Peter King (R-NY) to introduce gun control law

  • News
  • Thread starter turbo
  • Start date
  • #51
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Thank you. My wife and I live about 20 minutes from the nearest law-enforcement response in the event of a 911 call, unless some county deputy or state trooper just happens to be driving by when the call comes in. I'm not going to negotiate with some creep on the other side of my front door, or someone who climbs in through a smashed window. That would be a dead person.

I never open-carry handguns, though I can. It's just not in my makeup. My youngest sister has a concealed-carry permit. She has worked at a home/school for troubled youth and moonlights as a bartender. She never knows if she is going to be targeted when she sets out on her pre-dawn walks. I don't think that she is capable of pulling that trigger when there is a human at the other end, but at least she has a deterrent.
Back when I was working on mobile CAT Scanners, I often had to work at MLK hospital, in Watts, California. This was back before hospitals had their own scanners, so the mobile parked at a loading dock near a rear entrance to the ER. One night I was talking with a cop at the local Winchell's, who told me I was crazy to work at MLK without a gun.

As has been pointed out, when you REALLY need a cop, you rarely have the time to wait for one or even call for help. You are most likely completely on your own. It is up to you to live or die. The first time someone points a gun at you, that becomes abundantly clear in an instant.

As for this law, it makes sense to the extent that potentially dangerous people might be caught or held before they have a chance to do harm. And it does eliminate the need to show intent if a suspicious character is found to be carrying a weapon at a political rally. I would be worried about when and where it applies. I would think it would have be limited to government buildings and formal political events. In those situations, rather than having an armed audience, it makes a lot more sense to have a few designated individuals carrying concealed weapons.

Having the ability to wear an AK-47 at a political rally, as happened a while back, is just nuts. And doing this won't act as a deterrent to mass murder. One reason we know little about mass murderers is that they usually commit suicide during the crime.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
180
1
I just don't see this as feasible. The resources required would be a nightmare. The problem is that anyone can snap. We all have the capacity to lose it. That's the human condition. No matter how nuts this guy was/is, he is totally responsible for his actions. It's noones fault but his. What if someone is screened, gets a pass, then does something. Whoever did the screening gets blamed for not catching it. As if it were their fault. This is insanity IMO.
Bang, batta-boom, and bingo.

I am a law-abiding citizen, and I carry a firearm in accordance with our nation's Second Amendment. Hopefully, I'll never have to exercise my right to keep and bear arms. I nevertheless reserve my right to do so. Breath easy.
 
  • #53
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
I would add that it isn't a big deal to have people walk through a metal detector. Given the proper limits in scope of applicability, I don't see why enforcement would be an issue. Many high schools do it every day. Metal detectors have been common for national political events since at least the 1980s. I know I had to go through one when I saw Reagan, in 1980.
 
  • #54
Evo
Mentor
23,144
2,704
Bang, batta-boom, and bingo.

I am a law-abiding citizen, and I carry a firearm in accordance with our nation's Second Amendment. Hopefully, I'll never have to exercise my right to keep and bear arms. I nevertheless reserve my right to do so. Breath easy.
But by your own admission
On another note, decades ago I was assessed by a psychologist who used some sort of Q&A test to find me a "danger to society."
We never know, do we? No one can say they won't snap, and if they have a gun, then they're dangerous.

I don't know that I won't snap, but I don't carry weapons.
 
  • #55
drankin
I carry a weapon just in case someone close to me snaps before I do. :)
 
  • #56
180
1
But by your own admission...
Yes, by my own admission, Evo, here I remain. Do you have a point? I remain healthy, happy, and sane. How are you doing these days?

I carry a weapon just in case someone close to me snaps before I do. :)
Good thinking, Drankin. Carry on. Let's get together for coffee some time. I know of a great place here in town that serves an awesome breakfast!

No one can say they won't snap...
Yes, Evo, many of us can honestly say we won't snap. I'm sorry if you can't trust that, but there it is. I won't snap. If you can't trust this then I suggest you file this with your local law enforcement officer.

...and if they have a gun, then they're dangerous.
Crap, child. Our government entrusted us with nuclear weapons. We didn't fold then, why in the world would we fold now? (rolls eyes)
 
Last edited:
  • #57
CAC1001
The cops are better trained and aren't just firing out of fear. My preference would be that there were no guns in the first place.
Cops aren't that well trained. In fact, you'd probably be more comfortable with many a civilian having to shoot than a cop if you saw how bad a shot many police are.

Our country was founded over 200 years ago, things that were necessary then are no longer needed in modern society, that would include the need to bear arms and be prepared to shoot indians and form a militia in case the king's army decides to attack.

Time to transition into the 21st century eh? :tongue2:
What happens if you're in your home and a criminal breaks in intent on killing you and your family?

What happens if a natural disaster occurs and the infrastructure and services break down completely, and you have to deal with roving bands of thieves and criminals?

What happens if you are walking on the street and see a group of thugs coming towards you?

"Modern society" does make modern times any utopia. Violence and crime still occur. Guns are just tools. Violence occurs as a result of other socioeconomic factors seperate from the existence of guns. Gangs for example will beat people with clubs, pipes, machetes, thwack a person with a glass bottle, stab with knives, etc...and also shoot with guns.

:rofl: One if by land, two if by sea. Got your horse ready? Come on mugs, who really thinks they need to carry guns and ammo to fight invaders in the street?

If our country had been formed before the gun and it said we had the right to carry swords only, would you be toting a sword around?
It says we have a right to bear arms though.

If people want to own guns, fire them, keep them in the house, I'm ok with that. Pretending that they need them to fight invaders in the street that wish to overtake the country, nah.
Part of the reason for civilians having the right to bear arms is also to prevent a police state from ever forming as well.

If you think that couldn't happen, what if a major natural disaster occurs that sets the whole country into complete chaos? What if you then end up with a potential would-be dictator trying to take over? And let's say this dictator wannabe has a lot of potential followers and backers, because a lot of people are scared. The people being armed serves as a counter to these types of things.
 
  • #58
CAC1001
But by your own admission We never know, do we? No one can say they won't snap, and if they have a gun, then they're dangerous.

I don't know that I won't snap, but I don't carry weapons.
If someone truly snaps and no one is allowed to carry by law, they can either:

1) Acquire a gun illegally, so that then when they go on a shooting spree, everyone else is un-armed

2) Use something different for a weapon.
 
  • #59
drankin
Good thinking, Drankin. Carry on. Let's get together for coffee some time. I know of a great place here in town that serves an awesome breakfast!
I'm in the Seattle area, what part of the country are you?
 
  • #60
180
1
I'm in the Seattle area, what part of the country are you?
Colorado, but my brother lives in Portland. I might visit him sometime, and one of my better friends lives in Seattle, so who knows? But if you're ever in Colorado...

Hey! http://www.rmss.org/"is held here! Come join us. The location is full of cacti, but the summer skies are incredible for viewing the heavens, and I cook one heck of a mean chili. I attended my first RMSS this past summer, and it was quite incredible. I was awed by the scope's, there. Many were larger than 20 inches. Way cool!

I mean, seriously - there were some incredible scopes out there. If you haven't ever been there, done that, this is one of those events.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #61
106
1
But by your own admission We never know, do we? No one can say they won't snap, and if they have a gun, then they're dangerous.

I don't know that I won't snap, but I don't carry weapons.

We cant ban the right to bear weapons, just for the case someone decides to shoot another person.

We cant ban ppl from driving cars, just because some drivers are irresponsible and sooner or later will cause a deadly accident.

We need weapons. Everyone of us should be legally allowed to carry. It is a personal option if you decide to carry or not, but you must have this option.
 
  • #62
180
1
We cant ban ppl from driving cars...
Given the fact unintentional motor vehicle accidents are about 28 times more likely to result in death than unintentional deaths due to firearms, I'm inclined to believe we need to do a far better job training our drivers!

Getting back to the OP, which involves Peter King, sigh, ok. What a tool. Years ago I would NEVER have spoken of a Congressman in this manner. However, that was the day I met Tip. You know what he told me? He said, "Go your own way." Seems simple, doesn't it? It is, in so many ways. :)

RIP, TIP. I'm damned glad to have known you.
 
Last edited:
  • #63
CAC1001
Given the fact unintentional motor vehicle accidents are about 28 times more likely to result in death than unintentional deaths due to firearms, I'm inclined to believe we need to do a far better job training our drivers!
Just to make sure I read your post right, you mean unintentional motor vehicle accidents are 28 times more likely to result in death than unintentional accidents with firearms?

Also, if society was structured where the politicians could get away with it, I would not be shocked if many politicians would want to restrict auto ownership. The only reason they don't is because society simply cannot function without people being allowed to drive.
 
  • #64
2,685
22
Well, I was going to stay out of this and avoid the gun issue all together. But some of the arguments being thrown around are just plain ridiculous, and in some cases, hypocritical.

I don't want to debate this (this is my last post here) and I was going to let someone else respond, but as no one else has, here goes.
Yes, Evo, many of us can honestly say we won't snap. I'm sorry if you can't trust that, but there it is. I won't snap. If you can't trust this then I suggest you file this with your local law enforcement officer.
I have to disagree, purely because someone snapping can be down to circumstances. Until you have experienced situation X, it's hard to know how you will react when it occurs. It could be just what you need to go over the edge.
Crap, child. Our government entrusted us with nuclear weapons. We didn't fold then, why in the world would we fold now? (rolls eyes)
Let's not make things up, they don't trust us with nuclear weapons at all. Heck, they don't trust people around nuclear power plants let alone missile silos. They trust the military with a whole host of security, checks and procedures in place - which all lead back to the government.
What happens if you're in your home and a criminal breaks in intent on killing you and your family?

What happens if a natural disaster occurs and the infrastructure and services break down completely, and you have to deal with roving bands of thieves and criminals?

What happens if you are walking on the street and see a group of thugs coming towards you?
Evo was attacked because of her 'what if' earlier and yet here we are with more, but from your side.
These 'what if' questions are even less likely than evo's. So let's just drop it.

Also, based on the above (1 & 3) Britain must be a hell hole. Oh wait, it isn't.
Part of the reason for civilians having the right to bear arms is also to prevent a police state from ever forming as well.
So let's consider this. The government create a police state. The public start to fight back against the cops. What happens then? Hmm, do they roll over? Do they fight a war between public and cops? Or do they bring in the army? You can argue all you like, but the government has the means to do what they like. Legally or not (under the constitution) is another issue. If they really want to, they can invoke marshal law to bring the situation under control.
If you think that couldn't happen, what if a major natural disaster occurs that sets the whole country into complete chaos? What if you then end up with a potential would-be dictator trying to take over? And let's say this dictator wannabe has a lot of potential followers and backers, because a lot of people are scared. The people being armed serves as a counter to these types of things.
As above.
1) Acquire a gun illegally, so that then when they go on a shooting spree, everyone else is un-armed
Well that isn't so easy. It isn't that easy to get a gun in Britain.
2) Use something different for a weapon.
That changes things. Killing with a gun is not the same as killing with, let's say a steel bar.
We cant ban the right to bear weapons, just for the case someone decides to shoot another person.

We cant ban ppl from driving cars, just because some drivers are irresponsible and sooner or later will cause a deadly accident.
Capability to kill is not the same thing as designed to. A car is designed to transport people / things. A gun is designed to kill. If you carry a gun, with the intention of using it (whether in defence or otherwise) you are willing to kill. When driving a car, that isn't the intention at all. The argument doesn't hold up. Apples and oranges.

Mugs, I'd like to know how they judge an unintentional death with a firearm. Is it, simply a gun goes off by accident and kills someone? That wouldn't be a fair metric, unintentional car deaths and unintentional firearm deaths. Flip this around and look at intentional firearm deaths and intentional car deaths, oh look it's inverted and shows the exact opposite. These numbers don't mean anything because you aren't comparing relevant scenarios. They aren't a reliable indication of anything.

I know, you'll all come down on me for invoking "it doesn't happen in Britain" etc. But, it's for a reason. You can argue how much you need a gun all you like, but at the end of the day, the biggest problem you have is that they have been a part of your culture for so long and embedded in society for hundreds of years, so you can't just ban them or get rid of them. They are everywhere and despite my views on it, I agree that under your circumstance you need them to counter the fact they are so prevalent.

Jared James, Out!
 
Last edited:
  • #65
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
So let's consider this. The government create a police state. The public start to fight back against the cops. What happens then? Hmm, do they roll over? Do they fight a war between public and cops? Or do they bring in the army? You can argue all you like, but the government has the means to do what they like. Legally or not (under the constitution) is another issue. If they really want to, they can invoke marshal law to bring the situation under control.
Tell that to the has hash-smoking, tent-dwelling Afghans who have held the Soviets and the US at bay for decades.

The armed public constitutes an army of perhaps 50-million [households], with 200-million weapons. That is a formidable army by any standard. Note also that when we go into place like Iraq, we have to secure the country one house at a time. All of those big expensive weapons are useless.

You are also assuming that under such circustances, the army would not start changing sides. Also, the National Guard is populated by locals who would be hard-pressed to turn on their friends and familes.

Presently, we can't even defeat the gangs in Los Angeles, much less an organized revolt.
 
Last edited:
  • #66
2,685
22
So much for last post here.

The armed public constitutes an army of perhaps 50-million, with 200-million weapons. That is a formidable army by any standard.
That assumes they are all trained, capable and willing (and agree the government are in the wrong).

Plus technology wise, the government wins. I'll take a marine team and a predator drone over civilians any day.

Take out any form of re-supply for the civilians (ammo etc) and see how long they can keep fighting.

The infrastructure of the US allows for much more control to be levied against the people than in Afghanistan.

(It would have made COD2 a lot more interesting if civilians had started fighting the Russians with you.)

I'm not saying it's a completely plausible situation, but it's certainly not as cut and dried as "government create police state, people fight back".

Ooh, another thing, what about those who agree with the government and own guns? They could fight to support what they are doing.

Army changing sides? Well that could happen any time. I don't think civilians would be any more effective in a Coup D'etat than any other scenario.

There's more to defeating gangs in LA than just shooting them. If you basically throw the legal system out the window, take a zero tolerance approach, things would be dealt with a lot more effectively.
 
  • #67
Mech_Engineer
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,572
171
So let's consider this. The government create a police state. The public start to fight back against the cops. What happens then? Hmm, do they roll over? Do they fight a war between public and cops? Or do they bring in the army? You can argue all you like, but the government has the means to do what they like. Legally or not (under the constitution) is another issue. If they really want to, they can invoke marshal law to bring the situation under control.
Let's not forget, what you're describing has many parallels with the US revolutionary war against the British. The Second Amendment was written by people that had just gone through a war against an oppressive government, where the government specifically tried to take the People's guns away in order to quell the rebellion. At the risk of satisfying "[URL [Broken] Law[/URL], similar actions also happened in Nazi Germany before the holocaust- guns were confiscated from the people to prevent revolt.

The Second Amendment's purpose is to keep the government scared of the people, hagning the threat of rebellion over their heads.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #68
106
1
Capability to kill is not the same thing as designed to. A car is designed to transport people / things. A gun is designed to kill. If you carry a gun, with the intention of using it (whether in defence or otherwise) you are willing to kill. When driving a car, that isn't the intention at all. The argument doesn't hold up. Apples and oranges.
So what ? Driving a car doesn't means you are not willing to kill :P
The end result is the same, somebody dies. Now you are telling me that the numbers don't count. But they do. Because in the end, what counts is the lost human lives. Or maybe you think lifes do not count and they are just a meaningless statistic ?

Deaths from car accidents supersede by far death from armed assault. You want a safer society, address the areas where the most human lives are lost :P You dont want to do that, then please, go away and let ppl have guns.

SO yeah, its the human life which counts.
[/QUOTE]



I know, you'll all come down on me for invoking "it doesn't happen in Britain" etc. But, it's for a reason. You can argue how much you need a gun all you like, but at the end of the day, the biggest problem you have is that they have been a part of your culture for so long and embedded in society for hundreds of years, so you can't just ban them or get rid of them. They are everywhere and despite my views on it, I agree that under your circumstance you need them to counter the fact they are so prevalent.

Jared James, Out!
He doesn't have any problem. He is a man which carries, and he is willing to use it for god given right to defend his life, the life of the dear ones and his property. Like I said countless time, anyone who enters your house to steal from you or otherwise harm your family deserves a bullet into his head.

Guns should be allowed everywhere. I can understand that many humans are afraid from that, but they should not be. It's not guns which kill humans, it is other humans. If one is determined to kill, its fairly easy to get a gun on the black market, regardless of the laws of your country. But, no, the law abiding citizen shouldn't have any right to carry to defend :P

And tbh, states like Swiss and Israel are armed to the teeth, and I bet they have less issues then UK.
 
  • #69
106
1
So let's consider this. The government create a police state. The public start to fight back against the cops. What happens then? Hmm, do they roll over? Do they fight a war between public and cops? Or do they bring in the army? You can argue all you like, but the government has the means to do what they like. Legally or not (under the constitution) is another issue. If they really want to, they can invoke marshal law to bring the situation under control.
The worst thing a government can do is to drag itself into a civil war. With 230+ million guns on streets, this is what you get instantly. No sane government will risk it. Ever.
 
  • #70
2,685
22
Ok, if we're going to accept all the numbers DanP, here's a few points for you:

Murder without a firearm, rape and violent crime rates between the US and UK are virtually equal (US is ever so slightly higher, but it's negligable). However, the US has a murder with firearm rate 27 times higher than the UK.

So what part of that tells you the firearms are making a difference and improving things?

They don't. But, it all comes down to interpretation. Like I said, compare deliberate firearm deaths with deliberate car deaths and suddenly mugs' point is flipped on it's head.
 
  • #71
Evo
Mentor
23,144
2,704
This has turned into another gun ownership thread and nothing to do with the OP. Closed.
 

Related Threads on Peter King (R-NY) to introduce gun control law

  • Poll
  • Last Post
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
60
Views
7K
Replies
50
Views
6K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
89
Views
12K
  • Last Post
10
Replies
243
Views
20K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
47
Views
5K
Top