General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Handguns...exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing....
confrontation rather than avoiding it."
That's not a "Plea for Gun-Control". It's a plea for sanity to a culture that has gone gun-crazy. So why does the corporate media characterize Bob Costa's remarks as a "Plea for Gun-Control"? Could it be that it's easier to dismiss a plea for gun-control and harder to dismiss a plea for sanity?
BTW: If you haven't read Jason Whitlock's whole column, I suggest you do.
....
A 25-year-old kid gunned down his 22-year-old girlfriend in front of his mother and three-month-old child, and all he could think to do in the immediate aftermath is rush to thank his football coach and football employer. Belcher’s last moments on this earth weren’t spent thanking the mother who raised him or apologizing to the child he would orphan. His final words of gratitude and perhaps remorse were reserved for his football gods.
It should come as no surprise that Crennel, Chiefs players, Pioli, owner Clark Hunt and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell quickly agreed not to delay Sunday’s football congregation at Arrowhead Stadium.
....
Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.
....
That is the message I wish Chiefs players, professional athletes and all of us would focus on Sunday and moving forward. Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.
But we won’t. We’ll watch Sunday’s game and comfort ourselves with the false belief we’re incapable of the wickedness that exploded inside Jovan Belcher Saturday morning.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/jovan-belcher-kansas-city-chiefs-murder-suicide-tragedy-girlfriend-self-leave-orphan-daughter-why-still-playing-sunday-120112
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
jody
(26,624 posts)to protect law abiding citizens?
Fact, handguns are the tool of choice for self-defense by 840,000 sworn law enforcement officers. Their privilege, not a right, is granted by government, not a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right possessed by law-abiding citizens as sovereign entities before they accepted the social contracts we honor as state constitutions and the Constitution.
Fact, PA (1776) and VT (1777) said in their constitutions:
"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable/unalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
Fact, as inalienable/unalienable rights "defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property" could not have been given away when citizens through their states ratified our Constitution.
As asserted above handguns in particular and other firearms are the best choice for law abiding citizens to defend themselves and their property.
For those who disagree, they can call 911 and wait for law enforcement to arrive perhaps hours later and use chalk to outline the body.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)much.
jody
(26,624 posts)
pscot
(21,024 posts)go crawl back under your rock.
jody
(26,624 posts)
Orrex
(63,219 posts)Allegedly inalienable rights are taken away all the time, in every state of the union. These include but are not limited to the so-called rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Any argument based on a notion of inalienable rights is based on a fiction. It may or may not be a good argument, but an appeal to inalienable rights doesn't grant it any special status or legitimacy.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)
Lex
(34,108 posts)"Handguns...exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing
confrontation rather than avoiding it."
jody
(26,624 posts)use to attack victims?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)The other things that criminals use to attack victims do not exacerbate, if anything they limit the effectiveness and deadliness of the attack. You are blinded by your love of a weapon.
jody
(26,624 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)arguments.
You are one very afraid person. I feel sorry for you, hanging on to 18th century ideas as if you life depended on it. And you thin it really does. The point of the Costas discussion is not banning guns, as your paranoia seizes on, but rather the dangerous gun culture, which you seem to cling to.
For those who disagree, they can call 911 and wait for law enforcement to arrive perhaps hours later and use chalk to outline the body.
Your conclusions are not fact. The are products of your overactive imagination, paranoia and obsession with a weapon. You "facts" leading up to it are historical anecdotes and the police choice of weapon. Irrelevant and silly.
jody
(26,624 posts)those who would ban law abiding citizens from keeping and bearing arms for self-defense to present arguments that would justify society abolishing unalienable/inalienable rights and creating a totalitarian central government.
The type of government that the founders fought the War of Independence to abolish.
I fight for all rights, enumerated and unenumerated, that our Constitution obligates government to protect.
In the earliest days of our nation congress passed a bill and the president signed it making it a crime to criticize the president and congress. People were convicted and imprisoned for writing things that if the law existed today would cause many of those who publish on DU to be serving time in prison.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It is about changing the pervasive gun culture that does not serve our society or security.
jody
(26,624 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)It probably shouldn't start with a law. It should start with some common sense and people lessening their paranoia and their fear of their neighbor. But, you see, you jumped in, first response, derailing any conversation due to your deep abiding fear that any comment addressing the problem of gun culture in this country means that somewhere, somebody wants to destroy your very way of life.
jody
(26,624 posts)including you apparently has a clue how to change the gun culture, whatever that is, without using laws that are simply more gun control.
I just asked you what law do you propose to change the gun culture and you avoided it.
Perhaps you have a way of changing that gun culture without laws.
If so please state what you would do without laws to produce your desired change in the gun culture.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)quit being afraid of inner city black men. Not sure how to get through their ignorant skulls, maybe there is a law for that.
Next, drugs should be legalized. Mental health treated. Corporate media could find another creative outlet rather than glorifying the gun.
It will take a long time, but in time, the rabidly-afraid will see that their is no need to fear their neighbor to the point of building an arsenal.
And, if you think any of your toys would help you against a government turning against you, you are delusional. So, please don't even put forth that argument.
sarisataka
(18,717 posts)That is getting dangerously close to discussion. That could then lead towards reason, understanding, compromise and worst of all solutions.
What would we focus flamefests on then???
Rather than a dissertation on the fine points of asymmetric warfare I will point out that in a conflict against the government, you don't have to win- just avoid loosing.
Given the current conditions of the USA, the odds of armed conflict against the government are extremely low (unless another Bush gets elected)
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Corporate media could find another creative outlet rather than glorifying the gun."
Isn't costas part of that "corporate media"?
Are you really trying to imply that corporate media is not almost exclusively on the gun control side of the issue?
Seriously?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Seriously.
Ya Basta
(391 posts)/looks over at gun vault...... /looks down at my brown skin
Talk about stereotyping. 
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Wow! Reading comprehension!
I was describing the problem with the gun culture and how to change it.
/looks over at the gun my grandfather gave me..../looks at my ability to be reasonable
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)You would be one of the people rednecks out in the sticks fear.
forks make you fat, do pencils misspell words, do cars drive themselves? This man had something wrong with his brain he shot a women 9 times, now do you think if he REALLY wanted to kill her he couldn't of used a knife? or any other weapon for that matter? This whole thing against guns is stupid, I have been robbed, and shot and I can tell you from personal experience COPS DO NOT PROTECT THE CITIZENS, they come in after wards and clean up the mess and try to tell and assure you that they will do everything they can to "find the perp." (unlikely)
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Do you get them sent via mass email?
MrDiaz
(731 posts)response. Can't comment on anything with facts or answer any questions...just talk down to people...It's actually pretty sad.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)thread, kinda like at Christmas we always get Santas...
patrice
(47,992 posts)a gun, because one obviously does not understand the important and essential characteristics of a gun that make it what it is and why, therefore, we don't eat with our guns, nor drive them to work.
The character of the individual using a tool of any type is important to how exactly that tool is used to beneficial or to detrimental effect.
However, a personality that cannot control the desire to eat, or a personality that does not care enough to learn how to spell what it writes, or a personality that is an in-attentive driver does not have the same kind of effect upon the world that a personality that is an ir-responsible gun owner has upon the world. Eating is not the same thing as shooting. Spelling is not the same thing as shooting. Driving can be the closest comparison, but that comparison doesn't work on the basis of the danger to one's self incurred from ir-responsible driving, compared to the relatively small danger to one's self from the effective use of a gun (there's also a matter of frequency in the comparison too, i.e. how many times can you be ir-responsible with a car and get away with it, compared to how many times can you use a gun for what-the-fuck-ever and get away with it).
Plenty of us want to be reasonable about respect for gun ownership rights, but it's silly arguments such as "guns don't kill; people kill" that make that almost impossible, because such arguments reveal that the people making them have no real understanding what guns are, since they compare them to forks.
As I said above: take a bad situation such as what this football player did to his family and keep that situation entirely the same as what actually happen, same sick and/or troubled people with bad histories with one another, all the same problems, but change one thing: no guns in the situation. CLEARLY what the hell ever people are, it IS guns that kill. Even if someone attacks with a knife, the probability of succeeding in killing another person are considerably lower and the consequences of such an attack to the attacker are much DIFFERENT from standing-off at a safe distance and shooting them. If that difference between guns and knives or guns and forks or guns and anything else weren't significant, there would be no guns, or everything would be guns, because the differences wouldn't matter.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)us to embrace avoiding conflict rather than engaging in it? Fear.
So which is better, living in fear or being willing to confront those who threaten you (which is all 99% of gun owners do).
Freedom SHOULD mean no having to live in fear.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Got any evidence to support that? Are some 80 million gun owners going around threatening people every day?
AlexSatan
(535 posts)I said the gun owners use it to confront those who threaten them. They don't go around doing the threatening.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Pretty busy here today.
I offer my sincere apology.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)Have a good night!
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)If you don't think that refutes your "statements", you are hopeless.
Buh-bye. Thanks for helping me update my ignore list.
jody
(26,624 posts)MrDiaz
(731 posts)or are you just spouting lies?
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Suicide: 18,735 deaths
Homicide: 11,493 deaths
Unintentional: 554 deaths
Legal interventions: 333 deaths
Undetermined: 232 deaths
Total: 31,347 deaths
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/23/facebook-posts/do-people-get-shot-every-year-facebook-post-says/
your adding suicides
morningfog
(18,115 posts)
it did say death by handguns
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)I find locking my front door works much better than a gun.
jody
(26,624 posts)Illinoischick
(35 posts)Unfortunately, I live in the only state that does not allow conceal carry.
Chicago has a has hand gun ban and it fails miserably.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)
pasto76
(1,589 posts)your 2nd amendment is an afterthought. Hence, "amendment".
The people in Aurora earlier this year had the INALIENABLE right to LIVE through that movie.
Assault weapons are also the weapon of choice, and issue, to more than 1 million service men and women. That means we should all be toting combat loads right.
jody
(26,624 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You don't know what an assault weapon is.
These terms have meaning, or Congress wouldn't bother defining them.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Assault weapons are also the weapon of choice, and issue, to more than 1 million service men and women."
No, they really aren't.
What you said there is 100 percent unequivocally false.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)of firearms. Makes me want to 
jody
(26,624 posts)
Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)Berserker
(3,419 posts)a self defense tool from sane people makes me want to puke.
Whovian
(2,866 posts)There are far to many crazies out there armed to the teeth that on occasion decide to shoot and kill random citizens of our nation. My pursuit of happiness and safety would include making it impossible or at least harder for these sick people to get firearms. But then, there's that slippery wicket in which we don't know they are dangerous until after the shooting spree.
I just don't want to see the next Charles Whitman wannbee in my neighborhood or town as I buy groceries. I could have an RPG strapped to my back and it would be no help and would probably make me his or her first target. I just don't feel all that safe with so many nuts and so many guns.
jody
(26,624 posts)Whovian
(2,866 posts)Is your happiness more important than mine?
jody
(26,624 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Oh, we don't? We actually have to come to some sort of compromise?
Perhaps if you flop backwards on the floor, screaming and kicking you'll get what you want.
jody
(26,624 posts)rights of each citizen against the tyranny of a simple majority present in a true democracy.
SCOTUS says those rights preexist our Constitution and do not depend upon words written on paper.
Whether a citizen exercises one of those rights is a personal decision.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Should Belcher’s second amendment rights have superseded his girlfriend's right to not be murdered?
I'm not arguing for banning guns. I'm arguing that owning a handgun should require more oversight. Because of the large number of people who fail to be responsible gun owners.
jody
(26,624 posts)any of the world's government.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Lightbulb_on
(315 posts)You choose not to utilize weapons and others choose to use them. People who misuse their tools will face the consequence. Folks who do not adequately prepare themselves may be subject to violence and all that entails.
To each their own...
Perfect balance..
jeff47
(26,549 posts)In the shooting under discussion, Belcher’s family, girlfriend, child, pseudo mother-in-law all get to live with his decision.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)"As asserted above handguns in particular and other firearms are the best choice for law abiding citizens to defend themselves and their property.
For those who disagree, they can call 911 and wait for law enforcement to arrive perhaps hours later and use chalk to outline the body."
You state a false premise and false deduction from that assertion.
No, handguns are NOT the best choice for law abiding citizens to stay safe or "defend" themselves. There are MANY choices that society and individuals can make besides calling 911.
In fact, in today's world we should have permits, licenses, and insurance in order to own or possess guns. You should have to pass a background check, mental health check, and a test to obtain a firearm. Otherwise, possession should be an instance trip to jail (like a DUI). Also, you should have a renewable license to possess or carry a gun or buy ammunition. You should be required to buy insurance on any gun you own. You might even need an inspection (like your home), just like inspecting your car for safety. Then you can have a gun for defense or sport safely. Then there would be fewer gun accidents and crimes and assaults. Of course it would take a while to get a million guns off the street, but it could happen quickly if our society didn't have gun nuts trying to protect their "rights". BTW, I own guns, grew up in a hunting family on military bases, and I have taken training in the use of guns. I still think your assertion of "rights" is overblown, while the guns proliferation in our society is out of control. We need more gun control.
jody
(26,624 posts)
Sancho
(9,070 posts)even in my youth (and generations before), you had a different world when original laws and constitutions were written. Today, the guns in the hands of your grandmother with a single shooting class are not a big problem. The problems are the guns in the hands of people who are emotional, ill, or criminal. There is no barrier to prevent the terrible mayhem caused by hormonal youth and mentally ill from obtaining powerful weapons. You can even be a self-appointed neighborhood guard here and go around shooting folks when you don't know what you are doing...there are no reasonable controls. Criminals can buy whatever they want at gun shows.
I wouldn't outlaw guns, but I'd make it a much more comprehensive process to obtain guns or ammunition. If you are an ok person, it's just like a driver's license or fishing permit; mostly inconvenient. If you possess a gun or ammunition without a current license, you'd loose the gun, go to jail, be evaluated, and face a serious penalty. If you want a more powerful gun, you would need more training and checking to get the permit.
In Florida, a DUI costs you your license, insurance, and about $5000 in lawyer's fees to get your license renewed and your car back. Meanwhile, you may spend the weekend in jail. Why not guns?
Also, you have to have insurance for your car, boat, and home. Why not require gun owners to carry insurance? It would cost you a bunch unless you attended safety classes, etc. That's another way to control unlawful gun use. If you posses a gun without insurance, you should lose the gun on the spot. Those insurance companies would quickly figure it out.
jody
(26,624 posts)laws do you propose be added to those that already exist?
See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-44 and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-E/chapter-53
Then consider the practice of judges who sentence a convicted felon allow them to serve time for the crime, e.g. attempted murder, concurrently with the time sentenced for possessing a firearm.
IMO those sentences should be served sequentially.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)there may be variations. The point is NOT punishment for convicted felons who robbed a bank, etc. The point is BEFORE you possess a gun...so you can have all the guns you want, but it would be harder for the mentally ill or criminals to get them:
1.) you should pass a background and mental health check
2.) you should complete a gun safety course
3.) you should be issued a license to buy a gun or ammunition and you must present it to make a purchase
4.) you should probably be required to have an insurance policy
5.) if you are underage, you only get a learners permit and must be supervised when using a gun
6.) in some cases, like if there are children in your home, you may have to prove proper storage of guns (gun safe, trigger locks, etc.)
7.) more powerful guns (military, etc.) might require advanced training
8.) you can't sell or ship a gun without showing your license/permit
9.) LEO's or mental health professionals or judges can revoke your license if they have cause (like you threaten your neighbor or tell your psychiatrist that you plan to hurt someone)
If you have a gun in your possession without the license/permit:
1.) you lose the gun on the spot
2.) you are taken in for evaluation (a few days in jail and a mental health check?)
3.) you face a fine or maybe jail (like DUI) even if you weren't committing a crime other than possession without a license
I'm sure you get the idea. If you want to include crossbows, Star Trek phasers, and ICBM's as "arms" thats ok...it's the same principle.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)if they were enforced it would be a help, but I'd require a license to possess the gun. It would not be for dealers, but for anyone who has the gun in their hand.
jody
(26,624 posts)Sancho
(9,070 posts)The federal laws would be helpful if they extended to homeowners, etc.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Also, you have to have insurance for your car, boat, and home."
Insurance is not required to OWN any of those things.
Apples and oranges.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)but you are required to have insurance to use the car, or get a mortgage, or keep a boat in the marina (at least in Florida). You can't register a car or boat here, or keep the boat at the dock of most places without proof of insurance. You can't get a tag or boat registration number without proof of insurance.
I believe that you usually have to provide proof of insurance in order to buy a car at most dealers. Otherwise, you'd have to have the car towed to your house so you could look at it sitting there.
I'm suggesting that gun owners should be required to carry insurance in order to possess or use a firearm. I would pay for it just like other forms of liability insurance. The insurance companies would likely have requirements and deny coverage if I had been diagnosed as mentally ill or had a criminal record. This is just like insurance companies denying me insurance if I had a bad driving record or history of accidence. At the least, by premiums would be much higher.
This would be yet another way to get control of all the guns ending up in the wrong hands, but allowing regular folks to have their protection or hunting fun.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"but you are required to have insurance to use the car, or get a mortgage, or keep a boat in the marina (at least in Florida). "
One is only required to have insurance to USE a car on public property. Not to OWN one.
One is also not required to register a car simply to own it. As someone that has owned over 50 vehicles - many of them "parts cars" in multiple states, I know this to be true.
"I'm suggesting that gun owners should be required to carry insurance in order to possess or use a firearm."
Yes, you are. You're suggesting something thats just not required for the great great majority of things in America.
Make for me a simple list of things which one must be insured simply to own - not use in public - simply to own.
In making that list, you'll see my point.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)at least the DMV asks for it. Our registration cards here have a place for the policy number and name of the insurance company. It used to be the same in SC and GA when I lived there. Even if you don't "own" it, you can't drive a borrowed car without a license and insurance. If you do, you are likely in violation of all kinds of things and also liable for damage that you do. Our auto insurance companies give us cards to put in the car with the VIN # and policy number and date of expiration. That's in case we're stopped.
Regardless, if you want to "own" a gun or anything else without ever using it, fine. If you want to ever shoot a gun, hunt with one, etc., then I'm suggesting you should have insurance against your background and level of responsibility and possible damage.
I'm saying that's the way it SHOULD be, just like I'm saying that you shouldn't have a gun, or buy a gun, or carry a gun unless you have a license to have it. It's not the current law, but I think it should be.
I'm a long time gun owner and I was hunting at 10 years old (I'm almost 60). I've had safety courses and I know the issues. Right now, it's too easy for youth, mentally/emotionally ill folks, or criminals to obtain or possess guns. I don't care if you "own" it. I only care that it's in your possession or that you are touching or using it.
I still think that we need to collect every gun instantly if the person possessing it doesn't have a license and insurance. That's my opinion. Instead of quibbling over "ownership", you miss the point that the person with the weapon in their hand shouldn't have it without a lot of trouble and jumping through hoops. If they break the rules, they should lose the gun and be hauled in on the spot.
beevul
(12,194 posts)One need not "register" a car, simply to own it.
Licensing and registration are applicable only to public use, not private use or ownership.
I understand you're simply advocating what you think should be.
I'm simply saying it doesn't help your case conflating ownership with usage in public, which is what you were doing.
As far as collecting every gun instantly, if the person possessing it doesn't have a license and insurance, you're talking about the majority of the 300 million firearms in the hands of 80 plus million people, in America.
The majority of them are unlicensed, and uninsured.
If you could snap your fingers, "its now law", how much would that cost, and how are you going to pay for it?
Plus theres the issue of interstate versus intra state commerce. The federal government has jurisdiction in one of those areas, and not in the other.
Its fine to talk about what should happen when someone "breaks the rules", but how are you going to make that happen without "breaking the rules" to make it happen?
Sancho
(9,070 posts)and you MUST pay taxes on it when you bring it to Florida regardless of the origin. All sales require the car to be taxed and/or registered and titled (depending on the type of vehicle), ergo, you must have proof of paying taxes and sometimes insurance in order to transfer the title or obtain a title if registration is required. Depending on where you park the car or boat - some locations also require all vehicles to be registered/insured.
I'm not confusing the "ownership". I don't CARE if you own anything. I'm saying if you DRIVE, the person must have a driver's license (and typically be an insured driver). If you POSSESS or USE a weapon, you MUST have a license for the PERSON. In addition, objects (like cars) should be followed through sales and transfers by REGISTRATION of the guns. It would be prudent to also require insurance. There are plenty of parallels for interstate sales and similar things.
I realize it would take a decade or more to get everyone under a new set of laws, but they would be similar to existing auto, boat, and registration laws. It would not cost a thing, because the costs would be collected in registration/licensing fees. It would be an additional cost to the gun owner/user/possessor! It would create a safer society.
This is entirely practical over a period of time. It would not take any guns away from lawful users. It would only deny or prevent youth, mentally ill, and criminals from easy access to guns. It would be a pain-in-the-ass, it would NOT prevent ALL crime or misuse, and it would cost money for the lawful users. It would also be a GOOD way to go.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Here, you cannot "own" a car unless you buy it or someone gives it to you and you MUST pay taxes on it when you bring it to Florida regardless of the origin."
Are you required to bring it to florida if you own it?
"All sales require the car to be taxed and/or registered and titled (depending on the type of vehicle), ergo, you must have proof of paying taxes and sometimes insurance in order to transfer the title or obtain a title if registration is required. Depending on where you park the car or boat - some locations also require all vehicles to be registered/insured."
So, say...race cars don't have to be licensed or registered or insured, or say...off road vehicles?
As far as locations which have requirements - those locations I assume are optional - as in you can skip them if you choose.
"I'm not confusing the "ownership". I don't CARE if you own anything. I'm saying if you DRIVE, the person must have a driver's license (and typically be an insured driver)."
Again, I can drive all day long, never touch a public road, and never break a law. Its called private property, and such things as licensing and registration do not apply and are not required for use of a motor vehicle on it.
"There are plenty of parallels for interstate sales and similar things."
I'd like to see some of these, I'm drawing a blank there, myself.
"I realize it would take a decade or more to get everyone under a new set of laws, but they would be similar to existing auto, boat, and registration laws. It would not cost a thing, because the costs would be collected in registration/licensing fees. It would be an additional cost to the gun owner/user/possessor! It would create a safer society."
Heres the point at the heart of this, that you don't seem to get - maybe I'm not being clear here, and if thats the case, I appologize, but...
Similar to existing auto, boat, and registration laws would be that in MOST places in America, one is not required to license or register a motor vehicle or boat, nor be licensed to drive it, UNLESS one intends to use it in public areas.
No drivers license required to drive around on ones own property. I realize that to some city folks that might seem absurd, however, people really and truly do drive vehicles around on their own property all the time, unlicensed, unregistered, and legal.
Unless you're telling me that under your "plan" people could own and use firearms on private property without license or registration legally, ...
Then you are most certainly NOT talking "similar to existing auto, boat, and registration laws", and are in fact talking about a much farther reaching completely different animal.
"This is entirely practical over a period of time."
It would be entirely against federal law. The firearm owners protection act of 1986 makes registration at the federal level unlawful.
Here is the relevant excerpt from 18 USC 926(a):
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.
You realize also, that a prohibited person could not generally be prosecuted for failing to register right?
The Supreme Court has already ruled that a criminal in violation of gun laws CANNOT be prosecuted for failure to register, because doing so would violate the 5th Amendment protection against requiring self-incrimination.
As to the practicality of it, what would be the TOTAL cost of a system used to register 300 million firearms and 80 plus million people, and how prohibitive would that cost be to a person that only owns 1 or 2 guns?
What about to the collector that owns hundreds?
I think there are parts of this that you haven't thought all the way through yet.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)simply put:
Very few people "own" things like cars and guns but never use them. That's silly.
I believe that guns are out of control and we need stronger laws to keep the youth, emotionally/mentally ill, and criminals from having them.
BTW, Florida was one of the states that said that requiring everyone to have health insurance was unconstitutional too!!! They lost to to the most conservative supreme court ever. So none of the legal remedies to gun control are impossible if folks wanted to enact them.
I'll keep on saying and hope you figure it out (and I'm a gun owner). Lawful people who own or use or possess guns should have proof of background checks, training, and mental health clearance. Otherwise they should not possess those guns. Personally, I think gun ownership also should require insurance. All access to guns should have more barriers than currently exist.
I remember the Brady laws and other statues that have come and gone over my lifetime alone. I really don't care what combination of federal and state actions result in more controls that would keep us safer. Right now, there are too many people killed unnecessarily by guns and the majority of those folks should never have been allowed to have them.
I'm also tired of the professed loopholes like "collectors" and "self-incrimination". You must be reading the NRA literature. If you want, you can easily find the other side. If you count yourself as a gun nut, that fine. If you think it's ok for mentally ill folks, or criminals, or emotional teenagers to have easy access to powerful weapons; then speak up and say so!!! If not, then join me in changing the laws to make our society safer. We can do better.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"I'm also tired of the professed loopholes like "collectors" and "self-incrimination". You must be reading the NRA literature."
Professed loopholes?
The 5th amendment is a loophole now? What nra literature am I reading?
When it comes to talking about potential legislation, gun collectors don't have a seat at the table?
I'll tell you the same thing I told someone else:
The way things currently stand, gun control on the federal level costs more votes than it brings to the table. Gun rights support, on the other hand, has no attatched parallel political cost.
What that means, is this:
Gun violence prevention advocates NEED the support of gun rights supporters if they want to get anything done legislatively. Gun rights supporters don't NEED the support of gun violence prevention supporters to get things done legislatively.
Think about that, really hard, and ask yourself if thats likely to change, especially if your chosen laws were enacted, and found to be unconstitutional, or an attempt to enact them was made, but due to ignoring the very people those laws are aimed at, it failed to pass political muster.
I'm for reducing gun violence, make no mistake, but there are several ways of attempting it that I and tens of millions of others that own guns and care about our rights where firearms are concerned, find absolutely unacceptable. Your ideas are among them.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)You may find registration, licensing, and extensive checks "unacceptable" if you want. The general outline of laws needed to curb gun violence are going to take away some of your "freedom", "rights', or dollars in order to protect others.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)that we didn't have "people who are emotional, ill, or criminal"?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)between then and now.
Well, not really. The rules at gun shows are no different than in any other place.
Can we apply your draconian laws to all our other Constitutional Rights?
Lightbulb_on
(315 posts)If I have 1 gun, 0 guns or 30 guns... what business is it of yours?
patrice
(47,992 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)accomplish.
They are an oversimplified "answer" to a very complex set of factors. You may kill someone who apparently does need killing, but that fact does not insure your safety and, especially because it can be evaluated in an extremely limited sort of way, that fact may tilt the balance toward critical mass against your survival or against that of those about whom it is assumed that you care enough to intend to act in a manner that honestly is efficacious toward their survival, no matter what that might reasonably cost you in terms of immediate gratification.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Is any weapon allowable?
patrice
(47,992 posts)Not, of course, that you can prevent all such equations, but at least that it IS possible to reduce them by commitment to some very strong factors that get ignored in favor of the easier, more immediately gratifying, illusions of power derived from weapons that are only "useful" when the danger is directly upon you, which to my mind is rather too late, even if you do manage to kill whomever "needs killing", because of the consequences of those actions not only directly to yourself, but to others and that includes those around whoever is now dead because of what they were doing that caused you to kill them.
Granting some possibility of the necessity of self-defense, wouldn't it be practical to keep that probability as low as possible? Or is it better to ignore things that cause danger, because __________________ ? If you ignore that stuff and the possibilities for danger increase, at what point does it exceed your ability to respond with ______________ ? Is it a good idea to ignore this long-range potential, just because of _____________ ?
Personally, I'm not opposed to responsible gun ownership, but I am opposed to gun ownership that sees itself as the cure for all kinds of dishonesty, with one's self and others, and ir-responsibility about bigger issues such as global climate change and endless war profiteering. It's stupid and it will not work to the ends that many people are likely envisioning.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)But I will note that you seem fixated on killing. Self-defense only rarely results in death or wounding. Most cases, no shots are fired at all.
patrice
(47,992 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)extreme velocities from small holes in different kinds of highly engineered and tooled metal constructions consisting of tubes of various lengths, with wide varieties of firing mechanims and explosive charges, and with magazines of various exotic designs?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)YMMV....
patrice
(47,992 posts)still be using handsaws.
A gun is not a spoon and if it were, there would be no such thing as a gun.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)We've used weapons since before intelligence sparked.
patrice
(47,992 posts)however you see fit.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)But you knew that.
patrice
(47,992 posts)of natural right in the same manner that one has a right to be/do whatever one is born to as long as it does not harm others.
We are discussing weapons as an instance of tools and by inference it is possible, therefore, to say that everyone has as much right to use guns, a type of tool, as they have to use knives, another type of tool. And I am saying that is not the same type of right, because a gun is not a knife. It's tool-properties are not the same as a knife's tool-properties in ways that have significant impact upon the safety of others.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)A point you are struggling mightily to ignore.
patrice
(47,992 posts)just because you can't hear certain frequencies of sound does not mean that they do not exist.
patrice
(47,992 posts)which you have selected from ALL other ways is THE most effective means of "defense" that there is.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)choice, which is to own and use handguns whenever one thinks there is danger?
If one does not do what is best, most efficacious, especially in regards to "danger" (actual or manufactured), what is the purpose of owning "the best choice"?
If one responds to "danger" with something less than "the best", what is the point of responding at all since failure in that response is apparently quite acceptable enough to refuse to use "the best" of one's resources?
I personally know the answers to these kinds of questions for myself, I am asking them here from the point of view of OP, because from that point of view we do in fact see that OP is indeed saying that there is one best defensive response to "danger" and that response is a gun, therefore, out of all of the other ways that one might defend against danger (actual or mis-perceived) one should ONLY use a gun.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Now you claim he said BEST choice, which he did actually say.
Stop inventing, then back-peddling. It only makes you appear non-credible.
patrice
(47,992 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)when running risk/benefit calculations.
patrice
(47,992 posts)cause and effect, which, btw, can be why there are different results in the calculations of those cost:benefit ratios.
Though "best" is not my position: My point about how that which is the best means of defense is also the only means of defense has to do with, since it IS a defense situation, what happens if one fails.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)"Best" does not equal "only", nor does it equal "guarantee".
You keep asserting that people mean things they don't; this is not a succesful debate tactic.
patrice
(47,992 posts)would you engage in less than the best defense, since doing so can mean your end?
patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)But the true reason is that this is not a police state, police are not above the Citizens as rulers, and they are not usually in a position to offer immediate defense of the common Citizen. We must be prepared to defend ourselves as needed, using whatever lawful means we care to choose.
patrice
(47,992 posts)I have seen plenty of police brutality videos. None of it is excusable. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It is WRONG that anything other than that ever EVER happens.
War Against Drugs aside (because I think the huge majority of Americans agree that the WAD should end) how many of these police brutality incidents should we estimate there are proportional to the other services that police provide? Is "defending" against these incidence worth the price of indiscriminate gun ownership?
I don't see how gun ownership significantly changes bad police. I am not certain that gun ownership, FOR SOME PEOPLE, doesn't evoke conditions in which the liabilities of persons and flaws and/or inadequacies of systems come together for tragic effect.
Additionally, are the rest of us supposed to risk SYG fanaticism in order to (INEFFECTIVELY) prevent all of that by means of, to all practical intents and purposes, indiscriminate gun ownership?
And: Why do I feel as though a significant amount of this defense of indiscriminate gun ownership comes from sources who have "nullification" itself as an absolutely permanent highest priority, an end in and of itself, and an end EVEN over whatever exactly and precisely it is that is that might be nullified (that's right, I am saying whatever it is that is nullified, it could be something that is JUST an EXCUSE to nullify) and such contrarians are, hence, concerned about legal consequences for *A*N*Y* nullification, doesn't really matter what for, and that's THEIR defense of that objective against those legal consequences at the expense of ALL of those who, given respected choices in whatever the issues are, would choose *N*O*T* to be drug into such situations by circumstances generated by people at least some of whom are likely ENSLAVED by their own blind contrarian assumptions, including those about things like secession.
I am talking about the possibility that this fevered defense of indiscriminate gun ownership, at least in some significant number of instances, is coming from the kinds of people who will "defend" every step to becoming the cabin-boys/girls and/or enforcers and grounds-keepers et al for those whom Matt Taibbi referred to as the coming citizenry of the Archipelagos, which path will be rewarded, lauded, and cheered on by people like Glenn Greenwald from some/any-where in the world on the side-lines, instead of being identified for what it really is, fascism at the point of many privately owned guns.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Hopefully that day will not become neccesary. But any defense against misuse of their powers should not be given up just because you don't like it or others might abuse it.
In the meantime, we have a historically effective method of defense (one of many) against the actions of common criminals. And violent crime occurs approx. 1.5 million times per year, according to DoJ/FBI stats.
The rest of your comment appears to be word salad, of null meaning.
patrice
(47,992 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Criminals almost always attack non-police before being confronted by police.
This seems rather self-evident...
patrice
(47,992 posts)police are?
That is not at all self-evident and I find people who say things like that usually to be assuming waaaaaaaaaay more than they have any business assuming not only about me but about billions of other people.
You are claiming now to speak for all of those people in regards to their needs for "self defense"; you appear to have definite fascist tendencies.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)green for victory
(591 posts)most, if not all, of these shootings are done by people that are either on hardcore psych meds or withdrawing from them. That is the case with this incident.
Why isn't more attention paid to that? Well the media isn't going to touch that one, because that might hurt ad revenue. In the middle of a "drug war" "drugs" are promoted 24/7 on family TV.
Thread after thread concentrating on the gun, no mention of the one thing that is common to all these shootings.
a quick look at this site tells the story
http://www.ssristories.com/index.php
Thanks for speaking out.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)other means of defense FIRST, instead of gunning-up and ignoring so many other factors and just waiting until you NEED a gun.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)sarisataka
(18,717 posts)It is not the gun, it is the culture that says disagreements can be met with lethal force.
They do no such thing. They are inanimate assemblies of metals, plastics and wood. Our society promotes confrontation, rewards those that are aggressive and sneers at compromise and backing down.
What a gun does it project pieces of metal at high speeds which do horrible, devastating damage when they strike a human. Yet without that operator acting in the mind set of 'need to win', 'respect and dissin', 'I don't have to stand for that or take your lip' a gun is no more dangerous than a paperweight.
Reteaching common courtesy, respect for others and that it is ok to walk away will reduce violence more than any gun control law.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Buying a bottle of booze doesn't get you drunk....but it sure helps.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)As for the rest of us, i.e. MOST of us, our having guns doesn't pose any risk to anyone.
People need to be taught to resolve conflicts peacefully.
Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)sarisataka
(18,717 posts)unless they are at risk, much like an alcoholic buying that bottle of booze.
I applaud your analogy, it is quite apt. Just as the bottle of booze cannot make you drink it a gun cannot make you use it. Some people buy booze to use irresponsibly, i.e. get drunk. Some buy guns to use irresponsibly- see youtube for examples. In both cases there is not intent to harm anyone.
There is a small percentage that will buy the booze intending to use it illegally, such as get drunk and drive, possibly injuring or killing someone.
Another small percentage acquires a gun for illegal purpose, to commit crime, mask their fears... they to may injure or kill another.
To buy a gun from a dealer you must have a background check, with several disqualifying categories. I would accept that requirement for private sales.
Booze- show you are over 21
AlexSatan
(535 posts)I just bought two large bottles of booze (for rum and bourbon balls for Xmas) but those pose zero risk (along with the other bottles of booze we have in the house) of getting me drunk.
Just as having a gun in the house has never increased the chance of me hurting another person with it except in self defense.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And despite all the controversy, what Costas said is pretty much in line with what experts on gun violence have found repeatedly in study after study: that guns make people less safe rather than more safe, that they increase risks of both homicide and suicide, and that arguments or conflicts are much more likely to result in death if there is a gun involved.
jody
(26,624 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Here's a recent survey article:
http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20of%20a%20Gun%20in%20the%20Home%202011.pdf
jody
(26,624 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)you can follow up on if you are interested. There are also a bunch of studies at the HSPH link. I would suggest that a good place to start, for someone unfamiliar with the literature, is to read a good survey paper first.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)
Squinch
(50,986 posts)
jody
(26,624 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)On the other hand, if you want to actually learn something, then I suggest you read that survey paper and then follow up by examining the individual studies cited and so on. But it sounds to me like you have made up your mind already and are simply looking for ways to ignore or dismiss the science.
jody
(26,624 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)In fact, you've already done that.
jody
(26,624 posts)statistical methods used to reach that studies conclusions.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I cited a paper, by the director of the injury control research center at Harvard School of Public Health, which surveyed the scientific evidence on gun violence and includes 100 citations to other studies and articles. You decided to simply ignore it because "it's not original research", as if that makes any difference at all.
Between that article, the 100 citations, and all of the studies on the HSPS website, there's enough reading to keep you busy for weeks. If you want to ignore it all, that's up to you. But to pretend that I haven't actually provided any evidence or studies is just plain silly.
jody
(26,624 posts)Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)your responses are not making sense.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)This thread has been illuminating!
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Had said guns not been in the hands of those who pulled the trigger, the gun would not be the cause of death.
jody
(26,624 posts)a victim.
Any law-abiding citizen who legally possesses a handgun and uses it to defend her/himself will have that action reviewed by the district attorney or similar official for the jurisdiction.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)And criminals should be armed to the hilt!
alp227
(32,044 posts)
safeinOhio
(32,709 posts)just google "man accidentally shoots himself. tons and tons of examples of people being less safe because they had a gun.
Berserker
(3,419 posts)Tons and tons of examples of people being less safe because they had a vehicle. Makes about as much fucking sense.
safeinOhio
(32,709 posts)drive my glock to work..
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Although I guess you could try to run them over after you chase them out of your house with your frying pans and baking spoons...
safeinOhio
(32,709 posts)a gun for self-defense. Seem to need to use my car almost every day.
Then, I also have to register, license and insure my car. Every few years, I have to have my vision checked to drive a car. I have guns, have all of my life and I'd have no problems with registering, licensing and insuring them just like I do my cars. I'm not allowed to drive on the sidewalks either, so if you want to compare the 2, would you be in favor of no guns on sidewalks?
Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)these posts in this thread allegedly from you are pretty irritating and not illuminating. They are not adding to the conversation, they are making your argument seem weak.
corneliamcgillicutty
(176 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)refuting the statements I made in #1, if you can.
Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)your account appears to have been hacked. Your posts are simple repetitions of the same few words post after post. And to top it off they are typical wrong wing talking points with the typical language.
It appears to me and at least one other that your account has been hacked and I do not know how to alert on such an odd thing.
Are we all open to having our accounts hacked?
hack89
(39,171 posts)gun violence (indeed violence of all kinds) is at historic lows and steadily declining. How is that possible as more people own guns?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The rates of violent crime have dropped in the US for various reasons -- obviously guns are not the only factor, but it is equally obvious that gun availability is a significant factor driving homicide rates.
Also, you are wrong that more people own guns. In fact, less people own guns now than did in the early 90s when homicide rates were at their highest.
You really ought to try reading some of the scientific literature sometime.
hack89
(39,171 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)
The decline is at least partly demographic: gun owners tend to be older white males from rural areas, and the nation is becoming less white and less rural.
hack89
(39,171 posts)by any objective measure so why bother with them? . On the other hand your survey is missing a key component - like the number of illegal guns in the hands of felons. Why not focus on them?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)any sense at all. This thread is about the fact that guns make people less safe rather than more safe, a fact which is backed by scientific evidence. Including, for example, this football player and his wife, neither of whom, as far as I know, were felons.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and next year will be even safer. What law short of a total ban would have prevented this tragedy? Is that what you want?
hack89
(39,171 posts)because we certainly want a complete picture of gun ownership in America, don't we? Violent criminals are the real problem - lets fix that problem first.
hack89
(39,171 posts)2 gun murders in a population of 60K in the last 15 years. We go years without a shooting - alcohol related deaths are unfortunately a common occurrence.
And it is the same for most of Rhode Island - like every state, gun violence is very geographically concentrated in poor urban neighborhoods struggling with gangs, drugs, poverty and despair.
Perhaps we need to fix the root causes of violence?
doc03
(35,359 posts)they want Bob Costa fired.
Berserker
(3,419 posts)and I think the same. Kick my ass over that lefty!
doc03
(35,359 posts)giving his opinion. I own guns and to some degree I agree with him, but short of making all handguns illegal I don't know what you could do about it. The last I checked we still have freedom of speech. It 's not like he is being racist or something.
alp227
(32,044 posts)Simple as that.
doc03
(35,359 posts)doesn't harm anyone. I believe if he didn't have possession of a gun maybe he would have just got angry and raised his voice or maybe punched his girlfriend. I highly doubt he would have gone and clubbed himself to death with a baseball bat or gassed himself with his car exhaust in front of his coach. But like I said I don't know how you would stop such things unless you did away with all handguns. Apparently Bob Costas thinks handguns should be outlawed, that's his opinion I have no problem with that at all. He has a right to his opinion and we have the right to disagree. I have known several cases where people I know murdered someone or killed themselves and without the ready availability of a gun I doubt all of them would have carried out the act. I'll give you one example. Two guys I worked with got drunk one afternoon after work back in the 70's and decided they were going to shoot a black guy. They drive down the street and shoot the first one they see, a 17 year old high school kid walking home from school. Now if they didn't have a gun what do really think the odds would be they would have gotten out of the car and killed the boy with a baseball bat or a rock?
alp227
(32,044 posts)whether a golf club or firearm.
doc03
(35,359 posts)cold blood couldn't catch the kid or have the balls to beat him to death with a golf club.
Especially downtown main street in broad daylight in the middle of the afternoon. Also Costas wasn't blaming the gun it was the gun culture In this country. Watch a movie or a TV show or listen to people like John McCain, people are indoctrinated in this view that anything can be settled with a gun.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)being quoted and being heard, especially among the duh fringe of the sports crowd.
Guns are stupid is as stupid does.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)belongs on a Democratic forum. I am fully in support of controlling access to all guns. The police should have guns the public should not. If there were not guns in the public than senseless murder like the one that happened here would never happen.
Think about this, people buy guns and have them for a long time, during their lives things happen to them and maybe their mental state is not quite what it was when they bought the gun. So now with a diminished mental state for whatever reason they intuitively grab their gun and use it in a crime of passion or a crime of rage, innocent people die.
oberle
(29 posts)I agree with you fully. Unfortunately, it will never come to be.
jody
(26,624 posts)your rifle away, I will not take your handgun away"?
Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)rather than Democratic. It appears as though something is going wrong here. Only wrong wingers use Democrat rather than Democratic.
snort
(2,334 posts)Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)in general....perhaps I need to post something over in Meta. It is weird, really. Glad I am not the only one thinking this.
jody
(26,624 posts)Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Also said that he didn't agree with Gay marriage and he evolved on that issue. He is working toward stronger gun control policies but he is not an idiot. You have to educate the people away from guns, nice and slow steps..... but the point is in the principle.
jody
(26,624 posts)take your rifle away, I will take your handgun away"?
Illinoischick
(35 posts)Straw Man
(6,625 posts)... no one ever murdered anyone with anything other than a gun.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)but since you went there, you stand a whole heck of lot better chances of survival against everything other than a gun.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)I don't see how else one could parse your statement.
Yes, I "went there." If your solution to crimes of domestic violence is removing the means by which they may be perpetrated, what do you suggest when the abusive partner is a professional football player? Mandatory shock-collar? Preventive manacles? Testosterone-depletion therapy?
Here's what one jealous boyfriend did:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-03-25/local/27059890_1_happy-land-social-club-hondurans-elias-colon
Good thing he didn't have a gun.
Berserker
(3,419 posts)[IMG]
[/IMG]
Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection. Is this what you believe you poor sole?
hack89
(39,171 posts)according to Gallup.
Sorry but pro-gun Democrats are not going anywhere.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)All my history books are lies.... 
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Or, a culture that has gone violence-crazy rather than gun-crazy. Yes, having a gun exacerbates the problem of violent impulses and violent solutions to non-violent problems. People who are prone to inappropriate violence should not acquire guns or keep them within easy reach.
It's not hard to understand how a young, big, strong man who has been trained to attack and defeat others in the rough sport of football and had his ego fed by fame and money would be prone to violent outbursts. I'm a bit surprised that it doesn't happen more often. But it's clear from history that football players have more than their share of problems of that nature.
How can one expect an immature person who has been trained to attack and rewarded for smashing into and inflicting pain on others for all of his adult life not to act violently?
maindawg
(1,151 posts)they teach violence, and they teach team. Unity , loyalty. allegiance. This had to apologize to his coach, before he died.
Is this another black eye for the NFL? Or some thing that happens all aver ?
It is something that happens all over.
bluedigger
(17,087 posts)"The Long Island, New York, native was a talented and versatile high school player at West Babylon High School, where he also played offensive tackle, nose guard and fullback and led his team to their first undefeated season as a senior.
Belcher also was a successful youth wrestler. He won three All-American selections in a sport he said on the Chiefs’ website helped him develop the character needed to try to break into the top U.S. professional league.
...
In fact, when Belcher was recruited by the University of Maine, it was as a wrestler, not as a football player, UMaine coach Jack Cosgrove said Saturday. The school took a chance with Belcher in his freshman year by putting him on the football team.
...
The linebacker started all 45 games while completing a degree in child development in just 3½ years, and his performances impressed enough to earn him reviews as one of the most promising players from a 'small school.' "
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/12/01/sports/belcher-battled-his-way-into-football-at-umaine-and-the-nfl/?ref=relatedSidebar
"Belcher was involved on campus with the Male Athletes Against Violence initiative and mentored a young man in the Big Brothers program, according to Bangor Daily News archives.
Members of Male Athletes Against Violence sign a pledge to educate themselves on domestic violence issues, to act as positive role models and to examine their own actions honestly."
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/12/01/news/state/at-umaine-belcher-was-involved-in-domestic-violence-awareness-group-impact-was-boundless/?ref=relatedSidebar
My emphasis
Something went very wrong in this young man's life, and brought great grief to those closest to him.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Perhaps he had issues from traumatic brain injuries.
The suicide this year of former San Diego Charger Junior Seau came as a great shock to the community here. Apparently nobody other than people very close to him know anything was wrong.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)where my daughter's fiance graduated from, he in all likelyhood would never have been able to own a gun, period.
Move to a state where it is EASY to own gun, and then, oh, my, gotta own a gun because I CAN.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)where my daughter's fiance graduated from, he in all likelyhood would never have been able to own a gun, period.
Move to a state where it is EASY to own gun, and then, oh, my, gotta own a gun because I CAN.
I know lots of people from Suffolk County who have handgun permits. Furthermore, long guns are available to anyone, provided he/she can pass the federal background check (NICS), like almost everywhere else in the US.
Berserker
(3,419 posts)commit murder then kill himself because he had a gun is that so hard to understand really?
He could have just weaved into and on coming semi and then it would have only a few saying OMG that's so tragic. But if it is a gun used holy shit you get all of these posts get it?.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I can't hit the target from more than 25 yards away with my .357 revolver.
That is a serious flaw.
As far as the rest of your claims,
those dots do not connect.
Someone with those flaws MAY be attracted to resorting to a handgun,
but those "flaws" are NOT Caused by the handgun.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Way too many folks are arming up and training to shoot people in situations that really aren't self-defense.
I haven't really thought about shooting someone...
at that distance or any other.
I was talking about my lack of skill at hitting a paper target at that distance with a particular handgun.
Do you often think about shooting people?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)practicing with targets that resemble people, acquiring so-called assault weapons, NRA, etc.
Why would one need to shoot anything with a handgun at 25 yards (or two feet for that matter, except in highly unlikely situations) ?
hack89
(39,171 posts)people shoot targets just to shoot targets, not in preparation for anything.
Berserker
(3,419 posts)LOL really only they happen thousands of times a year. No bad guys in your world?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)..that is the distance across my pond, and getting closer just makes it too damn easy.
I also like being competent with all my tools and toys.
If I can hit at 30 yards, 10 yards is easier.
I live in a very rural area where guns are a part of the culture.
I enjoy shooting with friends and neighbors who have never tried to hit anything at that distance with a hand gun.
I usually end up earning some respect.
I don't particularly like hand guns,
but I will carry THIS one when working or hiking in Bear country.
I HAVE thought about shooting a Bear with this pistol,
but ONLY so that I am clear with myself exactly WHERE the Shoot/No Shoot line is.
That is something I don't want to have to think about when there is no time.
I was shooting my deer rifle in the back yard this afternoon,
iron sights at 80 yards, and during the entire time, I never thought about actually shooting a deer.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1182456
I strongly believe that some people should never be allowed to own fire arms,
but don't believe that the availability of guns is what is causing our problems.
Our problems are rooted in a sick/violent, self-absorbed, pre-adolescent, greed & consumption culture,
and this IS getting WORSE, not better.
Maybe the "Survivalists" are right, and a collapse is near,
because it is obvious we are a nation in decline.
Some of "those" people (Survivalists) live back up in these Woods, and they are scary people. They fantasize about the day when it will be OK for them to shoot hungry people. They are certain the Apocalypse will start tomorrow, and they stockpile Guns, Ammo, and MREs. They are creepy, and we avoid them.
You would think they would spend some time actually Growing Something and Producing MORE instead of trying to figure out how to live in a hole.
This IS absolutely TRUE:
If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.
AT this point, I see NO viable way to restrict gun ownership.
Any effort expended on this is wasted.
I also agree with the gun nuts about an Assault Weapon ban,
because HOW do you define an Assault Weapon?
I know what one looks like (and don't own any), but that is not objective enough to formulate a LAW.
If you define one by function, then my semi-auto .22 varmint rifle qualifies.
I see no viable way to implement a law banning "Assault Rifles" since the definition is so vague and subjective.
Our guns stay loaded, and within easy reach on a rack in a back hallway, hidden from casual view by a visitor.
We consider our guns to be a deterrent only in that our neighbors KNOW we are armed and practice with them regularly.
We shoot them on our property enough to stay competent,
but I can not imagine a scenario where I actually shoot another human being.
My wife or critters would have to be under serious immediate threat before that thought would occur to me,
and I would probably attack with bare hands before thinking about going to get a gun.
Out here, it is a safe bet to assume everyone is armed,
but in the seven years we have lived out here (Ouachita Mountains of West-Central Arkansas, adjacent to the Ouachita National Forest) no one in this area has shot anyone, or been injured in an accident.
There IS a huge difference between living Out Here, and living in the Urbs or Sub-Urbs.
How do we pass legislation that recognizes that difference?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Why would I?
If I did though, I would probably carry a pistol in my vehicle.
maindawg
(1,151 posts)he was advocating sanity. Why is it, that I have to have a license to drive , because cars are deadly weapons, but I dont need a license to own a deadly weapon?
Squinch
(50,986 posts)Of course what you say is true. Good luck with convincing anyone who is against gun limitations.
Cause you know, guns don't......
....well, obviously they do, but we'll insist they don't....
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Why is it, that I have to have a license to drive , because cars are deadly weapons,"
You dont need a license to simply own a motor vehicle.
1ProudAtheist
(346 posts)that also applies to our nuclear weapons. Anyone who actually believes that our arsenal of them is purely for self defense probably also believes in the tooth fairy and the Great Pumpkin.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)American Playhouse's "Oppenheimer" was one of the best series EVER on TV.
elleng
(131,028 posts)
Does anyone care, or just want to dump on Costas?
patrice
(47,992 posts)results in a significantly higher probability of harm or death.
Guns kill.
If guns didn't kill, people wouldn't own them and all of your crazies out there or people who make "mistakes" would be engaging in those behaviors by means of tools that have not only less dangerous consequences to their targets, but also whole different sets of consequences to those using those tools to assault others. The "decision" to strike someone with your fist has much different consequences to you, and hence figures differently in "decision" making processes, than standing off at a more inaccessible distance and pulling a trigger. The same is true for most of the other means by which one might assault another person.
"Defense", that is authentic defense and not just psycho feedback warping social systems, is another question that should be addressed in a broader context of what it is that one fears and how that fear becomes more OR LESS legitimate. If we can't figure out the difference between more OR LESS legitimate concerns, guns won't help and can contribute to the problems. To see guns as the sum-total of functional responses to these factors is closing the barn-door after the horse has been long gone. Without a fuller consideration of what danger actually is, where it is coming from, why, and HOW, precisely, this all happens, no amount of guns will ever be enough. Without an honest consideration of root causes, guns "for defense" only become part of the problem and all of it will just escalate into mutually assured destruction.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Where does that put them?
Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)America has always had a love affair with guns, and Hollywood has done a lot to glamorize them just as it glamorized smoking before, and for a while after we knew how deadly cigarettes are.
Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)To proceed we need to quite glorifying violence. In all media.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)corporate greed, bigotry, et
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)I thought they were effective.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)What about the Zombie Apocalypse how will we be prepared...
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:16 AM - Edit history (1)
rDigital
(2,239 posts)an afterthought at best.
ancianita
(36,128 posts)It damps down confrontation. People watch what they say and measure their words more. I don't think the OP is a fair or accurate description of gun culture. I've personally known of gun owners who've spent entire lives experiencing domestic violence, and never once was a gun even a consideration in settling those disputes. This is a high visibility event, which people often use to mischaracterize gun culture.
People don't tend to shoot over words, or arguments over sex, politics, or religion. They tend to shoot over breaches of trust -- infidelity, getting (unfairly) fired from a job, settling secret betrayals, ending bullying, etc., or sending a message to imagined powerful governmental enemies.
Police enforcement of gun laws about purchasing and possession is too lax.
hack89
(39,171 posts)
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)And if you like to drink your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some ole fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me...
Mr.Saturday night special
Got a barrel that's blue and cold
Ain't no good for nothin'
But put a man six feet in a hole
-Ronnie Van Zant
Lynyrd Skynyrd is a known bastion of liberalism.. oh wait...
Berserker
(3,419 posts)was made for protection not killin.
yup yesssyeree We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too. How Liberal of you.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Are you fucking kidding?
You bought a handgun for protection? Then you really don't know much about guns do you? You do realize that handguns are pretty much useless past a range of 10 feet? I'm sure when you are at "target" practice you are a real good shot. Problem is when the adrenaline is rushing and it's dark and confusing and you are scared you ain't gonna hit shit unless it's right in front of you.
And if it's price you are concerned with try a pawn shop. you can get a shotgun for $100 bucks or less, and you are pretty much assured of a hit with a nice 12 gauge.
Oh and I'm not a liberal because I think handguns are for fools? You must have a funny fucking definition of liberal. Handguns are cute and all but aside from target practice and scaring people they are pretty much useless.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)By the way, shotguns, at typical defensive ranges, require just as careful aim as any other type of firearm.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)IT. DOESN'T. WORK.
Ever hear the Aesop Fable about Belling the Cat?
Here's a really creepy CGI cat to tell you the story...
OK, from that we learned that just because we agree to do something, doesn't mean we actually can do something.
There are thousands of guns out there.
Do you think their owners will surrender their weapons without a fight?
Do you think their owners won't suddenly have a burglary, where all of their weapons were stolen?
Do you think gun sales won't go underground?
OK - what about just more control over the guns...
Well - what do you propose?
National waiting period?
Closing loopholes?
Those seem like OK ideas, but they won't make any difference.
Guns exist, therefore they will be used.
That's how it goes with humans.
There are many responsible gun owners.
There are many irresponsible gun owners.
There are many responsible gun owners who become irresponsible gun owners within seconds.
If everyone had a gun, this would still happen.
If no one had a gun, this would still happen.
Wanna solve the problem?
Ask why this person went bonkers.
Ask why this previously responsible gun owner, sports superstar or average joe went koo koo and started killing everyone.
Cutting the leaves off a tree won't kill a tree any more than wishing it were dead.
Lex
(34,108 posts)Berserker
(3,419 posts)that's how DU works. Prove gun control works.
All you have to say is GUNS and you get this.
GUNS
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Lex
(34,108 posts)is amusing and shows the mentality of the gun worshippers.
Berserker
(3,419 posts)that's so cute. I don't worship guns at all. It is just a tool like a hammer or screwdriver do you own those potentially lethal tools? OMG if you do ...do you worship them?
Oh by the way where is your link?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)However, I DO worship my cordless drill/screwdriver.
THAT thing is MAGIC!!
I don't know how I ever got along without it!
I would probably shoot anybody who tried to fuck with my cordless drill!
patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)suggested by post #1 in this thread, TTE, "I & mine have ours, so NULLIFY/fuck (or at least adopt an irresponsible attitude of malign neglect toward) anything that we disagree with, even if whatever it is is for the purposes of economic & social justice and we are willing to "defend" nullification with guns."
flvegan
(64,411 posts)Seems it's on...us. Not the handguns.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Probably not, statistically speaking.
So then, do his opinions on what people who legally carry concealed have any basis in fact or personal experience?
Are his opinions based on observed handgun violence, which is predominately related to career criminals?
It sounds like he's portraying CCW permittees as the stereotypical Rambo wanna-be.
I suggest he get some training, get a permit, strap on a piece, and see how he feels. THEN he can get back to us.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Play with your own strap-on; leave Mr. Costas out of it.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)A lack of parenting and a society that glorifies greed and selfishness and instant gratification is the problem. A resulting disdain for law and the rights of others is the problem. A resulting diminishing of the value of life is the problem.
Guns are tools. You don't ban hammers because some self-absorbed coward uses one as a weapon. The problem isn't with the tool. The problem is with the amoral product of a twisted society.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)and part of Tea Party 'Murica on the other.
As long as we view guns as NECESSARY for social acceptance and self protection, incidents like Belcher's will continue to escalate.
You can't legislate culture. But you can add your voice to pleas for sanity.
hack89
(39,171 posts)just everyday Democrats who own guns?
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Criminals and radical political extremists form a tiny minority of gun owners.
aikoaiko
(34,178 posts)We won't fall for the same old cliches about guns where we think if Belcher hadn't had a gun, then he and his wife would be alive.
It might not have happened as it did, but the terrible acts could still have happened. Of course he might not have killed her or himself had he not had a gun. We'll never really know.
duhneece
(4,116 posts)DID YOU KNOW? Keeping a gun in the home raises the risk of homicide.
States with the highest levels of gun ownership have 114 percent higher firearm homicide rates and 60 percent higher homicide rates than states with the lowest gun ownership (Miller, Hemenway, and Azrael, 2007, pp. 659, 660).
The risk of homicide is three times higher in homes with firearms (Kellermann, 1993, p. 1084).
Higher gun ownership puts both men and women at a higher risk for homicide, particularly gun homicide (Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009).
DID YOU KNOW? Keeping a gun in the home raises the risk of suicide.
Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 17 (Kellermann, p. 467, p. Wiebe, p. 771).
The association between firearm ownership and increased risk of suicide cannot be explained by a higher risk of psychiatric disorders in homes with guns (Miller, p. 183).
DID YOU KNOW? A gun in the home is more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.
Every time a gun injures or kills in self-defense, it is used:
11 times for completed and attempted suicides (Kellermann, 1998, p. 263).
7 times in criminal assaults and homicides, and
4 times in unintentional shooting deaths or injuries.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/gunsinthehome
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Most would rather ignore or dismiss them. I think it is because we are no longer capable of solving problems. We have lost the skill to sit down with someone we disagree with, listen, debate, and compromise to find solutions. Everyone would rather just say I'm right you're wrong and then nothing ever gets done. That's probably why we prefer to resolve our conflicts with violence because we are incapable of solving them non confrontationaly.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)You're in a decided minority.
Changes in culture are never legislated. Think women's rights. FIRST there has to be an overwhelming change in perception.
rainlillie
(1,095 posts)I read that he had some issues in the past with violent outbursts towards his girlfriends. To me that's the bigger issue here. An abuser will find a way to do harm, whether, they're using a gun, a knife or their hands. I find it hard to believe that this was just a spur of the moment thing, usually cases that end like this, there was a pattern.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,362 posts)Belcher's history of domestic violence would be swept under the carpet, like many players' histories of violence, anger issues, drunk driving incidents, sexual harassment, other crimes.
I'd bet there's a history going way back, before the professional career, high school and college transgressions that were given a pass, for the good of the team's win-loss record.
Suddenly, along comes a gun which invades Belcher's psyche and makes him do a bad thing? I don't think so.
