Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Surely A Large Human
MB Regretmobile
Joined
·
35,725 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Guns in America: Recipe for disaster Thomas Kostigen's Ethics Monitor - MarketWatch

Recipe for disaster
Commentary: The Second Amendment needs to join the modern era

By Thomas Kostigen


SANTA MONICA, Calif. (MarketWatch) — Beyond the calls for gun control by some liberal pundits in the aftermath of the Arizona killings, there has been scant talk of reining in gunmakers or the lethal weapons they manufacture.

President Obama hasn’t broached the subject. Lawmakers haven’t introduced any new gun-control laws. In fact, sentiment seems to be more pro-gun than anti; Utah just announced that it is adopting the automatic pistol as its state symbol.

To be sure, White House sources cited by news outlets claim the president will ask Congress for stricter gun control laws to be enacted. But that seems, well, weak — at best; talk, not action. Besides, the most attentive moments to the issue have passed.

Meanwhile, The National Rifle Association is taking action as well as aim at New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is looking to enforce stricter background checks for gun purchasers. The NRA, hiding behind the Second Amendment, is mocking the mayor and saying he is looking to place the blame of violent crime in New York City on gun owners. It should be noted that a great deal of violent crime in New York City is actually committed with guns. The NRA qualifies this by stating that Bloomberg isn’t after the source of violent crime — illegal guns. Rather he’s after “your guns.”

It’s time to take another look at the Second Amendment. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is the exact wording of the right Congress passed in ... 1791.

I inserted an ellipsis in that last sentence so you could pause and perhaps think about that date and period in time. We’ve come a long way since then in terms of technology and evolution of firepower.

“No rational person thinks you should be able to sell a rifle that’s advertising as able to bring down a commercial airliner,” Bloomberg said at press conference. “Nobody thinks we should be selling armor-piercing bullets — you don’t need that if you’re hunting deer or elk.”

He’s right, of course. We aren’t talking about muskets anymore.

In any event, stricter background checks don’t mean a person doesn’t have the right to own a gun. It just means the wrong type of person don’t have a right to own a gun. Is that so wrong?

The NRA should perhaps live up to its name and stick to rifles.

Revising the Second Amendment or at the very least passing stricter gun control laws that jibe with modernity should be the goal of rational society. Otherwise we’ll be sure to experience many more shootings and many more senseless killings.

The United States is the biggest arms dealer in the world. Americans buy and make more guns than anyone else. We also have one of the highest violent-crime rates in the world.

There is an odd paranoia that seizes people when they hear the government may take away their right to own a gun. What, are we the people going to one day be forced to rise up, revolt and take over the government by force? Is crime going to get so bad that we’ll have to form armed vigilante groups?

“Call of Duty” is a video game, fiction. Play it to get your kicks, or go to an arcade. Just don’t jeopardize the rest of our lives by claiming you need the real thing, a handgun that shoots armor-piercing bullets to protect yourself.

Thomas M. Kostigen is the author of “The Green Blue Book: The Simple Water-Savings Guide to Everything in Your Life.”
 

·
Registered
'01-E320 & 02-ST2
Joined
·
31,633 Posts
When granola is outlawed, hippies will still smell bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,043 Posts
taking guns away today is like taking the slaves away back when they were legal. Everyone knows it would start acts against the state/riots/war.
 

·
Premium Member
U took the old religion from the woman on the hill.
Joined
·
43,662 Posts
Why does everyone have to suffer for the actions of a very few? On the other hand, more restrictions wouldn't hurt on gun purchases.
 

·
Registered
'99 ML430, '12 Silverado
Joined
·
2,368 Posts
Even within this thread, posters can't seem to distinguish "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" from "they're coming to take away YOUR guns!"

ETA: I have never once felt like the government was coming for my legally-purchased firearms. Not once. Really.

I have, on occasion, wished that the neighborhood meth head didn't have a stolen, modified AK-47 in his possession. But, hey, that's just me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,043 Posts
Even within this thread, posters can't seem to distinguish "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" from "they're coming to take away YOUR guns!"

ETA: I have never once felt like the government was coming for my legally-purchased firearms. Not once. Really.

I have, on occasion, wished that the neighborhood meth head didn't have a stolen, modified AK-47 in his possession. But, hey, that's just me.
meth heads guns are never legal so how is that relevant:confused:
 

·
Registered
1998 Mercedes E320 Sedan 4Matic
Joined
·
332 Posts
I have, on occasion, wished that the neighborhood meth head didn't have a stolen, modified AK-47 in his possession. But, hey, that's just me.
did you report him to the police, FBA, or ATF? what was their reaction?
 

·
Registered
'99 ML430, '12 Silverado
Joined
·
2,368 Posts
Just noting that virtually every time a meth lab owner (or other fairly major criminal of any type) gets busted around here, the news reports him as having had a "stolen, illegally-modified AK-47" in his possession. Seems to be the shiznit for criminals in this area.

Most of these guys have a rap sheet before they get into making meth (it's kind of a last-ditch, low-rung crime from what I hear, since most of the meth makers are themselves addicts), so of course they don't have a legally-purchased weapon.

What's wrong with making it a bit harder for people with criminal tendencies to legally obtain a firearm? A little more background checking does not seem like such a bad thing. Most people likely undergo more scrutiny when applying for a job at McDonald's. (Having just recently bought a gun, I'm quite certain about this. My paperwork was approved in less than 30 seconds.) Responsible, legal firearm owners could perhaps do more about securing their weapons to prevent theft. (In the event of a house-breaking, my guns would not be stolen.)
 

·
Registered
2002 SLK 32 AMG, bone stock. 1987 190E 2.3-16 valve (destroyed). 2005 E320 new toy.
Joined
·
14,926 Posts
Beyond the calls for gun control by some liberal pundits in the aftermath of the Arizona killings, there has been scant talk of reining in gun makers or the lethal weapons they manufacture.

Why should there be, gun makers didn't shoot anyone, a crazy did. Do you hold GM or Ford libel for an accident caused by the driver of one of their cars?

President Obama hasn’t broached the subject. Lawmakers haven’t introduced any new gun-control laws. In fact, sentiment seems to be more pro-gun than anti; Utah just announced that it is adopting the automatic pistol as its state symbol.

Does the idea of "feel good" do nothing laws get you all warm and fuzzy inside? If you don't like what Utah wants to do, don't go there, I'm sure they won't mind.

To be sure, White House sources cited by news outlets claim the president will ask Congress for stricter gun control laws to be enacted. But that seems, well, weak — at best; talk, not action. Besides, the most attentive moments to the issue have passed.

You voted for him, complain to him, see how far that gets you.

Meanwhile, The National Rifle Association is taking action as well as aim at New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is looking to enforce stricter background checks for gun purchasers. The NRA, hiding behind the Second Amendment, is mocking the mayor and saying he is looking to place the blame of violent crime in New York City on gun owners. It should be noted that a great deal of violent crime in New York City is actually committed with guns. The NRA qualifies this by stating that Bloomberg isn’t after the source of violent crime — illegal guns. Rather he’s after “your guns.”

New York has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and some of the highest crime rates that use firearms, is there a relation there? You decide.

It’s time to take another look at the Second Amendment. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is the exact wording of the right Congress passed in ... 1791.

I inserted an ellipsis in that last sentence so you could pause and perhaps think about that date and period in time. We’ve come a long way since then in terms of technology and evolution of firepower.

So has other technologies, like newspapers that roll off the press by the millions, Algore's wonderful web, radio, and television, yet I don't see a call for a change in the first amendment.

“No rational person thinks you should be able to sell a rifle that’s advertising as able to bring down a commercial airliner,”

What rifle would that be? I have been involved with firearms since well before 1961, and I have yet to see an advertisement for such a rifle.

Bloomberg said at press conference. “Nobody thinks we should be selling armor-piercing bullets — you don’t need that if you’re hunting deer or elk.”

Much to do about nothing, almost any rifle bullet will penetrate some level of armor, only the military has bullet resistant vests that will stop a typical rifle round. There are no "armor pearcing" pistol rounds Few if any handgun rounds have the energy to propel a bullet fast enough to penetrate real armor.

He’s right, of course. We aren’t talking about muskets anymore.

In any event, stricter background checks don’t mean a person doesn’t have the right to own a gun. It just means the wrong type of person don’t have a right to own a gun. Is that so wrong?

How invasive do you want to get in order to use a right that was given to you by the Constitution of the United States?

The NRA should perhaps live up to its name and stick to rifles.

Revising the Second Amendment or at the very least passing stricter gun control laws that jibe with modernity should be the goal of rational society. Otherwise we’ll be sure to experience many more shootings and many more senseless killings.

We should also revise the first amendment to restrict writing articles like this one to licensed writers that have actually done some research on what they are writing about. That seems only fair, what do you think?

The United States is the biggest arms dealer in the world. Americans buy and make more guns than anyone else. We also have one of the highest violent-crime rates in the world.

One of, not the highest, just one of, interesting, why is that?

There is an odd paranoia that seizes people when they hear the government may take away their right to own a gun. What, are we the people going to one day be forced to rise up, revolt and take over the government by force? Is crime going to get so bad that we’ll have to form armed vigilante groups?

Both have been done in the past, it could happen again.

“Call of Duty” is a video game, fiction. Play it to get your kicks, or go to an arcade. Just don’t jeopardize the rest of our lives by claiming you need the real thing, a handgun that shoots armor-piercing bullets to protect yourself.

I'd like to see a link to that "handgun that shoots armor-piercing bullets" like I said, haven't seen one yet but I'm open to buy one when it shows up at a local gun show. I'm sure a "loophole" will allow me to buy it.



.
 

·
Registered
1998 Mercedes E320 Sedan 4Matic
Joined
·
332 Posts
Most of these guys have a rap sheet before they get into making meth (it's kind of a last-ditch, low-rung crime from what I hear, since most of the meth makers are themselves addicts), so of course they don't have a legally-purchased weapon.

What's wrong with making it a bit harder for people with criminal tendencies to legally obtain a firearm?
i just don't understand your logic. you're saying that
a) of course they don't have a legally-purchased weapon
b)...
c) making it a bit harder for people with criminal tendencies to legally obtain a firearm

where's "b"? what's the purpose of making it more difficult for them to obtain them legally, when, by your own admission, they already do not obtain them legally?

it's as if you asked "what's wrong with making it a little more difficult to legally fly a plane into a tall building?". heh.
 

·
Registered
72 Pinto
Joined
·
6,527 Posts
Background checks and waiting periods are not a bad thing IMO. Restricting assault rifles and limiting magazine capacity is IMO. No one should be able to tell me what kind of gun I should or should not have, and the magazine cap issue is just ignorant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,043 Posts
Just noting that virtually every time a meth lab owner (or other fairly major criminal of any type) gets busted around here, the news reports him as having had a "stolen, illegally-modified AK-47" in his possession. Seems to be the shiznit for criminals in this area.

Most of these guys have a rap sheet before they get into making meth (it's kind of a last-ditch, low-rung crime from what I hear, since most of the meth makers are themselves addicts), so of course they don't have a legally-purchased weapon.

What's wrong with making it a bit harder for people with criminal tendencies to legally obtain a firearm? A little more background checking does not seem like such a bad thing. Most people likely undergo more scrutiny when applying for a job at McDonald's. (Having just recently bought a gun, I'm quite certain about this. My paperwork was approved in less than 30 seconds.) Responsible, legal firearm owners could perhaps do more about securing their weapons to prevent theft. (In the event of a house-breaking, my guns would not be stolen.)
people with criminal tendencies??? not following you. you have to have clean background to obtain a gunlegally.

whenever the police use stolen with "assault rifle" like ak-47 they are not registered guns. essentially black market guns.ak-47's are populars becuase the black market price is ~$150 in cincinnati, and to make a legal semi automatic ak-47 into an automatic you grind down a metal piece inside the gun..



Background checks and waiting periods are not a bad thing IMO. Restricting assault rifles and limiting magazine capacity is IMO. No one should be able to tell me what kind of gun I should or should not have, and the magazine cap issue is just ignorant.
Well you need different level classes...limiting magazine capacity makes perfect sense if you want to have ANY chance against someone who walks into an airport and just opens fire. just get a level 3 class and buy .50 cal's and claymores:D
 

·
Surely A Large Human
MB Regretmobile
Joined
·
35,725 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
It's all decoration anyway. The shape / appearance of the gun is irrelevant when it comes to lethality - the idea is that it ignites powder and gives the bullet some guidance. Who gives a shit what they look like. If you want to outlaw certain rounds of ammunition, well, give it a try I guess.

The problem with the AK-47 for example is not the weapon, but the fact that the 7.62x39 round has been specifically engineered over time to cause as much tissue damage in human beings as possible. Just as with the .223 used in M16's. Travels super fast, super straight, until it hits something - then it goes wild tearing shit up along the way. It was designed for war. Engineers are good at finding solutions to problems, and the military is good at presenting problems for engineers that, when solved, make for extremely efficient killing.

At the end of the day, the 2nd Amendment kind of makes the entire discussion moot. It doesn't matter if you don't like it or think it should be updated - the language is clear. Those rights "shall not be infringed". Not "just a little". Not "unless it's a really good reason". Not "unless you're a hunter". Not "until some national tragedy happens". Not at all.
 

·
Registered
'99 ML430, '12 Silverado
Joined
·
2,368 Posts
There's a difference between a motor vehicle, which was built for the purpose of transporting people and their belongings from point A to point B, and a gun, which was built for the purpose of killing living creatures. Guns have no other purpose than to kill. Saying that a gun in the hands of a crazy person is no different than a car or truck in the hands of a crazy person is disingenuous, at best.

I do not question that the outcome could be the same - multiple innocent persons killed - but there is at least a chance that the automobile-caused mayhem was an unlucky accident (soccer mom gets distracted/elderly driver blacks out and drives into crowded convenience store), unlike the incident with the gun (madman unloads 30-round magazine into crowd). Accidents with guns rarely kill/injure more than one or two. It's the deliberate actions with guns that are at issue here.

Besides, you have to go through testing and licensing to drive a car. Can there at least be some kind of a test that is administered before we get licensed to go about shooting guns?
 

·
Surely A Large Human
MB Regretmobile
Joined
·
35,725 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Rights to drive automobiles are not enshrined in the Constitution. Just thought I'd point that out while we're drawing analogies. ;)
 

·
Registered
72 Pinto
Joined
·
6,527 Posts
There's a difference between a motor vehicle, which was built for the purpose of transporting people and their belongings from point A to point B, and a gun, which was built for the purpose of killing living creatures. Guns have no other purpose than to kill. Saying that a gun in the hands of a crazy person is no different than a car or truck in the hands of a crazy person is disingenuous, at best.

I do not question that the outcome could be the same - multiple innocent persons killed - but there is at least a chance that the automobile-caused mayhem was an unlucky accident (soccer mom gets distracted/elderly driver blacks out and drives into crowded convenience store), unlike the incident with the gun (madman unloads 30-round magazine into crowd). Accidents with guns rarely kill/injure more than one or two. It's the deliberate actions with guns that are at issue here.

Besides, you have to go through testing and licensing to drive a car. Can there at least be some kind of a test that is administered before we get licensed to go about shooting guns?
There is in CA. You have to pass a test and background check, then in 10 days you can pick up your gun, but you also have to either prove you have a safe or you have to buy a trigger lock when you pick up the gun.
We have probably the most restrictive laws on the books and the gang bangers still manage to obtain illegal guns. There is no solution to bad guys getting guns, if they want one they'll find a way to get it.
 

·
Surely A Large Human
MB Regretmobile
Joined
·
35,725 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
^ And the net result is that it's more difficult and expensive for people to protect themselves against criminals who do an amazing job of coming up with illegal firearms anyway. And despite the fact that they're illegal, they continue to fire bullets just like legal ones. So what's the point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,043 Posts
The problem with the AK-47 for example is not the weapon, but the fact that the 7.62x39 round has been specifically engineered over time to cause as much tissue damage in human beings as possible. Just as with the .223 used in M16's. Travels super fast, super straight, until it hits something - then it goes wild tearing shit up along the way. It was designed for war. Engineers are good at finding solutions to problems, and the military is good at presenting problems for engineers that, when solved, make for extremely efficient killing.

At the end of the day, the 2nd Amendment kind of makes the entire discussion moot. It doesn't matter if you don't like it or think it should be updated - the language is clear. Those rights "shall not be infringed". Not "just a little". Not "unless it's a really good reason". Not "unless you're a hunter". Not "until some national tragedy happens". Not at all.
All bullets are designed to cause as much damage as possible. MANY bullets are designed to fragment on impact, hallowpoints are a great example and are used by the police commonly. Those bullets are great for hunting. Either way AIM beats caliber/fire rate every time.

to mssph, the testing for driving is a joke. Many people do not have the "skills" required to actually be a safe driver or to navigate around accident etc etc. the problem with starting gun regulations is they will continue to tighten. If someone buys a gun they're either a collector/hunter/target shooter/used for home protection. Collectors obviously don't need the training. Training hunters/target shoots how to shoot is kind of funny. training gun safety is another story but in target ranges it's pretty strict and obvious. In the woods who cares if you shoot and miss a deer by 20 feet? Home protection is funny too sense you will likely by surprised and way out of position to use the gun.:surrender:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,043 Posts
^ And the net result is that it's more difficult and expensive for people to protect themselves against criminals who do an amazing job of coming up with illegal firearms anyway. And despite the fact that they're illegal, they continue to fire bullets just like legal ones. So what's the point.
that's the argument against illegal drugs and making guns illegal. the point is to look proactive:surrender:
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top