Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Multiple family murder in New Mexico


  • Please log in to reply
286 replies to this topic

#51 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 10:04 PM

huh
?

atlatl-man-lg.jpg



#52 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 10:07 PM

What is wrong with restricting weapons, make them hard to get across the board, across all states, the laws in the country are rediculous... Lets give all citizen a noce muzzle loader ;)

Those weapons are already restricted across the board.

Only if all military an law enforcement are bound by those rules. Why is it ok for "authorities" to have these things, but not citizens?

In the past, people of great power who disarm citizens commit absolutely atrocious acts against them. That's the whole reason for a free people to be armed.



#53 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,987 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 10:17 PM

Those weapons are already restricted across the board.

Only if all military an law enforcement are bound by those rules. Why is it ok for "authorities" to have these things, but not citizens?

In the past, people of great power who disarm citizens commit absolutely atrocious acts against them. That's the whole reason for a free people to be armed.

Like England, Austrailia, Sweden,Japan, Germany, Singapore, Malaysia?



#54 Jwheelz

Jwheelz
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,858 posts
  • LocationNutmeg State

Posted 21 January 2013 - 10:20 PM

it's okay for the authorities to have them because they are the authorities... they're the people responsible for enforcing the laws that we as citizens enact.... quite honestly that argument which is basically reductio ad absurdium already assumes that the military and National Guard doesn't have capabilities and weapons that would far exceed any private citizen's ability regardless of how many guns they can legally buy... that being said I actually think law enforcement has become ridiculously militarized over the last couple decades, but that is in direct response to the type of weaponry criminals are able to obtain... and regardless of arguments to the contrary if we make it harder for everyone to get weapons that are very easy to aim with a high degree of accuracy, can sustain high rates of fire with very small and cheap modifications, and can hold much larger amounts of ammo, it will make it harder for criminals to get them. It will not make it completely impossible for them to get them but it would lessen the availability of such weapons in a general sense. That's predicated on the rejection of the argument that guns are what protect our individual freedom in the first place, which is not an argument I'm about to wade into, so I know I'll never agree with some people on here about this issue.



#55 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,578 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 10:25 PM

Restricted, really.. You can walk into a gun show and buy a gun from a non dealer with a zero back ground check, many states with very lax rules. and please dont tell Tabbooma you are really going to spew, i.e believe that Hitler, Mao nonsense.. We need weapons to defend ourselves from the goverment. Please tell Tabbooma you are kidding 

Those weapons are already restricted across the board.

Only if all military an law enforcement are bound by those rules. Why is it ok for "authorities" to have these things, but not citizens?

In the past, people of great power who disarm citizens commit absolutely atrocious acts against them. That's the whole reason for a free people to be armed.



#56 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,578 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 10:52 PM

A change is going to come...

 



#57 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:04 AM

Restricted, really.. You can walk into a gun show and buy a gun from a non dealer with a zero back ground check, many states with very lax rules. and please dont tell Tabbooma you are really going to spew, i.e believe that Hitler, Mao nonsense.. We need weapons to defend ourselves from the goverment. Please tell Tabbooma you are kidding 

 

Nonsense? Really? Are you suggesting that these types, pol pot, mao, Lenin, etc.. didn't commit atrocious acts against an unarmed populace?

 

The problem is that if you restrict law abiding citizens, they are the only ones restricted. Criminals and government still will get these items. I really don't understand why it is best to unarm everyone but government and criminals. I'm all for background checks. But when states and the feds cant manage to get their 60K plus back log cleared up of offenders under those checks, what good is it in really stopping criminals from getting these items? It doesnt. Thats the problem. So it's a trifecta WTF on the part of those looking for harsher restrictions or outright bans on firearms.. 



#58 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:09 AM

it's okay for the authorities to have them because they are the authorities... they're the people responsible for enforcing the laws that we as citizens enact.... quite honestly that argument which is basically reductio ad absurdium already assumes that the military and National Guard doesn't have capabilities and weapons that would far exceed any private citizen's ability regardless of how many guns they can legally buy... that being said I actually think law enforcement has become ridiculously militarized over the last couple decades, but that is in direct response to the type of weaponry criminals are able to obtain... and regardless of arguments to the contrary if we make it harder for everyone to get weapons that are very easy to aim with a high degree of accuracy, can sustain high rates of fire with very small and cheap modifications, and can hold much larger amounts of ammo, it will make it harder for criminals to get them. It will not make it completely impossible for them to get them but it would lessen the availability of such weapons in a general sense. That's predicated on the rejection of the argument that guns are what protect our individual freedom in the first place, which is not an argument I'm about to wade into, so I know I'll never agree with some people on here about this issue.

Kind of like Cuomo going behind closed doors, out of the public eye and scrutiny to pass stricter gun rules that hurt only law abiding citizens? Only he forgot to give law enforcement a free pass, so we have to go back and give them one. No one in this state got to vote on this measure. WE didn't say anything. ONE governor with a political agenda did and the legislative body bowed to seize the lime light of passage on something that inst going to work, but looks great to do.

 

And these so called authorities constantly abuse their powers. 

 

The british also far outgunned, out manned and out financed the patriots. We still won. If you can try that on for reductio ad absurdium.

 

Also, the argument of harder to get for criminals falls on its face. Check out Chicago and NYC as examples. The Latin Kings from across the nation. Who are still buying full auto- mod firearms from black market sellers.



#59 Wende

Wende
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,987 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:23 AM

Nonsense? Really? Are you suggesting that these types, pol pot, mao, Lenin, etc.. didn't commit atrocious acts against an unarmed populace?

 

The problem is that if you restrict law abiding citizens, they are the only ones restricted. Criminals and government still will get these items. I really don't understand why it is best to unarm everyone but government and criminals. I'm all for background checks. But when states and the feds cant manage to get their 60K plus back log cleared up of offenders under those checks, what good is it in really stopping criminals from getting these items? It doesnt. Thats the problem. So it's a trifecta WTF on the part of those looking for harsher restrictions or outright bans on firearms.. 

100% right on!



#60 Jwheelz

Jwheelz
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,858 posts
  • LocationNutmeg State

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:23 AM

I'm calling the comparison of slightly stricter gun laws in the US to fascist dictators and mass murderers reductio ad absurdum :lol:

 

I am all for doing everything that can be done to prevent figures of authority such as law enforcement from abusing their power, I think much more should be done to rein in unconstitutional abuses of power, illegal searches etc.

 

I don't believe guns should be outlawed completely, but I do believe firearms with nearly military level capability that are only really designed for killing people in offensive situations should not be available to everyday citizens.

 

As far as harder for criminals to get, I agree that the existing enforcement schemes and laws don't do enough to prevent criminals from getting guns on the black market. Not when there hasn't been a permanent director of the ATF for years. Not when essentially unregulated sales can happen at gun shows. I'm aware that doesn't deal with true assault rifles, AK-47s and the like getting into the hands of gang bangers and the like. That's why I think there should be more regulation on these types of weapons so it's easier for law enforcement to discern the difference between legitimate guns which should only be in the hands of the military and advanced law enforcement like SWAT.

 

Maybe that's already the case in the law, then in that case we as a country should look at other ways of curtailing that. Something tells me that dealing with the drug war in a rational manner would do quite a bit to help that along.



#61 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:29 AM

"Slightly stricter". I have no idea what that means. Is that what Cuomo did? Create slightly stricter laws?

 

And military grade weapons aren't sold to the general population in America now. It takes a lot of hoop jumping and checks to get military weapons here. I think a lot of the issue is a lack of firearms knowledge, and instead of the media and law officials clearing that up and making sure people are educated, they use it to their advantage to push agendas. This threads beginning is a prime example.



#62 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,701 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:30 AM

it's okay for the authorities to have them because they are the authorities... they're the people responsible for enforcing the laws that we as citizens enact.... quite honestly that argument which is basically reductio ad absurdium already assumes that the military and National Guard doesn't have capabilities and weapons that would far exceed any private citizen's ability regardless of how many guns they can legally buy... that being said I actually think law enforcement has become ridiculously militarized over the last couple decades, but that is in direct response to the type of weaponry criminals are able to obtain... and regardless of arguments to the contrary if we make it harder for everyone to get weapons that are very easy to aim with a high degree of accuracy, can sustain high rates of fire with very small and cheap modifications, and can hold much larger amounts of ammo, it will make it harder for criminals to get them. It will not make it completely impossible for them to get them but it would lessen the availability of such weapons in a general sense. That's predicated on the rejection of the argument that guns are what protect our individual freedom in the first place, which is not an argument I'm about to wade into, so I know I'll never agree with some people on here about this issue.


:: stands, slow claps ::

#63 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,987 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:32 AM

Case in point.  How many FULL AUTOMATIC GUN DEATHS have there been in the US since 1934?



#64 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:35 AM

:lmao:

 

I don't believe there is a distinction in counting. However, I would guess not many considering full auto is for spraying to make people duck. It's of no other use besides wasting lead. :lol:



#65 Jwheelz

Jwheelz
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,858 posts
  • LocationNutmeg State

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:35 AM

I don't agree with what Cuomo and the New York legislature did... they were in a hurry to be first and clearly did not have a reasoned debate on every measure of the legislation, otherwise glaring errors like no law enforcement exception to magazine size restrictions would not have gone through...

 

however I do agree with the actual ammunition restrictions... there is no legitimate reason why a private citizen needs to have more than seven rounds before having to change clips...

 

I mean this talk of defending ourselves from the government with our guns... implies two things, one that the government is not made up of citizens itself, and two that insurrection against our government is actually an acceptable thing. It's not, it's called treason, the South tried to mount something like that in the 1860s and it started a war. I'm aware that our nation was founded through an act of rebellion against an oppressive government, but it was an essentially monarchy government that tried to impose itself on a distant colony after years of relative autonomy, not people who just happen to disagree with the legitimately democratically elected government.



#66 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,987 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:39 AM

Pol Pot  did not enact any gun laws.  Neither did Lenin.  There was some gun control passed in Russia in 1929 when Stalin came to power.

Pol Pot didn't enact any laws, really.



#67 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:42 AM

A federal government is in much the same way today as the crown was then. It imposes and imposes on otherwise autonomous states until the state becomes ceremonial or lashes out. Central control and authority is always a bad thing. Always. Because it can go unchallenged and in so, is ripe for corruption and abuse. Some abuses being worse than others.



#68 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,987 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:43 AM

I'll rephrase the question.  How many deaths were caused by legally owned machine guns since 1934.

 

The answer is two.

 

Now how many deaths have been caused by legally owned handguns?



#69 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:43 AM

however I do agree with the actual ammunition restrictions... there is no legitimate reason why a private citizen needs to have more than seven rounds before having to change clips...

 

Is that right? No legitmate reason? Isn't that arbitrary? I can think of several reasons, and why would law enforcement need more than 7 then? Shouldn't they too be restricted? Why would they need more?



#70 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:44 AM

I'll rephrase the question.  How many deaths were caused by legally owned machine guns since 1934.

 

The answer is two.

 

Now how many deaths have been caused by legally owned handguns?

 

How many legally owned handgun deaths were legal acts?



#71 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,701 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:46 AM

A federal government is in much the same way today as the crown was then. It imposes and imposes on otherwise autonomous states until the state becomes ceremonial or lashes out. Central control and authority is always a bad thing. Always. Because it can go unchallenged and in so, is ripe for corruption and abuse. Some abuses being worse than others.


Unchallenged? What are you doing right now? What do we all do at one time or another? Do you think a truly dictatorial regime would even permit us to have this conversation?

Which, seems to me, to be a good reason to participate and vote.


#72 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,701 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:48 AM

Is that right? No legitmate reason? Isn't that arbitrary? I can think of several reasons, and why would law enforcement need more than 7 then? Shouldn't they too be restricted? Why would they need more?


Maybe it's arbitrary. But then, what are your reasons? Isn't it fair to see if there is consensus on what's reasonable and needed?

#73 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,701 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:50 AM

I'm aware that our nation was founded through an act of rebellion against an oppressive government, but it was an essentially monarchy government that tried to impose itself on a distant colony after years of relative autonomy, not people who just happen to disagree with the legitimately democratically elected government.


:: throws boxer briefs on stage ::

Thanks for articulating this.

#74 Jwheelz

Jwheelz
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,858 posts
  • LocationNutmeg State

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:51 AM

A federal government is in much the same way today as the crown was then. It imposes and imposes on otherwise autonomous states until the state becomes ceremonial or lashes out. Central control and authority is always a bad thing. Always. Because it can go unchallenged and in so, is ripe for corruption and abuse. Some abuses being worse than others.

 

well that's a matter of opinion... not a fact which can be debated... so I can't really address that, as long as I can still vote in free elections though I would probably have to disagree with your characterization of our government... sure it's far from perfect but that's a discussion for another thread I imagine

 

Is that right? No legitmate reason? Isn't that arbitrary? I can think of several reasons, and why would law enforcement need more than 7 then? Shouldn't they too be restricted? Why would they need more?

 

law enforcement actually has to stop people, that's one of their job descriptions, home defense is maybe the only valid circumstance I would agree with for private citizens, but I am curious as to what the statistics are on home invasion attempts successfully stopped with firearms, I mean that in a serious way because that might impact my opinion.

 

As for target shooting, you could argue that it would be nice to have high-capacity magazines but is it truly a requirement?

 

Hunting, by the time you change yoor seven round magazine, every animal with half a brain will be nowhere within shooting distance.

 

So, what's the real reason?



#75 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:52 AM

NO, it's a bill of rights, not a bill of needs based on consensus. Plus, I have a right to private property. Private being the key word. Secure in my effects and possessions. It's not up to others to tell me how many rounds I may load in my magazine. You know who doesn't follow these rules you guys like? The people that kill others or rob them, etc...

 

Not people who are law abiding. Why anyone wants to further handicap the law abiding citizen in this fucked up world is beyond me.



#76 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,701 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:53 AM

If you need more than seven rounds to bring down a deer, prolly should find a new hobby. Prolly.

#77 Jwheelz

Jwheelz
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,858 posts
  • LocationNutmeg State

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:54 AM

ooh JP is getting feisty :naughty:

 

Well I've enjoyed the debate and I have to continue participating in these debates, I didn't get heated at all and it was fun :)

 

But I have to jet for the evening... 



#78 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:55 AM

well that's a matter of opinion... not a fact which can be debated... so I can't really address that, as long as I can still vote in free elections though I would probably have to disagree with your characterization of our government... sure it's far from perfect but that's a discussion for another thread I imagine

 

 

law enforcement actually has to stop people, that's one of their job descriptions, home defense is maybe the only valid circumstance I would agree with for private citizens, but I am curious as to what the statistics are on home invasion attempts successfully stopped with firearms, I mean that in a serious way because that might impact my opinion.

 

As for target shooting, you could argue that it would be nice to have high-capacity magazines but is it truly a requirement?

 

Hunting, by the time you change yoor seven round magazine, every animal with half a brain will be nowhere within shooting distance.

 

So, what's the real reason?

 

I'm curious how much knowledge and experience you have with firearms before we continue any arbitrarily designated "needs" list on firearms cosmetics.



#79 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:57 AM

If you need more than seven rounds to bring down a deer, prolly should find a new hobby. Prolly.

 

Is this the only legitimate use for a firearm?



#80 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,701 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:59 AM

Why does his experience matter? Everyone is at risk, and deserves their opinions. Gun owner/expert or not.

#81 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,293 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:00 AM

What was the watershed moment when civilians could no longer possess the same kinds of weapons as the government?

 

Did people freak out about the Bill of Rights then?



#82 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,701 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:00 AM

Is this the only legitimate use for a firearm?


Of course not. Which legitimate uses NEED more than that? Please be specific.

#83 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,701 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:01 AM

BTW, clearly we've caught the Gawds sleeping tonight. :funny1:

#84 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:02 AM

Of course not. Which legitimate uses NEED more than that? Please be specific.

 

Several armed robbers wielding weapons on my business as one example. But again, it's a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.



#85 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,701 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:03 AM

What was the watershed moment when civilians could no longer possess the same kinds of weapons as the government?
 
Did people freak out about the Bill of Rights then?


Good point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't their been a fundamental imbalance between what govt & civilians could possess for 100 years or so? At least WWI?

#86 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:04 AM

What was the watershed moment when civilians could no longer possess the same kinds of weapons as the government?

 

Did people freak out about the Bill of Rights then?

 

It was because prohibition (big shocker there...) created gangs of organized crime sellers. Who often used the "tommy guns" in shooting at each other, etc...So it was a reaction to a problem created by government legislation in the first place.



#87 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,701 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:05 AM

Several armed robbers wielding weapons on my business as one example. But again, it's a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.


Okay, so if there is a demonstrable need, perhaps there could be a special permit for that. I do think your example is tenuous at best. Not sure I'd approve it in that case.

#88 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:07 AM

Thankfully, the constitution isn't negotiable. You'll have to press for amendment. It's not up to you or anyone else who gets what. Just like NY's Coumo is facing a serious challenge to his latest spot light grab of bullshit.

 

Will criminals only put 7 rounds in the clip? 

 

:lmao:



#89 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,701 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:09 AM

Thankfully, the constitution isn't negotiable. You'll have to press for amendment. It's not up to you or anyone else who gets what. Just like NY's Coumo is facing a serious challenge to his latest spot light grab of bullshit.
 
Will criminals only put 7 rounds in the clip? 
 
:lmao:


Yup. When that's the only ones they can get. It will take a while, but it would head in that direction. How many tommy guns do see nowadays?

#90 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:12 AM

A tommy gun is obsolete. On the other hand, a magazine for a gun can be made with a 3D printer out of hard plastic and a spring installed. Of course, only law abiding citizens will care that they are illegal. :jimy:



#91 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:13 AM

So 30 - 100 + round mags arent going anywhere. Nor is ammo that isnt traceable. Or background checks that are up to date. 



#92 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,293 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:20 AM

How many murders are committed by 3-D printer magazines?  How many murders are committed by ammo that is untraceable?



#93 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:24 AM

What?

 

3D printers are a new gadget and their potential is just beginning to be unlocked. While guns are still out of sight for these printers, the magazine makes are not.

 

I don't know that those figures even exist. When i say traceable, I mean back to a  specific manufacturer such as other suggested about making rounds stamped vs. associating a firing pin to a weapon through forensics on a bullet casing etc...



#94 cassady

cassady

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 18,227 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:31 AM

alrighty then............



#95 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,293 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:31 AM

oh, so this is just your speculation that the gun murder rate will be the same despite any changes to gun laws once the Jetsons Magazine-omatic comes online?



#96 cassady

cassady

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 18,227 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:33 AM

what say?

 

we enjoy our respective evenings?



#97 cassady

cassady

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 18,227 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:33 AM

shall we?



#98 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:39 AM

oh, so this is just your speculation that the gun murder rate will be the same despite any changes to gun laws once the Jetsons Magazine-omatic comes online?

 

Gun murder/violence has been on a steady decline for years. Since before 94. I'm not sure what which law has made that change. Much like many social issues, I do not think any of them have.



#99 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:41 AM

shall we?

 

 

:jamguy:



#100 cassady

cassady

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 18,227 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:42 AM

ok

 

 

 

sweet!

 

thanks dave! :) <3