Why do you own a gun? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Catcher10

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17845

Posted: June 23 2016 at 18:45

TeleStrat wrote:

It's not like no one knows that guns are sold and traded at gun shows without any paperwork at all. I've heard many politicians and news commentators talking about it and it baffles me that this wasn't stopped long ago.

I've only been to one gun show and it was at the Pomona Fair Grounds. Once I saw how big it was I understood why they always have them at fair grounds.

There were many booths with dealers and from gun shops and they required all paperwork and you didn't get the gun that day.

But many of the smaller booths did not require paperwork and didn't even ask to see an ID.

So, like I said, I don't understand this at all.

I hear ya...Those sales and that process is what needs to be fixed. We all ask "how do these people get all these guns??" I ask the same about drugs...."How are these people getting all these prescription drugs?" Or my favorite one is why on earth do we allow 16yr old kids to drive a 4,000lb car??

A Person

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760

Posted: June 23 2016 at 18:18

To me a majority of gun crimes are related to class issues. There is no getting around the fact that in our society being poor pushes you into situations that are more likely to have violent repercussions for you and the victims of your actions. You have to address the economic issues if you want to really address the significant amount of gun crimes.

*frinspar* View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 27 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 463

Posted: June 23 2016 at 18:09

emigre80 wrote:

I've only been to one gun show and it was at the Pomona Fair Grounds. Once I saw how big it was I understood why they always have them at fair grounds.

There were many booths with dealers and from gun shops and they required all paperwork and you didn't get the gun that day.

But many of the smaller booths did not require paperwork and didn't even ask to see an ID.

So, like I said, I don't understand this at all.

This seems just beyond bizarre to me (not to mention risky in the extreme), but I stopped trying to understand this country a long time ago.

We're young, dumb and full of guns. ;)

emigre80

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223

Posted: June 23 2016 at 18:07

Glad we found a space to agree on. No, that's not how I would define responsible gun ownership.

TeleStrat

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 27 2014
Location: Norwalk, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 9319

Posted: June 23 2016 at 16:57

^ Like I said before, I believe in responsible gun ownership and this is definitely not responsible.

Plus the fact that California has some of the strictest gun control in the country.

I guess it's all about enforcement.

emigre80

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223

Posted: June 23 2016 at 16:49

I've only been to one gun show and it was at the Pomona Fair Grounds. Once I saw how big it was I understood why they always have them at fair grounds.

There were many booths with dealers and from gun shops and they required all paperwork and you didn't get the gun that day.

But many of the smaller booths did not require paperwork and didn't even ask to see an ID.

So, like I said, I don't understand this at all.

This seems just beyond bizarre to me (not to mention risky in the extreme), but I stopped trying to understand this country a long time ago.

TeleStrat

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 27 2014
Location: Norwalk, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 9319

Posted: June 23 2016 at 15:29

It's not like no one knows that guns are sold and traded at gun shows without any paperwork at all. I've heard many politicians and news commentators talking about it and it baffles me that this wasn't stopped long ago.

I've only been to one gun show and it was at the Pomona Fair Grounds. Once I saw how big it was I understood why they always have them at fair grounds.

There were many booths with dealers and from gun shops and they required all paperwork and you didn't get the gun that day.

But many of the smaller booths did not require paperwork and didn't even ask to see an ID.

So, like I said, I don't understand this at all.

Catcher10

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17845

Posted: June 23 2016 at 14:55

TeleStrat wrote:

Hello Dean

I backed off of this thread for a bit because it was getting bogged down with people (including me) saying the same things over and over. Then it got off topic...

I want to comment on an important issue that you brought up and that is illegal guns.

From what I've read in a few books and many magazine articles illegal guns come from several sources.

I'll start with legal gun owners because these people really piss me off. Gun owners will sometimes sell their guns to a friend or family member without going through the proper procedure. They don't know where that gun may eventually end up and without proper paperwork it's impossible for the gun to be traced if it is used to commit a crime.

A much bigger problem is guns that are stolen from someone who failed to secure their guns. What makes this problem even bigger is that most people won't report the burglary to the police because they are afraid of putting themselves in legal jeopardy. All police agencies keep a stolen gun list or "hot" gun list. If the stolen guns are not reported then the police don't know they are on the street.

I have no mercy for these irresponsible gun owners.

Then you have people in law enforcement and the military who steal quantities of guns from warehouses and armories and sell them on the black market. This is not that hard to do if you are on the inside and the number of guns is much higher than they are in home burglaries. The weapons that come from the armories are military grade fully automatic weapons with high capacity magazines so you can see how serious that situation is.

Another problem I have with irresponsible gun owners is gun show sales. With all of the legislation that has passed over the years I just can't believe this is still allowed to happen. I'm pretty sure the gun show industry doesn't have a strong lobby so why haven't the law makers stopped this problem?

Finally, you have the actual black market itself. In my part of the world it is almost totally run by the Mexican drug cartels who are very powerful and take full advantage of our open border. Three of the biggest things these cartels deal in are drugs, weapons/explosives and human trafficking.

Illegals guns is a topic I have always wanted discussed a lot more than it is.

Totally agree Gary on the Gun Show issue. In our city there are at least 4-5 gun shows a year at the local fair grounds. I have been to a few of them as I have been interested in getting back into some bird shooting in eastern WA. Have never owned a gun but have been on a few hunts here and in Louisiana, its not a main focus for me but simply a hard interest, not sure how far it will go.

Regardless, the sales process is so simple which at times scares me, its clear Obama has no interest in changing this process, most of them are just yacking about it.....Same thing we are doing here, yacking about it.

Sometimes I find it hard to feel there is a gun problem, so much more than that.

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: June 23 2016 at 12:52

Dean wrote:

JJLehto wrote:

Yeah, I'm all for universal background checks, mental health screening, perhaps some physical limitations to the guns but IDK I just am not sure on the assault (and related) rifle bans and stuff like that. While I'd hope most people would agree with the former points, someone who is cleared of all the checks, if they want to own these weapons I guess what does it matter? I have friends who own AK 47s and guns that kinda freak me out but they are perfectly normal, unassuming people who go to work and have at worst speeding tickets that just really love guns.

To emphasize this is from the non gun owning, never fired a gun person who thinks people that love and need guns are a little kooky (sorry).

Many years ago I toured the Royal Ordinance Factory in Enfield, London and got to handle several of the assault weapons, including some experimental ones that defy belief. And I have to admit that they were empowering to hold, even for a pacifist such as me. [I actually typed the word "sexy" instead of "empowering" there and then thought better of it, but still...]. I can easily understand the attraction of these weapons.

JJLehto wrote:

Why is it states with strict laws may have high crime rates,(Maryland) while some with few have lower? (Vermont)

Why is it Newark has such bad crime, but not rural New Jersey 45 minutes away? NJ has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Why so many issues in Baltimore but not affluent Northern Virginia?

I haven't done heavy lifting I'll admit but I see less of a link between gun laws and crime, and more of a link between well being/opportunity/population density and crime. I'll fish out the article but once read a study done of Europe showing such a result: Wealthier countries with better welfare states have less crime than poorer/worse developed countries even if the latter had stricter gun laws.

I'm not so sure that some apparent correlations are that meaningful, some states with the same level of gun ownership have dramatically different crime statistics, as do states with similar population densities. Snap-shot statistic never show the full picture. However, wealth and poverty is indeed a key issue and that has a bearing on the kind of crime being enacted, as does employment and education and a myriad of other disparity factors.

JJLehto wrote:

Wealthier and/or more rural areas I think will have less crime than poorer and/or dense areas regardless of law and as we know a vast majority of crime involves illegally obtained guns, thus not subject to gun laws.

I say put sensible background check laws into place, absolutely. But also how about a wide scale jobs program, with specific targeting in areas that lack opportunity (which are often segregated to boot).

Rudy's famous cleaning up of NYC was really economic prosperity, (while he cracked down on lots of minor crimes) but not all are so lucky as to have such a massive influx of money. For those areas left behind, we need government intervention.

Because even an OK, fairly integrated, suburban town can have a very poor, segregated pocket severely lacking opportunity. Let's just call it Ferguson, MO. Gun laws can only go so far, the left needs to stop playing politics and get real. Needless to say the right which oppose both sensible gun laws and push horrific economic policies, also need to get in touch with reality.

Agreed.

That's fair, I'm not saying there is no link at all between gun ownership and crime rates, I just think the stronger is correlation is indeed wealth and poverty. It's just my observation, but like I said being from a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, there is quite a juxtaposition in crime. Even if people are not running around certain areas with automatic weapons (which is absolutely a good thing) not like crime is overall kept down. So yeah we need both, better gun laws but also far better investment in the country.

Especially in segregated/left behind areas which are far more widespread in the US than many may know.

Barbu

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 09 2005
Location: infinity
Status: Offline
Points: 30850

Posted: June 23 2016 at 11:37

Now how about a little light music to chase it all away?

TeleStrat

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 27 2014
Location: Norwalk, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 9319

Posted: June 23 2016 at 11:08

I wanted to clarify a point. The guns stolen by people in law enforcement that I have read about were from batches of guns scheduled to be destroyed. Since the paperwork was altered no one knows that these guns were not destroyed.

TeleStrat

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 27 2014
Location: Norwalk, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 9319

Posted: June 23 2016 at 11:00

Hello Dean

I backed off of this thread for a bit because it was getting bogged down with people (including me) saying the same things over and over. Then it got off topic...

I want to comment on an important issue that you brought up and that is illegal guns.

From what I've read in a few books and many magazine articles illegal guns come from several sources.

I have no mercy for these irresponsible gun owners.

Illegals guns is a topic I have always wanted discussed a lot more than it is.

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: June 23 2016 at 09:21

I just have to say here in South Florida is a matter of assholism (the state's official ideology). People just don;t give a damn about others and drive however the hell they want.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: June 23 2016 at 09:03

^ that is true, I found one in LA and drove around it several times because I felt homesick.

What?

A Person

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760

Posted: June 23 2016 at 09:02

That is strange, we have roundabouts here.

Nogbad_The_Bad View Drop Down

Forum & Site Admin Group

RIO/Avant/Zeuhl & Eclectic Team

Joined: March 16 2007
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 20844

Posted: June 23 2016 at 09:00

I had an American colleague visit when I still lived in England and he requested route maps avoiding all roundabouts because he couldn't cope with them.

Ian

Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on Progrock.com

https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-avant-jazzcore-happy-hour/

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: June 23 2016 at 08:53

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Dean wrote:

I've not looked into road safety and have no inclination to do so, therefore I don't know why you are three times more likely to die on American roads than British ones, or why an American owned car is two and a half times more likely to kill someone, or why you're twice as likely to be killed per mile driven - so as I said, no matter how you count it, the USA is lagging behind by an appreciable amount. As the USA seems to have all the requisite laws and regulations perhaps the problem is abiding by them and/or enforcing them.

I'm pretty sure it's a combination of us driving a lot more and driving a lot more in urban areas.

As I say, I've not looked into it. The number of deaths per mile driven is twice as high in the USA but that doesn't take into account length of journey time so you may be right if your average journey time is longer, tiredness kills (or so our traffic signs like to tell us). In my admittedly limited experience of driving in US cities (LA, SF and Austin) they don't appear to be any more or less dangerous than over here, in fact I found it easier and a lot less stressful. An American colleague came over from SF last week and he returned the hire car early because he couldn't cope with driving around Norwich, which is about as tame as it gets around here.

What?

Nogbad_The_Bad View Drop Down

Forum & Site Admin Group

RIO/Avant/Zeuhl & Eclectic Team

Joined: March 16 2007
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 20844

Posted: June 23 2016 at 07:22

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Dean wrote:

I'm pretty sure it's a combination of us driving a lot more and driving a lot more in urban areas.

As well as those the US is laxer in enforcement of drink driving, speeding and seat belt laws. Having seen the state of most US roads I'd also suggest they don't spend enough on road maintenance.

Ian

Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on Progrock.com

https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-avant-jazzcore-happy-hour/

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: June 23 2016 at 06:58

Dean wrote:

I'm pretty sure it's a combination of us driving a lot more and driving a lot more in urban areas.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

rushfan4

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66256

Posted: June 23 2016 at 06:13

emigre80 wrote:

rushfan4 wrote:

emigre80 wrote:

rushfan4 wrote:

emigre80 wrote:

The vast majority of the population wants background checks and a ban on assault weapons. Since that is what the majority of the country wants, why on earth are is the government not implementing it?

Be careful. This is a slippery slope comment. And the same comment that men used to say women shouldn't vote; whites used to say that blacks should ride on the back of the bus; and heterosexuals say that homosexuals shouldn't be married.

Actually, it's not, because legislation is normally passed on the basis of what the people who are electing representatives want. More people wanted universal health care than didn't, so they voted in democratic majorities that would pass that. You are confusing issues of legislating and constitutionality. In fact, the majority of the country (and their elected representatives) did say women shouldn't vote, until the majority of the country realized that was stupid and passed a constitutional amendment saying they could. Southern states had laws disenfranchising blacks and reducing them to second class status, until the Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional, and the government supported that ruling by passing the Civil Rights Act.

Are you saying that legislation, as long as it doesn't contravene the constitution, should not reflect what the country wants? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, if we are electing representatives who will not reflect our views in proposed legislation.

No. I am saying that legislation that discriminates against minorities shouldn't be passed just because it is what the majority wants. i.e. the majority of voters wanted husband and wife to mean man and woman and that homosexuals could not be married. Therefore, this legislation was passed.

I am saying that the majority of people want the government to hand them a million dollars, tax-free, no questions asked. Probably not a good idea to pass that legislation.

Some polls (especially taken after a mass murder) will show that the majority want the death penalty...

Basically, just because it is what the majority wants doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good argument for why the legislation should be passed.

You can argue that the desires of the majority should not be codified into law, but I'm not sure what else you would base legislation on. Only unpopular views?

As long as a law is not in contravention of the constitution, a legislature can pass it (they can pass it if it is unconstitutional, too, but it will be struck down). A majority of voters can prefer a law that states that the 10 commandments must be displayed in every schoolroom, but the supreme court would strike down such a law. Similarly, many states passed laws allowing gay marriage, but it took a supreme court ruling to make it the law in all 50 states, even those states in which laws had been passed specifically outlawing it.

Laws restricting gun ownership would not discriminate against minorities under the law. Laws state you cannot discriminate against people because of their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Gun restrictions that applied to everyone across the spectrum couldn't possibly be discriminatory.

In a democracy, the majority gets to say what the laws should be. I'm sorry to disagree strongly, but your entire premise is just very odd.

My premise is very simple. Just because it is a law that the "majority" want isn't a reason that should make it so. Nothing more complicated than that.

It only took 240 years for the "majority" to get gay marriage right; 190 years to get civil rights kind of right.

Regarding your universal health care point. Which political party now heads both branches of congress? And those elected officials ran on the platform that they would overturn Obamacare. That would lead me to believe that the majority no longer wants universal health care. Or maybe it was that the "majority" was unhappy with what the previously elected officials had come up with as universal health care. And yet the "minority" democrats keep fighting against it even though it is what the "majority" want. The only reason that it is still law is because the "majority" from 4 years ago (President Obama) is overruling the "majority" from 2 and 6 years ago, those that were elected into Congress by the majority of people.

My single point was that just because you are with the majority and you support the law doesn't make a good reason for it to be legislated into law. I'm pretty sure that you disagree with my universal health care comment as technically you are in the "minority" and the "majority" wants a law passed that you don't like.

Edited by rushfan4 - June 23 2016 at 06:32