County Sheriffs Position Paper on Gun Control

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

It was a mockery of your position. As I said, you have your position determined already so I know better than to bite.

You're right, I believe the discussion needs to take place, and like everyone else, I have some opinions and suggestions, which I have given.

That's why it's called a 'discussion'.

You don't have a position??

[myMind]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

If you cared to get off your can and read the paper instead of blindly dismissing it, you'd find an answer to this.

Just saying.

I do read the paper and am a very active person. Not sure what your point was. My statement wasn't made from ignorance. Im just not a paranoid gun nut. Show me one bill proposed so far that will confiscate handguns, hunting rifles, or shotguns. Oh wait, you cant because there arent any. I fully support the ban on assault rifles however, no civilian can possibly need one. The may want one, but they don't need it.

[Dukes]

Originally Posted by myMind

I do read the paper and am a very active person. Not sure what your point was. My statement wasn't made from ignorance. Im just not a paranoid gun nut. Show me one bill proposed so far that will confiscate handguns, hunting rifles, or shotguns. Oh wait, you cant because there arent any. I fully support the ban on assault rifles however, no civilian can possibly need one. The may want one, but they don't need it.

I already did, you just decided to ignore it.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by myMind

I do read the paper and am a very active person. Not sure what your point was. My statement wasn't made from ignorance. Im just not a paranoid gun nut. Show me one bill proposed so far that will confiscate handguns, hunting rifles, or shotguns. Oh wait, you cant because there arent any. I fully support the ban on assault rifles however, no civilian can possibly need one. The may want one, but they don't need it.

That's really the point. It is not the defense of rights or the fear for our liberty that drives the gun industry in America. It is paranoia. After the Sandy Hook massacre what happened? People went out and bought more guns and ammo. After every "event" people rush out and buy more guns and ammo. Even people who already have a closet full of guns and ammo. They're kind of the paranoid equivalent of cat ladies. Isn't one enough?

[Pony Boy]

[QUOTE=Rohirrim;3791387]That's really the point. It is not the defense of rights or the fear for our liberty that drives the gun industry in America. It is paranoia. After the Sandy Hook massacre what happened? People went out and bought more guns and ammo. After every "event" people rush out and buy more guns and ammo. Even people who already have a closet full of guns and ammo. They're kind of the paranoid equivalent of cat ladies. Isn't one enough?[/QUOTE]

My wife buys shoes and purses and I built her an extra closet just for them.

It keeps her from asking me how guns I have in my gun safe and stashed away in the garage attic.

[myMind]

Originally Posted by Dukes

I already did, you just decided to ignore it.

If you think that video you posted was a bill that proposed to confiscate anything but assault rifles you might want to watch it again.

Here, we can watch it together.

Originally Posted by Dukes

Yeah, they don't want to confiscate guns. You're right.

I don't even think this is a bill proposal, just a motion on the floor that isn't brought up because both sides don't have the proper paperwork. Funny to see the brilliance of the political machine firsthand. So streamlined...and efficient.
Regardless, please give me a time mark on the video where anything other than assault rifles are mentioned. Thank you.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

If you actually believed this drivel, you'd call for strict restrictions on alcohol sales, if not outright bans on booze. After all, when that many are killed each year by drunken drivers, we should all be frightened/threatened/outraged that something isn't being done to put a stop to it.

Ah, yes, the facile comparison of guns to alcohol and drunk driving.

Drunk driving fatalities involve two "weapons" being "misused", alcohol and automobiles. First, comparing guns to alcohol, guns are always a threat. A loaded gun is always deadly, always poses a risk. Alcohol, on the other hand, is not dangerous in moderation, and by itself is not inherently dangerous to anyone other than the user (assuming said user does not practice moderation). Second, comparing guns to automobiles, guns don't have necessary utility in society to nearly the extent automobiles do. Yes, I suppose a very small percentage of people need guns to hunt for their food. And yes, hunting is necessary to reduce the numbers of certain wild animals. But the "control" of guns wouldn't harm the ability for guns to provide this limited utility, whereas I'm not sure how you'd "control" automobiles any more than they are controlled now. Or how you'd attempt to even begin to compare the utility of automobiles, which are a huge and necessary part of the economy on many levels, to that of guns.

Nobody is suggesting outlawing or eliminating guns. Your overreaction to attempts to reasonably place limits on them is silly.

[Rohirrim]

Since the second amendment says that people need muskets in case we need to raise a militia, I figure muskets is what they meant.

[Pony Boy]

Expanded Homicide Data Table
Murder Victims by Weapon, 2011
Total 12,664

Handguns 6,220
Rifles 323
Shotguns 356
Other guns 97

Firearms, type not stated 1,587
Knives or cutting instruments 1,694
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) 496
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 728


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8

[Dukes]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Since the second amendment says that people need muskets in case we need to raise a militia, I figure muskets is what they meant.

Guess we can ban the internet too. They only had a printing press during that time.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

You're right, I believe the discussion needs to take place, and like everyone else, I have some opinions and suggestions, which I have given.

That's why it's called a 'discussion'.

You don't have a position??

Of course I have a position. The difference is I came up with my position and my position respects that SOMETHING needs done but doesn't take a leap of faith on a premise which has no backing. Yours, however, appears to be a regurgitation of what you read and hear so it's not worth discussing.

You have no foundational premise nor do you have a desired goa or endstatel. You just think the boogyman they created sounds viable enough so you're willing to try something and see what happens.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

Of course I have a position. The difference is I came up with my position and my position respects that SOMETHING needs done but doesn't take a leap of faith on a premise which has no backing. Yours, however, appears to be a regurgitation of what you read and hear so it's not worth discussing.

You have no foundational premise nor do you have a desired goa or endstatel. You just think the boogyman they created sounds viable enough so you're willing to try something and see what happens.

Great, then I won't waste any more time with you, and your peculiar and inexplicable high opinion of yourself.

[BroncoBeavis]

Thought this was pretty funny/sad.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,4414028.story

As the vehicle approached the house, officers opened fire, unloading a barrage of bullets into the back of the truck. When the shooting stopped, they quickly realized their mistake. The truck was not a Nissan Titan, but a Toyota Tacoma. The color wasn't gray, but aqua blue. And it wasn't Dorner inside the truck, but a woman and her mother delivering copies of the Los Angeles Times.....

Law enforcement sources told The Times that at least seven officers opened fire. On Friday, the street was pockmarked with bullet holes in cars, trees, garage doors and roofs. Residents said they wanted to know what happened.

"How do you mistake two Hispanic women, one who is 71, for a large black male?" said Richard Goo, 62, who counted five bullet holes in the entryway to his house.

Glen T. Jonas, the attorney representing the women, said the police officers gave "no commands, no instructions and no opportunity to surrender" before opening fire. He described a terrifying encounter in which the pair were in the early part of their delivery route through several South Bay communities. Hernandez was in the back seat handing papers to her daughter, who was driving. Carranza would briefly slow the truck to throw papers on driveways and front walks.

Guess we should look into restricting LAPD to muskets, just for public safety.

[DenverBrit]

This event was used to illustrate the dangers of arming teachers, or anyone without intensive gun training, in schools.

Their point was that even trained officers can be way off target when under fire.

New York (CNN) -- On a busy Friday morning in Manhattan, nine pedestrians suffered bullet or fragment wounds after police unleashed a hail of gunfire at a man wielding a .45 caliber pistol who had just killed a former co-worker.

The officers unloaded 16 rounds in the shadow of the Empire State Building at a disgruntled former apparel designer, killing him after he engaged in a gunbattle with police, authorities said.

Three passersby sustained direct gunshot wounds, while the remaining six were hit by fragments, according to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. All injuries were caused by police, he said Saturday.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justic...state-shooting

From another article.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Guess we should look into restricting LAPD to muskets, just for public safety.

You both widely missed the point and made a case for gun control instead of against it. Other than that, your post was just great!

So, yes. "Funny/sad". Or something like that!

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TonyR

You both widely missed the point and made a case for gun control instead of against it. Other than that, your post was just great!

So, yes. "Funny/sad". Or something like that!

Not sure what point I missed.

And I think in just about every case, gun control advocates say we should leave high cap magazines and 'assault' style weapons to "da perfeshunals" who we see putting on a skills clinic there in LA.

There's just as much ineptitude and corruption in law enforcement as there is anywhere else. I don't see how giving them impunity is the right prescription in a truly free society.



"To Protect and Serve."

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Not sure what point I missed...

...There's just as much ineptitude and corruption in law enforcement as there is anywhere else.

Keep back pedaling. You look like Rahim Moore on that 70 yard Flacco to Jacoby Jones debacle!

The point it blatantly clear. If trained police officers demonstrate such ineptitude, imagine the mayhem if such weapons were prevalent in the hands of amateurs. In other words, you're making a clear case for more control over such weapons, not less. This really isn't that hard to figure out.

[Dr. Broncenstein]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

This event was used to illustrate the dangers of arming teachers, or anyone without intensive gun training, in schools.

Their point was that even trained officers can be way off target when under fire.

What happens to the accuracy and rate of fire of a mass murderer walking calmly from room to room and shooting unarmed victims when he unexpectantly encounters return fire? Gun control advocates seem to ignore this.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Keep back pedaling. You look like Rahim Moore on that 70 yard Flacco to Jacoby Jones debacle!

The point it blatantly clear. If trained police officers demonstrate such ineptitude, imagine the mayhem if such weapons were prevalent in the hands of amateurs. In other words, you're making a clear case for more control over such weapons, not less. This really isn't that hard to figure out.

This is hilarious. 7 cops on the lookout for a black man in a Grey Toyota open fire on two Latinas in a Blue Nissan, and your response is "Imagine what wooooodah happened without all that gummint traynin theys got"

Every one of them is a danger to the public should be out of a job. Instead they'll probably get a paid vaca... err I mean 'suspension' I mean cuz all's they need is some more government trainin. You know, so the State can impart the wisdom ta not open fire on vehicles without having any idea who's inside. I wonder if that's like a true or false question on the test, or if it's more of an essay type question.

You really do want to keep layering the planet in rubber padding until the day when there are no more retards (the end of time) don't you? Problem, though. what happens when the authorities aren't just retarded, but corrupt? Please tell me you believe that doesn't happen.

[BroncoBeavis]

.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein

What happens to the accuracy and rate of fire of a mass murderer walking calmly from room to room and shooting unarmed victims when he unexpectantly encounters return fire? Gun control advocates seem to ignore this.

Maybe you can find some stats to answer your question.

Of course, you're assuming a teacher wouldn't just freeze, or add to the carnage as cops did when they hit 9 bystanders while aiming at one individual.

In the same vein.

Columbine High School Had Armed Guard During Massacre In 1999

In 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 15 people and wounded 23 more at Columbine High School. The destruction occurred despite the fact that there was an armed security officer at the school and another one nearby -- exactly what LaPierre argued on Friday was the answer to stopping "a bad guy with a gun."

Deputy Neil Gardner was a 15-year veteran of the Jefferson County, Colo., Sheriff’s Office assigned as the uniformed officer at Columbine. According to an account compiled by the police department, Gardner fired on Harris but was unsuccessful in stopping him:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2347096.html

[TonyR]

Beavis, I know you're smarter than you're putting on here. That or your pride is ****ing with you, not wanting to admit how wrong you are.

Again, this is very simple. Stop your flailing and rambling which is further proving my point and further defeating yours (whatever it is, which is uncertain). As incompetent as those police officers were the gen pop is going to be more incompetent. So obviously it is in everyone's best interst that there are fewer guns in the hands of the gen pop, not more. Do you disagree with this very simple premise?

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Beavis, I know you're smarter than you're putting on here. That or your pride is ****ing with you, not wanting to admit how wrong you are.

Again, this is very simple. Stop your flailing and rambling which is further proving my point and further defeating yours (whatever it is, which is uncertain). As incompetent as those police officers were the gen pop is going to be more incompetent. So obviously it is in everyone's best interst that there are fewer guns in the hands of the gen pop, not more. Do you disagree with this very simple premise?

"Street Justice" is what one of the lawyers involved called it. It's really a product of the Police force deciding they weren't going to apprehend their suspect, but assassinate him. They made themselves the law. And they were so jacked up for it, they lost their cool. No opportunity to surrender, or even identify.

It's lynch-mob mentality in the 21st century. And the more relative power over the population police wield, the more of this you'll see. Mind you, not all cops are wired like this. Tons of great guys/gals out there. But even they'll tell you there's a good number of cops out there who went into Police work for all those wrong reasons.

In the end they need be held just as suspect as the rest of us.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein

What happens to the accuracy and rate of fire of a mass murderer walking calmly from room to room and shooting unarmed victims when he unexpectantly encounters return fire? Gun control advocates seem to ignore this.

An amazing concept logical thought process. I thought that was absent from OM.

[TonyR]

Congress in the mid-1990s forbade the federal government to fund its own research into the health risks presented by guns. By now, however, enough research has been done by privately funded scholars that the surgeon general could write a report based on existing material. Such a report would surely reach the conclusion that a gun in the home greatly elevates risks of suicide, lethal accident and fatal domestic violence. The first step to changing gun policy is to change public attitudes about guns, as Americans previously changed their attitudes about tobacco and drunken driving. The surgeon general can lead that attitude change with more authority than any other public official.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/18/opinio...lan-b-on-guns/