Gun politics thread

You want New York to create regulations in Georgia? tehfuq?

If NY has super strict gun laws and people are still shooting each other, maybe the problem isn't with the gun laws ;) Hell, VT has the most relaxed gun laws in the country, yet virtually no crime. You have to be seriously blind to suggest that the solution is moar lawrz! Then again, you're not talking about reasonable societal measures, you're simply a hoplophobe who wants to completely disarm the people.

Onba related note, Boston recently sent out a letter to all licensed residents asking them not to provide guns to criminals. Yeah, bud, clearly it's my fault when two rival gangs have a shootout over drug turf :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I'm no economist but that seems like a serious cafe of arbitrage. Imagine if guns were equally difficult to source everywhere as they are in New York. Oh wait, that would never work and all the law-abiding citizens would be dead within a week.

Did you read the post directly above this one?

Aside from that you do realize that NY thugs can't just drive to fucking GA and buy guns there (legally) right?

You want New York to create regulations in Georgia? tehfuq?
Of course, what do Georgians know of their needs? NY way is obviously the *only* way that things should be despite NY being more violent than Atlanta...

If NY has super strict gun laws and people are still shooting each other, maybe the problem isn't with the gun laws ;) Hell, VT has the most relaxed gun laws in the country, yet virtually no crime. You have to be seriously blind to suggest that the solution is moar lawrz! Then again, you're not talking about reasonable societal measures, you're simply a hoplophobe who wants to completely disarm the people.
Dude! All the criminals go to VT, buy guns legally* in bulk and then go back to NY for their shootouts, it's so obvious.

*Which would involve going through a federal background check and for them to have either VT residency or NY permit.
Onba related note, Boston recently sent out a letter to all licensed residents asking them not to provide guns to criminals. Yeah, bud, clearly it's my fault when two rival gangs have a shootout over drug turf :rolleyes:
Well fuck I was going to go buy some guns and give em out in the projects near me, but now that they sent a letter I guess I won't :rolleyes:
 
I wonder what would be more amusing to watch, a politician telling a redneck from the Georgia woods that he has to register his guns, or a politician telling a homeboy from the Bronx that they passed a new gun law and now he can't shoot people anymore.
 
I wonder what would be more amusing to watch, a politician telling a redneck from the Georgia woods that he has to register his guns, or a politician telling a homeboy from the Bronx that they passed a new gun law and now he can't shoot people anymore.

Not sure but
:popcorn:
 
Brazil Seeks to Copy U.S. Gun Culture

Lawmakers want to make it easier for Brazilians to get weapons

Congressmen in Brazil, one of the most violent countries in the world, are proposing to dramatically loosen restrictions on personal gun ownership, bringing the country much closer to the American right to bear arms.

The politicians say the measures are necessary to allow embattled citizens the right to defend themselves from criminals armed with illegal weapons. But opponents say the move will only increase the country?s toll of nearly 60,000 murders in 2014.

The draft law, which is set to be voted on by the lower house of congress this month, introduces a right for citizens to own firearms for self-defense or the protection of property. Currently, citizens must apply for a gun permit and justify why they need a gun, meaning that applications can be easily denied.

The bill also reduces the minimum age for the purchase of weapons from 25 to 21, removes a ban on those under criminal investigation owning or carrying weapons and allows citizens to buy nine guns and 600 rounds of ammunition a year.

?Brazil is an extremely violent country and the state has failed to resolve this problem,? the law?s author Laudivio Carvalho of the powerful Brazilian Democratic Movement Party, says in a telephone interview. ?The population needs the right to defend themselves, their family and their property as they are the ones being attacked. Ninety percent of assaults are being carried out with illegal weapons.?

The approval of the law by a congressional committee this month is a ?confession of bankruptcy,? opponent Alessandro Molon of the Sustainability Network party told a committee hearing into the draft law. ?We are saying, ?thanks to our incompetence, you can defend yourselves and live in a Western because we are inept,?? he added.

Critics fear the changes will lead to even more murders and an increase in vigilantism in a country where 50% of the population agree that ?a good bandit is a dead bandit.? Last year Brazil recorded 58,497 murders, a rate of 28.8 per 100,000 people. By comparison, the U.S. recorded 14,249, a rate of 4.5.

?Without doubt we will see an increase in the murder rate,? says Ivan Marques, executive director of the Sou de Paz institute, which campaigns for disarmament. ?The number of deaths is directly related to the number of guns on the streets.?

Marques said Brazil should not try to emulate the United States. ?Our constitution emphasizes collective security not individual security,? he added.

After a disarmament law was passed in 2003 introduced many of the current restrictions, about half a million weapons have been sold and 170,000 gun permits issued.

In the first two years under the law the number of firearms murders fell, but then rose again, although campaigners such as Marques say they remain lower than they would have been without the legislation. Meanwhile, the black market in firearms remains huge. In 2014, police seized nearly 120,000 illegal weapons.

The draft law is the latest move by what has been dubbed by opponents as the Bullets, Beef and Bible Caucus in Brazil?s congress. Politicians linked to the security services, big agricultural firms and evangelical Christians consolidated their power in last year?s elections and have advanced a series of conservative measures.

Among the other laws being debated are a plan to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 16; narrow the country?s robust definition of slave labor; weaken indigenous tribes? right to claim their ancestral lands; exclude homosexual couples from the definition of family; and criminalize abortion in cases of rape.

Some see the financial might of the arms industry in the plan to loosen gun control laws. In Brazil, there is no big grassroots equivalent to the National Rifle Association, but the firearms industry is a powerful lobby and has often contributed to political campaigns, says Ignacio Cano, a public security expert at Rio de Janeiro State University. The draft law lifts stringent restrictions on advertising by the gun industry.

?The gun lobby in Brazil is not as vocal as the NRA but they are nonetheless very powerful,? he says. ?It would be a clear example of evil if we were to allow private interests to prevail over the public interest. This law is the last thing we need.?

Another of the bill?s sponsors, Rog?rio Peninha Mendon?a, also of the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party, said he believes congress must respect the rights of the Brazilian people, who voted against a ban on arms sales in a 2005 vote. ?I?ll tell my kids that we are recovering our rights,? he said. ?We are not arming anybody.?

But the law is opposed by many on the frontline of public security, such as Jos? Mariano Beltrame, the state security secretary in Rio de Janeiro who is charge of implementing an ongoing plan to ?pacify? the city?s favela communities. ?We need to disarm the bandits not arm the people,? he says in an emailed statement. ?I hope congress will have a little more clarity and rationality and we can prevent this law from passing.?
 
You want New York to create regulations in Georgia? tehfuq?

If NY has super strict gun laws and people are still shooting each other, maybe the problem isn't with the gun laws ;) Hell, VT has the most relaxed gun laws in the country, yet virtually no crime. You have to be seriously blind to suggest that the solution is moar lawrz! Then again, you're not talking about reasonable societal measures, you're simply a hoplophobe who wants to completely disarm the people.

Onba related note, Boston recently sent out a letter to all licensed residents asking them not to provide guns to criminals. Yeah, bud, clearly it's my fault when two rival gangs have a shootout over drug turf :rolleyes:


Did you even read the article? It is about loose laws in one state allowing guns to be taken to another after a legal sale there.

Reasonable measures would be nice, what we have now is not working. But we will just continue with this form of insanity (continuing to try the same thing and expecting a different result). :wall:


Did you read the post directly above this one?

Aside from that you do realize that NY thugs can't just drive to fucking GA and buy guns there (legally) right?


That is the problem in a nutshell.


Of course, what do Georgians know of their needs? NY way is obviously the *only* way that things should be despite NY being more violent than Atlanta...


New York's gun problem largely comes from outside the state.


Dude! All the criminals go to VT, buy guns legally* in bulk and then go back to NY for their shootouts, it's so obvious.

*Which would involve going through a federal background check and for them to have either VT residency or NY permit.


That is why most don't come from Vermont. Did you read the article that Delll posted?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/gun-traffickers-smuggling-state-gun-laws.html

In New York and New Jersey, which have some of the strictest laws in the country, more than two-thirds of guns tied to criminal activity were traced to out-of-state purchases in 2014. Many were brought in via the so-called Iron Pipeline, made up of Interstate 95 and its tributary highways, from Southern states with weaker gun laws, like Virginia, Georgia and Florida.

A handgun used in the killing of two Brooklyn officers last year was traced to a pawnshop just south of Atlanta. A revolver used in a fatal shooting of an officer in Queens in May was traced to a roadside pawnshop, also in Georgia, about 100 miles from Atlanta. And a handgun used to kill an officer in East Harlem last month was traced to South Carolina.



Well fuck I was going to go buy some guns and give em out in the projects near me, but now that they sent a letter I guess I won't :rolleyes:


:rolleyes:



This part of that article breaks it down quite nicely:

Most gun trafficking patterns have remained remarkably constant over time. But some researchers point to a significant shift in Missouri as evidence that changes to one state?s laws can have broad implications.

Before 2007, Missouri required gun buyers to get a state permit and to undergo background checks on private sales, two restrictions strongly associated with states that provide fewer guns to interstate traffickers, according to research by Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. At the time, nearly half of the guns used in crimes and recovered in Missouri were traced to other states, largely from neighboring Kansas and Illinois.

But when Missouri relaxed its gun control laws in 2007, the flow started to change. The number of guns traced to other states decreased, while the number of guns from within Missouri increased to nearly three-quarters.


The current federal laws require the bare minimum of what should be required to purchase a gun. There is ample evidence that loose laws in one state cause problems in other states despite their own overzealous laws. There is room to work here and make things better for everyone, yet you guys act like everyone should just be handed guns when the milestone ages are reached (long gun when 18 and a handgun when 21). Or you can keep your NRA approved scripts and keep chasing the insanity.
 
It is about loose laws in one state allowing guns to be taken to another after a legal sale there.
The current federal laws require the bare minimum of what should be required to purchase a gun. There is ample evidence that loose laws in one state cause problems in other states despite their own overzealous laws. There is room to work here and make things better for everyone, yet you guys act like everyone should just be handed guns when the milestone ages are reached (long gun when 18 and a handgun when 21). Or you can keep your NRA approved scripts and keep chasing the insanity.

Isn't smuggling guns illegal? And correct me if I'm wrong but selling legally purchased firearms to persons who cannot legally purchase firearms would be a straw sale and also illegal, would be both illegal on federal and state level too since it's across state lines.

I mean really how are you going to police what private citizens are doing unless you have registration for each single fire arm sold? That of course doesn't cover the ~300 million guns that already exist in private hands with majority not being registered anywhere.
 
If the sale is legal then it is legal. Guns can be transported across state lines for the most part, although I am sure that there are some caveats.

And yes, I have already said that all firearm sales should have a background check and be tracked to some extent.
 
If the sale is legal then it is legal. Guns can be transported across state lines for the most part, although I am sure that there are some caveats.

And yes, I have already said that all firearm sales should have a background check and be tracked to some extent.

But a legal sale in GA doesn't automatically make selling a gun to someone in NY legal.

What I'm trying to get at is that unless every single weapon sold is registered through a central searchable system it's impossible to police private sales. You can have any rules you want in place, you can say they have to go through dealers, keep paperwork, go through police, etc... but if no one has any idea how many and what types of guns I own I can illegally sell them all I want and no one would be the wiser. It's like speeding, plenty of laws against it but unless you can track my car or there is a cop to catch me I can do it all day and no one [in government] would know.

This would also mean that all current private guns would have to be registered as well and each new gun that is shipped to an FFL be a part of that same registry.
 
Did you even read the article? It is about loose laws in one state allowing guns to be taken to another after a legal sale there.
Except it's NOT legal to buy a handgun in another state without an FFL. Nor is it legal to buy a gun in your own state with the intention of selling it off right away.


Reasonable measures would be nice, what we have now is not working. But we will just continue with this form of insanity (continuing to try the same thing and expecting a different result).
I've long lost count of how many times I've proposed measures for dealing with this.


New York's gun problem largely comes from outside the state.
Nah, New York's gun problem is the gang-bangers. Unless you're about to suggest that more restrictions lead to more violence, your logic is deeply flawed. If, in fact, New York's tough gun laws were ineffective despite strict gun laws and for no other reason, then logic would dictate that states with loose gun laws should have more violence, which simply is not the case. Gun laws don't do jack shit to prevent gun violence, which is a social/economic/cultural issue.


That is why most don't come from Vermont. Did you read the article that Delll posted?
Did you? It talks about guns being smuggled from states with looser gun laws. Vermont has possibly the loosest gun laws in the nation and it borders New York. Why don't guns come from VT to NY?


This part of that article breaks it down quite nicely:
Yep, gun trafficking patterns have remained the same. Which again poses the question - why don't guns come from Vermont, the one state that has never had strict gun laws at all?


There is ample evidence that loose laws in one state cause problems in other states despite their own overzealous laws.
Why don't the states with loose laws have those problems then?


Isn't smuggling guns illegal? And correct me if I'm wrong but selling legally purchased firearms to persons who cannot legally purchase firearms would be a straw sale and also illegal, would be both illegal on federal and state level too since it's across state lines.
Ha! I can get discounts on certain guns and I wanted to buy one to gift to my father (who can legally purchase the same gun on his own but without the discount) and even that would be a straw purchase. Yet another dumbass law.


And yes, I have already said that all firearm sales should have a background check and be tracked to some extent.
Congratulations, you're an anti. Go tell that to the people from LA, CT, NY, CA, and MA who had their guns confiscated. While you're at it, explain to me why my gun license isn't enough to prove that I passed a background check already.


But a legal sale in GA doesn't automatically make selling a gun to someone in NY legal.
This! As a resident of a state with strict gun laws that's surrounded by states with loose gun laws (NH, VT, ME), I've run into this.


What I'm trying to get at is that unless every single weapon sold is registered through a central searchable system it's impossible to police private sales.
Exactly.
 
Level, I am not an anti gun guy. I am just for a few changes to lessen the insanity. Most gun owners are despite what the NRA narrative states. Nice disparagement though, it came rather quickly.

I never said no guns come from Vermont, I said most don't and the Federal Data is listed in the article.

I will be the first one to say that there are holes in this article that need to be delved into. The basic premise is a bit flawed as are some of your (Level and Prizrak) assumptions about it.

First, I doubt that a "thug" from NY is going to Georgia to get a gun, although, there may be a small amount that do. I assume that there are people that move to NY and bring guns with them and sell it off when things get a bit tight. Or there are people that either purchase the gun in the state where they live and use the gun sale up north to finance the trip and report the gun stolen, or the guns are stolen then brought up north by a true smuggler.

I think it would be interesting to see how many of these guns that are reported stolen end up with the previous owner living in, or having lived in the area where the gun later turned up.
 
Like I said before, my concern is that policing straw purchases and sales to prohibited persons cannot be effective without a national registry. I'm not sure that would even be constitutional and I'm certainly against it anyways. I don't know if there is a good way to fight straw purchases but I do think that we can have defacto background checks without universal background checks: in any state where a license is required to purchase a firearm, presenting that license is a clear indicator that the person passed a background check - otherwise they wouldn't have a license. I would actually support all states requiring licenses to purchase firearms (whether at a dealer or through private sales), as long as licenses were cheap, with a same-day turnaround (come on, a background check doesn't take more than a few minutes), and a shall-issue policy.

What I don't support is having to spend two and a half years and nearly $700 to be able to carry a firearm and even then being subjected to significant limitations in regards to types of firearms, makes and models, magazine capacity, gun free zones, storage requirements, live-fire qualifications for the license, etc. Yes, that's what I've had to go through.

I'll say one more thing (again): address social, economic, and cultural issues and the problem of violence solves itself in turn.
 
And how do we do that? why not just ask for world peace?
 
Most violent crime is black-on-black in poor inner-city neighborhoods, right? So let's introduce welfare reform, end the war on drugs, and change our incarceration procedures. That should drastically diminish the number of single parent households. Fathers (male role models) in the house = less of a chance kiddo will join a gang. Let's work to improve schools and introduce after-school programs to keep kids off the streets and out of trouble. Statistics show that teens that graduate from high school have drastically lower unemployment and incarceration rates. All of these measures will severely cut down on crime rates overall, including violent crime. This isn't exactly rocket science; all it takes is for politicians to grow spines.
 
And how do we do that? why not just ask for world peace?

Pretty much what Lev said.

To add to that specifically on gun laws themselves, every single measure I seen proposed by either politicians or many others (on and off these boards) are basically driven by "we have to do something" rather than a logical analysis of the issues at hand. Even if there would be a UK/Oz style total gun ban in this country, which we all know is unlikely, the fact that there are around 300 million private guns would make it moot. It's exactly the same with most other legislature, you cannot police straw purchases w/o a total gun registry and there is no way to create one without busting down every door of every home in the country and searching those dwellings. Plenty of people will simply not comply with the law, either for fear of future confiscation, out of legitimate belief that it's none of the gov's business or simply due to general laziness and not wanting to deal with it. All those unregistered guns have the potential to be sold illegally.
 
Remember this 'Smart Guns are good, you rednecks shouldn't object to them being made mandatory' crap from last year, courtesy of NPR?

A New Jersey Law That's Kept Smart Guns Off Shelves Nationwide

This is just a snip to show how unbelievable the reaction from these "law abiding citizens" was. Don't even look at the second amendment or they will just threaten your life. It is not this guys fault there is a demand for these guns, or the way the New Jersey law is written, but fuck him for trying to find a niche to fill. And the pro gun crowd wonder why there is a pro gun control crowd.

My reply to it at the time:

Ummm, something that the NPR article leaves out - the Armatix has yet to pass NIJ tests or be approved for import by BATFE or Customs. Also, no police department will allow their officers to carry one even if it were approved because the system has not yet proven reliable and nobody wants to risk officers' lives. I have no objection to smart gun tech - as long as the cops have to have the same thing on their weapons.

Weeeelll, the Armatix has undergone testing. And guess what? Turns out the smart gun record of fail is still unbroken.

Shocking test results for the Armatix iP1 ?smart gun?

One of the most clever tricks liberals have devised to crater gun ownership in the United States is their insistence that if we can?t get rid of guns, we should make everyone own safer and smarter guns. While neither the NRA or most gun owners I know are opposed to the exploration of new technology in firearms, there is a tremendous amount of resistance to government mandates of unproven, expensive and dubious design experiments. One of the big examples of these so called ?smart guns? has been the Armatix iP1. Hailed as a dream come true by proponents of such mandates, the iP1 comes with a wristwatch which the owner must wear. Without the watch and its built in security measures, the gun won?t fire. (In theory, at least.) Sounds great, right?

The folks at America?s 1st Freedom had the chance to test the iP1 last year, but the results were held back until now. Part of the reason was that they didn?t want to lend any further legitimacy to the proposed technology while New Jersey still has a law lurking on the books which could effectively shut down gun ownership once the ?smart gun? technology is available. Now, however, they?ve release the results of their testing and it?s clear that this technology is still essentially a pipe dream. Here are a few of the highlights, but be sure to read the full report.

The Armatix pistol initially required a full 20 minutes to pair with the watch, even with the aid of an IT pro trained in its use. Without pairing, the Armatix functions like any other handgun, capable of being fired by anyone.

Once paired, a ?cold start? still requires a minimum of seven push-button commands and a duration of 12 seconds before the gun can be fired.

The pistol must be within 10 inches of the watch during ?start up.? This slows and complicates the use of the pistol if one hand is injured or otherwise unavailable.

If you were silly enough to purchase this gun for home defense, 12 seconds may represent the rest of your life if you needed to draw it quickly when an intruder was coming through the door. And as far as the initial ?pairing? process goes, (required in order for the gun to operate with the watch) any criminal who gets hold of the gun will still be able to use it or sell it on the black market if it hasn?t been paired yet.

But why would you want to use it ? either for crime or legitimate use ? in the first place? The group?s test runs found that the pistol was never able to fire the full eleven rounds it can hold (ten in the magazine, one in the chamber) without jamming or misfiring. The best they managed was nine and they reported three or four misfires per series as common.

Also, we?re talking about a short barrel .22 caliber pistol here. I?m not saying you can?t kill somebody with one of these, but you?d better be a darned good shot. At any reasonable distance the knockdown power of this weapon is a joke. The muzzle velocity of a .22 short out of a snubbed barrel pistol of this class is going to be around 750 feet per second with an impact force of 36 foot pounds. Not exactly what you want to bring to a fight if the bad guys all have nines or .45s.

Oh, and just to make this an even more tasty option, you can land yourself one of these frequently misfiring, possibly unable to be fired, low power technological wonders for the bargain basement price of $1,798 ($1,399 for the pistol, $399 for watch, without which it is either useless or no longer smart.) By comparison you can get a brand spanking new Glock G17 for under six hundred bucks, and most gun shops will have perfectly fine, reconditioned used models for less than half that much.

If manufacturers want to continue tinkering with this technology and eventually make it usable, I say go for it. The market will decide if this is popular. But if the government wants to mandate that we only use these weapons they may as well just come out and ban guns entirely.

Per NIJ stats, the average police shooting incident (since there's no such stat for private citizen defense shootings) is over and done in 6 seconds. This weapon requires 12 seconds to be made ready to fire. Gee, anyone see a problem here???

Let me know when the tech is reliable and available on weapons of a caliber sufficiently adequate for personal defense. Then after the cops have carried it to the exclusion of all other offerings for 5 years and found it as reliable as the weapon it replaced, we can talk.
 
Last edited:
Also, Maryland finally took their ballistic database out back and shot it.

Ballistic fingerprinting was all the rage 15 years ago. Maryland led the way, setting up a computer database on new guns and the markings they made on bullets. New York soon followed. The days of criminal gun use were supposedly numbered.

It didn?t work.

The registration of ballistic fingerprints never solved a single crime in Maryland or New York. New York scrapped its program in 2012. This month, Maryland announced it was following suit.

Maryland spent $5 million on its computer database. By 2005, New York was spending about $5 million per year, showing that even greater per-capita spending didn?t guarantee success.

Think of all the other police activities that this money could have funded. How many more police officers could have been hired? How many more crimes solved?

It has long been clear that these states? programs weren?t working. A 2005 report by the Maryland State Police?s Forensic Sciences Division labeled the operation ?ineffective and expensive.? Similar statements by police have been ignored for years.

Gun-control advocates predicted the success of ballistic fingerprinting. For example, Dan Webster of Johns Hopkins?s Bloomberg School of Public Health argued that the vast majority of criminals obtain their guns legally. Authorities, he predicted, would be able to establish matches between firearms in the database and spent rounds found at crime scenes.

Webster was wrong on both counts. Very few criminals legally purchase guns. Recording the markings on guns was a waste of time and money.

But gun-control advocates ignored physics. When a bullet travels through the gun barrel, the friction creates markings on the bullet. If the gun is new, imperfections in the way the barrel is drilled can produce different markings on the bullet; such imperfections are most noticeable in inexpensive guns. In older guns, the bullet?s friction through the barrel can cause more noticeable wear marks that help differentiate between guns. Many other factors influence the particular markings left on the bullets ? for instance, how often the gun is cleaned and what brand of cartridge is used.

Unlike human fingerprints and DNA, a gun?s ballistic fingerprint changes over time because of wear. A child?s fingerprint can still be used much later in life. A ballistic fingerprint, on the other hand, is more like the tread on a car tire. New tires of the same brand and model, with minor exceptions, are essentially identical. Over time, though, friction causes the tread on tires to wear. The more the car is driven after the crime, the harder it is to match the tire tracks left at the scene to the tires when they are eventually found.

The same is true for guns. The greatest friction on a gun occurs when the gun is first fired ? and that dramatically and quickly reduces the usefulness of recording the gun?s ballistic fingerprint when it is purchased.

Criminals can thwart ballistic fingerprinting by replacing the barrel of a gun. They can alter the ballistic fingerprint by just scratching the inside of the barrel.

The response from gun-control advocates: Fifteen years and $5?million weren?t enough. They simply need more time because the science is valid. They claim that, on average, most guns used in crimes were bought nearly 15 years prior. But even if that were accurate, it wouldn?t explain why the systems in Maryland and New York haven?t solved one crime.

People should be held accountable for their predictions. The only thing the program accomplished was making it more costly to legally sell guns.

Good intentions don?t necessarily make for good laws. What counts is whether the laws save lives. On that measure, ballistic fingerprinting is just another failure in a long line of failed gun-control measures.

- - - Updated - - -

More proof that the US antigunners' real concern isn't safety - and evidence backing my statements regarding the antigunners refusing to allow even basic firearms safety to be taught in schools:

Moms Demand Action: Teaching Gun Safety to Children is ?Atrocious?

Firearms in the United States are a fact of life. Even by the most conservative estimates, throw a rock in a crowded room and you?ve got a 50/50 chance of hitting someone who owns a firearm. Given the fact that a large portion of the American population own or are exposed to firearms on a regular basis, good common sense would dictate that we should be teaching children to safely handle and respect guns. Again, just common sense. At least it is for everyone except the champions of ?Common Sense,? Moms Demand Action (a wholly owned subsidiary of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, i.e. Michael Bloomberg). In their book, teaching kids gun safety is ?atrocious? . . .

Yahoo had an article about a firearms safety class that?s taught in schools. It?s the standard NRA Eddie Eagle safety course which teaches the ?stop, don?t touch, leave the room, tell an adult? should children encounter an unsecured firearm. This isn?t teaching kids to be little Rambos ? in fact, it?s the exact opposite. This is teaching them stay away from guns.

You?d think that Moms Demand Action would approve of a lesson about running away from guns. But according to them, the fact that any information whatsoever is being provided about guns (even instructions to run away) is beyond the pale.

But according to Jennifer Hoppe, deputy director of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a campaign of the Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, the best way to reduce gun deaths among children is to be keep the weapons out of children?s hands altogether. ?It?s atrocious to put the onus of gun safety onto children ? this is an adult problem,? Hoppe tells Yahoo Parenting. ?Every gun that?s gotten into the hands of a child has first been under the control of an adult. A program that tries to dodge that is disingenuous.?

What?s more, she adds, ?Accidental gun deaths among children are not ?accidental.? They?re preventable tragedies.? The organization?s new campaign Be Smart encourages parents to keep guns locked up, ask about unsecured guns before allowing children to play in someone else?s home, and recognize the link between teen suicide and access to guns.

?After all, you can tell a kid to be careful,? she says. ?But you?ll still childproof your home, right??

Yes, you do childproof your home. But you also teach your kids not to touch power outlets, that the stove is hot, and not to get into Daddy?s liquor cabinet. There is no such thing as ?childproof? ? children are ingenious little devils and will find ways to get into every nook and cranny of your home. Keeping them ignorant about things like guns only increases the mystery about them and makes kids want to touch them even more.

We teach children about drugs in programs like D.A.R.E. even though drugs are illegal because we know that no matter how hard we try kids will still encounter then and be tempted. Wouldn?t it just be, well, common sense to similarly equip them with information about guns if (as Moms Demand Action claim) the goal is to stop accidental shootings among kids? What?s wrong with providing children this basic safety information that doesn?t even have a pro-gun slant?

The problem is that even basic safety information is counter to the long term goals of Michael Bloomberg and his merry band of gun grabbers. The grand plan is to ostracize gun owners, make ownership as difficult as possible, and try to kill off gun ownership with a thousand tiny cuts. Providing any acknowledgement that firearms even exist (beyond the fact that they?re scary and dangerous) is a tacit acknowledgement that guns are an everyday object and undermines their message. They would rather withhold the safety training and have more children die than back a program that actually teaches gun safety to those who need it the most.

How ?common sense? is that?
 
Remember this 'Smart Guns are good, you rednecks shouldn't object to them being made mandatory' crap from last year, courtesy of NPR?



My reply to it at the time:



Weeeelll, the Armatix has undergone testing. And guess what? Turns out the smart gun record of fail is still unbroken.



Per NIJ stats, the average police shooting incident (since there's no such stat for private citizen defense shootings) is over and done in 6 seconds. This weapon requires 12 seconds to be made ready to fire. Gee, anyone see a problem here???

Let me know when the tech is reliable and available on weapons of a caliber sufficiently adequate for personal defense. Then after the cops have carried it to the exclusion of all other offerings for 5 years and found it as reliable as the weapon it replaced, we can talk.



NPR never said smart guns should be mandatory. I didn't either. Anymore hyperbole you would like to express?


And if you go back and read that article that was posted more than a year ago, my comment was directed at those that decided threatening a life because he was going to sell a gun that would make a law in another state kick in.
 
Last edited:
Top