6, 2015)

fureverywhere said:


> It doesn't make any sense that the job application for McDonalds is more thorough than if you want to buy a gun. And nothing anyone says can change that.



I've never applied at a McDonalds for a job.  Are you saying that employment applications at McDonalds are more thorough than this form, and extensive background check??  Unless I'm mistaken, this is the form needed to purchase a firearm in the US.  https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download


----------



## Sunny (Dec 6, 2015)

I would like to see some statistics on a) how many people annually are actually saved/protected by their gun, as opposed to b) how many people are criminally or accidentally killed by them?

Never mind, I think I know the answer.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 6, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> Also note, I DID NOT SAY anything about taking everyone's guns and I don't see anyone else wanting to do that.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 6, 2015)

Warrigal said:


> Yes Bob but I've only just woken up and I'm trying to catch up.
> I saw your post after I had responded to the question.



We have "nettle" here in the States.. and I have inadvertently "grasped" some while gardening... very unpleasant...  I was able to understand your meaning immediately.  Didn't take a botany nor a political degree I may add.


----------



## Jackie22 (Dec 6, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


>




SB, I believe in the last part of that video, the discussion was about assault weapon....that part of the video was left out....so it is misleading.

I did find this..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein


Gun politics[edit]
Senator Feinstein had experienced 2 assassinations as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors where Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk were killed while in office. In 1993, Feinstein, along with then-Representative Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Senator Ted Kennedy (whose lost 2 of his brothers to assassination, neither to semi-automatic firearms), led the fight to ban many semi-automatic firearms deemed assault weapons and restrict the sale of high capacity magazines. The ban was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. In 2004, when the ban was set to expire, Feinstein sponsored a 10-year extension of the ban as an amendment to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; while the amendment was successfully added, the act itself failed.[27] The act was then revived in 2005, and, despite Feinstein's best efforts, was passed without an extension of the assault weapons ban. In response to the Sandy Hook school massacre, Sen. Feinstein has reintroduced legislation to reinstate the ban on assault weapons as well as many more restrictions.[28]


Discussing why the 1994 act only prohibited the manufacture or import of assault weapons, instead of the possession and sale of them, Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."[29]


In July 2006, Feinstein voted against the Vitter Amendment to prohibit Federal funds being used for the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during a disaster.[30] [31]


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 6, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> SB, I believe in the last part of that video, the discussion was about assault weapon....that part of the video was left out....so it is misleading.



I've seen the extended video Jackie, that really doesn't matter to me.  It is "assault" weapons now, which is a false term to cause fear and over-dramatize the firearm.  Then what's next, automatic pistols, revolvers?  None of these guns should be confiscated from law abiding citizens of the United States....period. 

 I'm not an expert, but as far as I know, an "assault" weapon is a weapon that if fully automatic, or a machine gun used in wars by the military.  Not the semi-automatic rifles that are sold to the public legally here in America.  More on the differences if anyone is interested.  http://www.assaultweapon.info/


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 6, 2015)

SB... do you own a semi-automatic?   IF so... why?   Is a handgun or a regular shotgun or rifle not sufficient for your needs?   Do you own large volume clips... Do you believe you will have the need to fire 50 or 100 shots in  seconds?   If so.... why.... and at who?


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 6, 2015)

When I was at school the teachers explained to us the difference between the words 'freedom' and 'licence'. 
I am all for freedom but when freedom turns into licence in the sense that people feel they have the right to do what they like, regardless of the effect of others, then I am in favour of restrictions being applied. Some freedoms are worth fighting for.  Licence needs to be governed

freedom _noun_
noun: *freedom*; 
noun: *freedom from*; plural noun: *freedom froms*; plural noun: *freedoms*
*1.*​the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.
"we do have some freedom of choice"
"the law interfered with their *freedom of* expression"​

absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
"he was a champion of Irish freedom"
the power of self-determination attributed to the will; the quality of being independent of fate or necessity.
"patients have more freedom to choose who treats them"

*2*. 
the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.
"the shark thrashed its way to freedom"
​licence _noun
_noun: *licence*; plural noun: *licences*; noun: *license*; plural noun: *licenses
**1*. 
 a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (especially in alcoholic drink).
 "a gun licence"
formal or official permission to do something.
 "a subsidiary company manufactured cranes under licence from a Norwegian firm"
*
2*. 
 freedom to behave as one wishes, especially in a way which results in excessive or unacceptable behaviour.
 "the government was criticized for giving the army too much licence"​


----------



## Don M. (Dec 6, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> SB... do you own a semi-automatic?   IF so... why?   Is a handgun or a regular shotgun or rifle not sufficient for your needs?   Do you own large volume clips... Do you believe you will have the need to fire 50 or 100 shots in a seconds?   If so.... why.... and at who?



Any Weapon that can fire multiple rounds, with a single pull of the trigger is a "machine gun"...which is tightly controlled under present regulations and requires an extensive, and Very Expensive process to procure.  Anyone who could fire "50 to 100 rounds in seconds" with a semi-auto rifle/pistol would have the worlds best manual dexterity....and have the weapon equipped with a custom made clip.


----------



## BobF (Dec 6, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> SB... do you own a semi-automatic?   IF so... why?   Is a handgun or a regular shotgun or rifle not sufficient for your needs?   Do you own large volume clips... Do you believe you will have the need to fire 50 or 100 shots in a seconds?   If so.... why.... and at who?



As I understand it, a gun is semi automatic if it fires each time the trigger is pulled.   That counts on pistols, shotguns, rifles as well.   You don't need to shoot large numbers of shots to be semi automatic.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 6, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> Simple answer, we don't have to *need *a firearm, or offer any explanations to buy one.  Maybe we just enjoy shooting it, maybe we're just collectors or maybe we just want one because we feel like it.  That's the beauty of being an American, we have the freedom to buy and do what we want, as long as it's within the law, we need no excuses.





QuickSilver said:


> SB... do you own a semi-automatic?   IF so... why?   Is a handgun or a regular shotgun or rifle not sufficient for your needs?   Do you own large volume clips... Do you believe you will have the need to fire 50 or 100 shots in  seconds?   If so.... why.... and at who?



Answer to your first question is none of your business.  See the above response from me to AZ Jim for the rest of your questions.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 6, 2015)

I suppose that's your business.....  But I find guns distasteful...  and one "right" I will be sure to never exercise.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 6, 2015)

That's your choice QS....the beauty of being an American in this great country, we still have choices.


----------



## imp (Dec 6, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> SB... *do you own a semi-automatic?   IF so... why?   Is a handgun or a regular shotgun or rifle not sufficient for your needs*?   Do you own large volume clips... *Do you believe you will have the need to fire 50 or 100 shots in  seconds*?   If so.... why.... and at who?



QS, the lack of technical understanding makes these terms all the more distasteful to you, I can sense. Don't be offended by my saying this, please. Your career background I take to be pretty darned technical, and one not easily attained; that suggests as a young adult, "finding out" meant as much to you as getting the good grades needed academically. If these are reasonably comprehensive guesses on my part, you won't simply "write off" my following explanation:

Handguns are made in two basic types. Semi-automatic _Pistols, _and Revolvers, which are made in two types, unimportant to distinguish here. _Pistols _carry their ammunition supply
in a reloadable magazine, ("clip" is a red-neck, hillbilly term I don't use) which is inserted into the firearm. I have never seen a pistol with a factory-fitted magazine capable of carrying over 16 rounds of ammunition, which would be what is typically termed a "high-capacity" magazine. 

Revolvers carry their ammunition in a _cylinder, _a non-removable type of "magazine". Most have chambers for 6 rounds, some less, and each round must be manually inserted just as they must in a removable magazine for a Pistol. Revolvers are NOT semi-automatic.

So, if one chooses to have a Pistol, it WILL be semi-automatic, other choice present. Choose a Revolver, it WILL NOT be semi-automatic. BOTH TYPES WILL require a trigger-pull to fire EACH AND EVERY round. 

Your question of a "regular shotgun or rifle": BOTH are made in the exact same designations I just described. Semi-automatic, or manually-operated.
Question about 50 or 100 rounds in seconds: Magazines ARE made which have capacity of 20, 30, rounds commonly, specialty manufacturers have made larger ones, but only for rifles. Shotgun cartridges are far too large to load large numbers and tote about.

Thanks for reading.   imp


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 6, 2015)

imp said:


> QS, the lack of technical understanding makes these terms all the more distasteful to you, I can sense. Don't be offended by my saying this, please. Your career background I take to be pretty darned technical, and one not easily attained; that suggests as a young adult, "finding out" meant as much to you as getting the good grades needed academically. If these are reasonably comprehensive guesses on my part, you won't simply "write off" my following explanation:
> 
> Handguns are made in two basic types. Semi-automatic _Pistols, _and Revolvers, which are made in two types, unimportant to distinguish here. _Pistols _carry their ammunition supply
> in a reloadable magazine, ("clip" is a red-neck, hillbilly term I don't use) which is inserted into the firearm. I have never seen a pistol with a factory-fitted magazine capable of carrying over 16 rounds of ammunition, which would be what is typically termed a "high-capacity" magazine.
> ...




Yes IMP...... THAT and having my 10 year old son shot point blank in the face by another 10 year old who got his hands on his mother's handgun...     Seeing your child with a huge hole in his face can do that to a person.... don't you think?    I personally don't give a F$%k   about "technical" terms  OR your lecture...   Gee... think what would have happened to my son with a Glock......  his brains would have been all over the neighborhood...   


Thanks for reading...


----------



## The Inspector (Dec 6, 2015)

Chose come with consequences. More guns more, guns deaths.


----------



## imp (Dec 6, 2015)

mitchezz said:


> So if someone felt like owning a hand grenade or army tank would refusing them these impinge on their freedom?



Here, again, the lack of congruency compels. We are discussing firearms,  are we not? If so, a direct answer to your question would not have any bearing whatsoever on resolution of the firearms controversy, would it?

If you REALLY care to know, hand grenades are specifically regulated under the NFA 1934 (National Firearms Act) and are_*legally-ownable* _by individuals by registration as specified in the Act, under "Explosive Devices". But I doubt personally, that you do care.

The tank? Let's not bother with that. Let's rather inform the uninformed, just for fun, perhaps, that NFA specifically allows *legal ownership *of firearms suppressors, commonly called _silencers_, under the same provisions as "Class III" firearms, Machine Guns.   imp


----------



## imp (Dec 6, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Yes IMP...... THAT and having my 10 year old son shot point blank in the face by another 10 year old who got his hands on his mother's handgun...     Seeing your child with a huge hole in his face can do that to a person.... don't you think?    I personally don't give a F$%k   about "technical" terms  OR your lecture...   Gee... think what would have happened to my son with a Glock......  his brains would have been all over the neighborhood...
> 
> 
> Thanks for reading...



I did read, QS. And I feel for you. The gun caused the tragedy. Not the person wielding it. What would your reaction be had the gun been a shovel, or cleaver, or something else?   imp

Edit: It seems you keep asking questions, but do not really want an answer to them.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 6, 2015)

You are missing the point Imp. It was the owner of the gun who was the problem. *And* the fact that guns are designed to be instruments of death. 
Or am I mistaken and they actually have a different primary purpose such as fashion accessory or paper weight?


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 6, 2015)

imp said:


> I did read, QS. And I feel for you. The gun caused the tragedy. Not the person wielding it. What would your reaction be had the gun been a shovel, or cleaver, or something else?   imp



I'm not even going to dignify that stupid question with an answer.....

And once again I have broken my rule.... that is to NOT discuss guns with people who have no idea what horror they can cause... and I mean FIRST HAND... not from watching on TV.... No idea, of the pain people and families go through.. but are only concerned with some misinterpreted RIGHT....and to hell with the rights of others.


----------



## imp (Dec 6, 2015)

QS, pls re-read as I added an Edit.   

How could an answer to a question pre-proclaimed as "stupid", dignify it?   imp


----------



## imp (Dec 6, 2015)

Warrigal said:


> You are missing the point Imp. It was the owner of the gun who was the problem. *And* the fact that guns are designed to be instruments of death.
> Or am I mistaken and they actually have a different primary purpose such as fashion accessory or paper weight?



And I guess I am missing your point also, Warri. I am fully aware, obviously, that the owner of the gun was the problem. And the user, if intent prevails. How do you read otherwise? I know we talk the same basic English. 

Your last two sentences insert fuzzy definitions: Guns are DESIGNED to function in  a specific way. What is done with the manufactured product has nothing whatsoever to do with it's design.

Pointless, I suppose, to mention developed skill in Marksmanship, or that our Elected Leaders, despite their various failings, have supported National Civilian Marksmanship programs from day one.   imp


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 6, 2015)

Anyone who has ever seen a child wounded or killed by gunfire that could have been avoided never forgets. Frankly, it becomes personal--as it should. Attempting to twist semantics is a straw argument at best.,these are innocent victims not cerebral statistics. The kindest spin I can put on it is one of naïveté.


----------



## mitchezz (Dec 6, 2015)

imp said:


> Here, again, the lack of congruency compels. We are discussing firearms,  are we not? If so, a direct answer to your question would not have any bearing whatsoever on resolution of the firearms controversy, would it?
> 
> If you REALLY care to know, hand grenades are specifically regulated under the NFA 1934 (National Firearms Act) and are_*legally-ownable* _by individuals by registration as specified in the Act, under "Explosive Devices". But I doubt personally, that you do care.
> 
> The tank? Let's not bother with that. Let's rather inform the uninformed, just for fun, perhaps, that NFA specifically allows *legal ownership *of firearms suppressors, commonly called _silencers_, under the same provisions as "Class III" firearms, Machine Guns.   imp



Go suck eggs.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 6, 2015)

Imp do you really not understand the emotional impact of what you are saying, or are you deliberately playing with people's emotions in order to be provocative?


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 6, 2015)

imp said:


> And I guess I am missing your point also, Warri. I am fully aware, obviously, that the owner of the gun was the problem. And the user, if intent prevails. How do you read otherwise? I know we talk the same basic English.
> 
> Your last two sentences insert fuzzy definitions: Guns are DESIGNED to function in  a specific way. What is done with the manufactured product has nothing whatsoever to do with it's design.
> 
> Pointless, I suppose, to mention developed skill in Marksmanship, or that our Elected Leaders, despite their various failings, have supported National Civilian Marksmanship programs from day one.   imp



My last sentence was pure irony Imp. My last but one was simply stating the obvious.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 6, 2015)

Some people are oblivious to irony. It require lateral thinking. An imagination helps also?


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 6, 2015)

Guns are not the only killing machines that should be restricted. Here is a list of all the prohibited weapons in NSW.
It is a long list.

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data...1/Prohibited_Weapons_Schedule1_April_2012.pdf


----------



## imp (Dec 6, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> I'm not even going to dignify that stupid question with an answer.....
> 
> And once again I have broken my rule.... that is to NOT discuss guns with *people who have no idea what horror they can cause... and I mean FIRST HAND... not from watching on TV.... No idea, of the pain people and families go through.. but are only concerned with some misinterpreted RIGHT....and to hell with the rights of others*.



QS, Yer pushing me to write more, further inflaming the G. D.mnd. wound. When I was 25, my new wife 20., I had to step over her parent's dead bodies to get to the phone., to call the cops. Her Dad had shot her Mother in the back, then called us,  (that's why I was there, as first on the scene), then himself, in the temple. Our lives were instantly thrown into turmoil, as I'm sure was yours, due to your own horrible tragedy.

Please, accuse me not of having no idea of pain families go through. I know all about that. We adopted my wife's brother & sister, 16 and 11 then.  Our lives were thrown into an ever-deepening pit, yet, we got through it, scarred, yes, mentally unhinged, yes, so please review what I'm saying here.

Her Father was nuts. He killed her Mother, then himself. She was 20, a child herself. Think she "hated guns" after that? When we divorced, almost ten years later, the ONE THING she asked of me was to let her choose which handgun she could have for self-protection. After the horrible experience, she still was able to perceive that GUNS are not the threat.

Seems pretty easy to see, from my point of view. You can hate guns for the remainder of your life, campaign against guns for the rest of your existence, hate gun owners, hate supporters of self-defense rights, but even though I feel truly deeply for your own gun-related loss, I MUST stand by my beliefs.  imp


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 6, 2015)

Sometimes there is no right--only kindness.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 7, 2015)

One of our lesser poets wrote a fairly trite little ditty that is often quoted but he really was onto something.

Life is mostly froth and bubble,
   Two things stand like stone,
KINDNESS in another’s trouble,
   COURAGE in your own."


----------

