Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
CrystalMendrilia

Finally, my Journal on Gun Control!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Guns Opening
2: Biology
3: Case, Sandy Hook Response
4: Information Rant
5: The Assault Weapons Ban, What it Does.
6: Closing
7: Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Guns Opening


I had posted a short rant about Gun Control advocates a while ago which prompted many responses of varying kind. Some agreeing with my babble, some not, some ranting their thoughts, some challenging and engaging. What I found interesting is how people against gun freedoms would argue vs those in favor of gun freedom. I recognized the pattern as what I deal with when speaking on religion. One person even showed me a "Study" that "proved" more guns means more violence. They were so sure of this they even pointed out that the "Study" even uses such phrases and "prove" or whatever it was. : /

I'm a skeptic and don't like taking things on face value. So I read the "Study" and was concerned it was bull the moment I looked at it. The graph data was so improbable on its face when you take all the variables involved. The pattern it took was absurd. Regardless, I read it. The terms, the conclusions, really everything was not only non scientific but stupidly biased. As I checked the source material, it was from an activist group against guns. Wow, that would be like trusting a study by the parents of the kids with autism, suggesting the vaccines caused it, as part of their lawsuit as a proper scientific document!  (by the way, it's since been completely debunked. Get your vaccines idiots!) My response was "resting my case" however, looking back I should have linked a counter "study" from the N.R.A. (National Rifle Association) but then I felt the person wouldn't have caught the irony.

With the last journal on the topic, a great deal many of people assumed I was a gun enthusiast and some PM's i received were quite rude. The rest spoke to me about guns In ways I couldn't repeat the words of because they assumed I was a Gun Enthusiast which I am not.

SO I decided to write a proper journal on the topic and explain what my views are and then make my case as to why, and then add my opinions. Well then, if we are going to take this line of thought seriously, we must first start at the beginning.

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.  (Please note: I chose the version ratified by the states and endorsed by Thomas Jefferson. There was slight punctuation differences with the version passed by Congress.)

People Against guns do pick at the punctuation differences a lot. To rephrase their position into a more blunt way, they believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are very well written documents EXCEPT when it comes to the 2nd Amendment! Suddenly, "The People" means something OTHER than what it has meant up to this point which happens to be the same meaning after the second amendment. One person even argued that it's out of date because we don't need a militia now that we have a National Guard to protect us, which kind of misses the point.

I have to point out a few things. The regulated militia is necessary for a free state. Not run by the Federal Government, but the state so they aren't helpless when the Federal Government gets too corrupt. The right of the people to bare arms is to keep our government in check, and so WHEN the people need to revolt again, the people would be armed. The founding fathers believed it was inevitable because corruption is inevitable. Having just fought a war themselves, this was a very important issue ot them. So much so, they got to it second. A Government that is not afraid of the people will not serve the people but instead serve themselves and abuse the people.

If the people allow themselves to be at the mercy of a government, they open the doors to many kinds of abuses such as taxation without representation. I live in California and regularly see what happens when a Government has a free hand. Through shady methods, they want to increase the amount of money used to clean rain water in L.A. county from $100,000,000 a year to $400,000,000 a year. We pay the highest utilities, property, car, income, taxes of any kind in the country. I myself pay a higher tax percent rate on income tax as a security office (I'm poor, except by Democrats reasoning apparently) then millionaires do in 49 other states. (Yes, even Hawaii was just passed by us) of the 10,000,000 to enter the population of California from 1985 - 2005, 7,000,000 went on welfare while we gained about 108 thousand new tax filers/payers. This excludes the hundreds of thousands of citizens moving out of California during that time. The Democrats have a super majority in every house now and despite the unprecedented highest tax increase by any state in the U.S. in history (again, again) we are facing another 7 taxes over the next couple months. (as of the time this was written. Since then, even more taxes have been pushed.)

Can't help notice California has the hardest Gun Control laws. The concept of defending yourself legally are, "Run as soon as possible. If cornered, you can only defend yourself until you can find an opening to run away." I should add that they have been releasing thousands of Murderous felons by order of the Governor to save money on prison cost. We spend about 56,000 per prisoner per year, every year. The concept of "Maybe we should stop paying the prison guards so much money for things like how long it takes to walk from their cars to their posts." Never crossed the Governments mind. The People ARE being killed by these felons (and since this was written, so are rapes and murders from the rapers on parole that take off their ankle bracelets that are not even punished for doing that) The Government just doesn't care, and why should they? The people have no ability to defend themselves and the cops are happy to abuse this. With the highest paid teachers in the country we have the worse grades and highest drop out rates. (Over 60% in some reason) the people listen to the media that are just stenographers instead of reporters and the Government employees number so high they can pass propositions. We are losing many cities to Bankruptcy and thanks to Antonio Villaraigosa L.A. is planned to Bankrupt in a couple years maybe 3 at the most. (Since this was written, they also passed another 11% pay increase for firefighters and police which has the effect of increasing salaries for other police and firefighters from other cities. It's a circular effect they set up to insure their pay goes up every year or two)

The sad thing is, I could keep going on and on but I wanted to only make one thing clear: Taxation without representation is an ugly thing... But so are crime rates. Piers Morgan was boasting how the U.S. could learn a thing or two from the lack of Gun Violence in the U.K. I think the U.K. could learn a thing or two from the U.S. about violent crimes and crime rates in general. These aren't arguments of course. I just want to emphasize that the problem is not that simple and I hope to convey why in this journal.

Some believe the heart of the problem are guns themselves. When researching a few gun terms, at a gun store in my city, the owner took a hand gun, loaded it, put a bullet in the chamber and then set it down on the table between us. That gun was certainly not interested in killing anybody, or even for that matter shooting at all. It lacks neurons, therefore it lacks the ability to make decisions.

When I watched him disarm the gun, pointing it up, finger off the trigger, etc. My  mind wandered to a picture of a 9 year old girl holding a rifle very safely and correctly next to a picture of Diane Feinstein of California, holding a gun incorrectly and unsafely. She had it pointed at the audience, finger on the trigger, etc. I have absolutely no doubt that she was given that gun by her ARMED security and she irresponsibly never checked for herself if it were loaded or not.

Diane Feinstein is also the one behind this new "Assault Weapons Ban" which I will go into more detail later in this journal. Instead, I'm going to begin at the heart of the actual problem: Humans. But please, don't lose sight that I actually do hate guns. Just I prefer to think about reality, not childish Utopian nonsense.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2: Biology


When a specie evolves a trait, the trait is not static or unchanging from individual to individual. For an example, lets talk about Flight Distance in the only natural canine uninfluenced by human selective breeding: the Wolf, (Sorry Fantastic Mr. Fox). Now some wolves found a convenient food source, the trash areas of humans. Now, Flight distance is how close a potential threat can get to the wolf before it runs away. This distance is not the same for every single wolf. There is, variation: Some too close, some too far. My dog owes her existence to one that had too small a flight distance but luckily made a friend with a curious human.

Within a wolf pack, we see even more variation. Some are more Alpha, others less so. Some are big, some are small, some friendly, others abusive and yet are still the same specie. The lesson is clear: among any social species, there will be variation in how individuals conduct themselves relative to other individuals of the same species, even within the same pack. Even those born at the same time will act very different from each other, even if made by the same parents. From humans, to trees, to microscopic organisms, variation exists. There will always be some humans in society that breaks the rules the majority agree upon. Maybe one day, we will start to rewrite peoples brains but that in itself raises lots of moral questions and choices which this journal isn't the place to talk about that. (Personally, I feel it a horrible idea though, very grotesque. In short, who decides how we should all act?)

Regardless, brain remapping is a technology we have not mastered yet. For now at least, some people will be below average with their moral compasses. There will always be some crazy people. Some good, some bad, and the balance of power always sways back and forth... But so does the balance of people sane and insane. (AKA: Crazy Person) The average person will always not be a crazy person because a society built up of crazy people always fails. Anarchy, collapse always follows.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3: Case, Sandy Hook Response


Far too many people in this country uses horrible scenes like this to push their agendas and far too many people flock to these "Feel good" bills and symbolic actions because they care. I really do believe these people care, just don't bother researching anything, or understand anything. Maybe they don't even know how to research. In an earlier journal, someone sent me what they called a "Study" but it was just a propaganda piece put together by an anti gun group. That is as trustworthy as one put together by the National Rifle Association. Actually reading the "study" showed it was completely unscientific. I get this kind of thing a lot when talking about Religion.

Personally, I think the biggest problem is that people want a blanket solution that will cure everything. In my opinion: I think this stems from a presumed moral high ground in that, "Thou shalt not kill" is a moral absolute, even though it isn't. Having searched for arguments in favor of Gun Control, I only find assumed moral absolutes without any justification. My moral choices are done only after I collect data on the specific case, never before.

Sandy Hook, Colorado responses are: More Gun control Laws, (which I will cover later in the journal) a bonfire where they destroy "Violent" Video Games. Before I conclude what I think should be done, we must first gather the facts aka "data." This is of course just me being scientific. First gather the facts before making the hypothesis. Test hypothesis, confirm it so it can graduate to the top level in science: Theory. For all we know, their responses might be correct! Let us now see what happened and what conclusions we come to.

A mother has a son that is crazy. Mother is taking care of her son, which is hard because he's crazy, further he's growing up and becoming more of a hassle. She is a teacher, she is a survivalist and owns guns, body armor and is ready for the zombie Apocalypse. She understood her son was becoming too much for her to handle and tried to get government help to commit him.

Son lived in the basement and was an enthusiast for military weapons. He played video games. He spent most of his time alone. He had a nose. He resented that his mother was so controlling of his life. He perceived his mothers loving the students more than him because she was nice to them and not him. He's crazy. He was issued a court date where his mother was going to try and prove he's crazy to have him committed.

Phenomenon: He kills his mother, takes guns to the school his mother worked at. Kills many students.


Hypothesis: He had access to guns, and guns kill people. If he didn't have access to guns, he wouldn't have killed people.
Crystal: No, even that same day there was stabbings at a school in China. The highest death toll at a school massacre by 1 person since 1907 didn't even involve guns. Further, he was crazy, not stupid. If he wanted to retaliate against the students, he had enough knowledge of weapons to come up with something. Just think back to the guy using a home made mace and a bug spray machine converted to a flame thrower. He clearly perceived the students as the target of his mothers affections and therefore retaliated against them. It wasn't random. To him, they deserved it. Further we know he  had put thought into it because of all the research he had put into all the massacres and attempted massacres in U.S. history. To think he wouldn't have killed anyone if he had no guns, is childish.


Hypothesis: Video games are violent. People that play games will mimic or be inspired to be violent.
Crystal: No. No correlation established, and all arguments failed testing. Further, these arguments are as unsubstantiated now aimed at video games as they were towards movies,  and T.V. before that, and Comic books before that, and radio before that, etc. The arguments have never changed and were never scientifically even suggested. Honestly, this kind of stupidity is common with agenda pushing, IE: Assume the problem, then find evidence to support it. You're doing it backwards. However, as I'm trying to be impartial right now, I shall refine your stupid arguments into a far more realistic and practical one.

So we know through science, that people playing video games while playing them are not focused on the murder aspect in the same sense as the non playing observer is. They are more focused on puzzle solving, or points, or plotting routes from point A to point B, etc. However, the guy in question for this case was crazy. It's therefore possible that he takes in the information and sorts it differently when compared to the average person. Sadly, we lack the data to make this theory and to be honest, I think there are far better avenues to go down before bothering with this one.

I want to point out an update, the idiot police are trying to say it's because of video games he did this because: He has a big sheet of paper with all the attempted and successful murderers. He wanted to be at the top.... so they think that means: The more kills you get, the more points you get. AND the reason he killed himself is because when other people kill you they get your points, so he wanted to keep them.     ................................. Uhh, I play First Person shooters, and when you kill yourself, you lose points. When are you killed, you lose points, NOT they get your points. Their arguments are make belief. Clearly, agenda driven.


Hypothesis: If it saves even 1 life, it's worth whatever it takes.
Crystal: There is  fundamental flaw in this argument. It's not an argument, just an appeal to emotions. By this argument, we need to ban pencils, bath tubs, cars... Especially since more die from motor vehicles each year then by fire arms (Including legally justified killings, suicides, cop shootings etc) We should lock up all mentally unstable people the moment they show the slightest sign of "abnormal" behavior. Why not? Isn't it worth it if we save even one life?  We should legislate: Religion is illegal since there is a direct correlation with homicide rates relative to piety of a country. More religion, more murder, rape, teen pregnancy, STD's, squalor, etc. So make it illegal and enforce it, because it's worth it if we save even one life!  (so on and so on.)


Hypothesis: Accidents happen! For example, a kid finds his fathers Glock under the car seat, and shoots his father.
Crystal: A sad story. I'll ignore that the father should have been more responsible then forgetting he left a loaded gun in his car under his car seat... The point is, that accidents DO happen.  I will respond to that. Yes, sadly there are sad stories of accidents. There are also the opposite. Take for example the 85 year old woman that was able to save herself from a mid 20's robber. When the cops arrived, he was on the floor, hands behind his head. Those of us in California that actually pay attention would think of the Merced Pitchfork Murders. (For those of you not in the loop, that's where lots of kids died that knew how to use guns couldn't get the guns due to gun laws, AND neighbors were unwilling to help also due to gun laws. Imagine what it must have been like to be crawling out the window, knowing that you could shoot the guy killing your sisters and brothers with a pitchfork if you could only get the gun. Or knowing your neighbors had a gun, but wouldn't use it or let you use it due to the same laws stopping you from saving your siblings. Imagine living with that for the rest of your life. Hundreds of stab wounds because you couldn't shoot the naked stranger killing your family) Or that after the batman movie shooting, the next day another theater shooting occurred only an off duty officer had her gun and killed the gunman before he could shoot up the theater saving lots of lives.

Bringing up examples of good results or bad results in itself isn't an argument. Just an appeal to emotions. First state your position, then justify it. Examples serve as an aid to help others understand your point, not to be an argument in itself.


Hypothesis: Have police on site, visit school to school.
Crystal: That's temporary, costly and may result in a gun fight which 'is' better than the alternative. I'm not really in favor or against this one. Just view it as a temporary fix.


Hypothesis: Ban Guns, so bad guys and/or crazy people won't have access to them.
Crystal: Lets ignore the 2nd Amendment, and the reasons for it. Lets simply ban guns, take them all away... From the good guys since we only know where their guns are. Like the U.K. we'd get an increased spike in crime, robberies, and rape because the balance of power would heavily sway towards the bad guys. (This is why they were quite loud about the U.S. NOT banning their guns) If you want to remove guns in a practical and safe way fine, but that isn't even on the table today so I'm not going to discuss cases like Australia.

The cartel of Mexico has no problem running drugs past the open boarder, or seizing Federal U.S. Land from the U.S. unchallenged already. The Obama Administration is quite happy to give it to them with resistance of only, putting up signs telling Citizens to stay out because it's dangerous. For many people on the boarder areas, their guns are a life line since the government has abandoned them. Further, like alcohol, you'd just feed organized crime and the bad guys will still have their guns AND know they can run rampant like in Philadelphia. We already knows what happens when you ban all guns.. Only idiots, ignorant, or people closing their eyes to reality think you can just ban guns outright.
Your responses make no sense to THIS case. (or any others really) Childish.

Crystals Hypothesis on what happened, and how to help prevent a repeat.
Crazy son retaliated against the students in rage after his mother tried to get rid of him. I think he was going to kill those kids with or without a gun and it would be thought out instead of impulse. What set him off was his mother trying to get help from the government. Because crazy people have and deserve rights too, isn't a good enough reason to put more people at risk.

I suggest adapting things so if someone goes through the process of proving someone is crazy and a danger to society, shouldn't we as a culture accept it might be better to error on the side of caution and restrain the potentially crazy person and evaluate them in a timely manner? Perhaps some other change to the system? In my opinion this is the sort of discussion we SHOULD be having. What to do so we can make sure an incident like this is not repeated and at the very least, deterred.

As a side note, it would also help having the discussion about helping people that can no longer handle the crazy person in their household. A lot of people complain, "Where were the parents?" or "Why didn't they force them to take their medications?!" Because it's illegal to kidnap someone and its illegal to force drugs down peoples throats. If someone has schizophrenia and is highly dangerous when off their medication, there is absolutely nothing you or their parents or kids can do to make them take their medication. The Police cannot arrest them until a crime has been committed. The courts and laws block you constantly if you seek help.

My solution might not be the best, honestly barely gave it any real thought but I just feel its' a better discussion that should be had then what we have been having. There was a similar situation recently, Congress woman Gabriel Gifford, and the Batman movie shooting by James Eagan Holmes, and yet nobody seems interested in discussing the details. Instead they wall want to push some kind of odd agenda. Blaming video games, or movies, etc.

Enough about my opinions, lets get back to what everyones response has been to the shooting. I mean, I don't like guns so I would be default in favor of Sensible Gun Control, right? Right!  However, is that what they have actually been discussing?  Uhh no. One of my personal favs is this limit on bullet magazine count despite the existence of 3D printers, which completely voids the concept of policing magazines. The entire ban on "Assault Weapons" is this level of stupidity too. : /

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4: Information Rant


When interviewed about the Sandy hook shooting, President Obama said they are looking at changing laws. When told the National Rifle Association said it won't work, Obama dodged the point by implying the NRA just think its "too hard to solve." instead of course addressing why the NRA think his ideas won't work.  In the same interview, when told the NRA suggested armed security guards at schools, Obama said he was "Skeptical" about the idea and wasn't sure the People would like the idea. "We have to do something." finally something we agree on! However Obama once said, "That's the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

Obviously he's wrong again but lets use his definition of insanity for a moment after all it is what he seems to think Insanity is. By his own definition of insanity, Obama's plan to "Do something." Because we've "Got to" is an insane plan. That's always the excuse used to do nonsense on this topic. Now playing with words aside, his plan is completely stupid, and it shows that in response to crazy people going on killing sprees they push for another Assault Rifle Ban.

(Record skip noise) O_o  uhh wait, (looks at her notes) 2009: 31,347 deaths by guns. (that's about 10.2 for every 100k population) Of that, 12,636/31,347 were considered Homicides (which includes suicide) of which 348/31,347 were by "Rifles" or 2.55%. Golly, better stack that before people realize it's even lower in 2012... Umm...... Lets include shot guns... That's 418/31,347 or 3.07%... Lets add in "Unknown Firearms" to that: 1928/31,347 or 14.14% Hey! That's a good jump! Total now is 2,694 or 19.76% (yes, those of you sharp enough to notice that "unknown firearms is more than then RIFLES and SHOTGUNS COMBINED.) So with padded numbers by combining all these still only covers almost 20%.

Okay, so Rifles account for 348/31,347 (2.55%) How about "Cutting objects/knives"... 1825/31,347 (13.38%) almost as much as unknown firearms.(good job you sharp people! That's still more than shot guns /Rifles combined times 2) "Other non cutting non fire arms" 1864 or 13.67%.(those of you sharp are like, wow by now I"m sure)  I'm starting to think Gun Control fanatics are either getting faulty data or are less concerned about lives as just removing the big bad guns. "Hands/feet" 801 or 5.87%... That's more than double Rifles (assault or non assault rifles combined) (it's also more hen Rifles and Shot guns combined.... to be fair not by much. 5.62 is Rifles / Shot gun combined, but still hands and feet top it!)

Wait, the math.... we are still missing about 47%!  Hmm where could that 47% be? "Handguns" 6452/47.32%. (anime falls) So okay, if their concern was human life, clearly rifles are not the priority. Not necessarily something to be ignored but seriously! Get some perspective people! (The flu kills 3,000 - 46,000 each year which includes mostly kids and elderly and we generally DO find the cures to this every year! Sorry anti vaccine groupies, but you suck and fail at existence.)

If you combine the total deaths from school shootings defined as: Suicide, homicide at school, on the bus, on the way to or from school by guns from the continents of North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Australia from 1907 - 2012... and then compare it to lightning strikes in the U.S. and only those that result in death: you get a ratio of about 14.055/1 in favor of lighting strike deaths.

I'm not saying ignore the problem, I'm simply pointing out what's wrong with the reasoning here. Clearly, the priority of the "Assault Weapons ban" is not to save human life or even children life overall. Especially when you take the case of Columbine where laws were already in place to stop that shooting and failed. Maybe the NRA was correct, this time...

Doing the same thing over and over again like Obama, Feinstein, and the vast majority of gun control activists, really will fail... again, again, again. I need to stress here that the only reason I can find gun control fanatics use to justify their actions is preserving human life. At least they don't fail as badly as the Catholic Church has at fixing their pedophile issues. (Last I checked, the guy put in charge of that was arrested for child porn. What a shocker. o_O)

Enough though, we should cover this Assault Weapons ban, what they are saying it will do, and translate it from gun jargon to something we can all understand.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5: The Assault Weapons Ban, What it Does.


First, we have to get some terminology defined because people use so many terms in this discussion despite the fact they don't understand the meaning of them. So I'm going to try defining these words in a way that laymen and non gun buffs like me can actually understand without confusion.

-Automatic: Like a machine gun. Hold the trigger Rambo! This is military Grade! Hold the trigger down and it will shoot non stop.

-Semi Automatic: This is what the People get. Pull the trigger and hold it down, only 1 bullet comes out until you pull the trigger again.

-Bolt Action: Shoot, then pull the bolt out, pop out the metal case for the bullet, put in a new bullet, lock the bolt again, shoot, repeat.

-Magazine: What most call a clip, it's the thing you put bullets into that helps with reloading the gun between shots. When out of bullets, you change the magazine to reload it.

-Clip: The bullets are attached to it, and you load gun with built in magazine. Think the chain gun used in Predator.

-Automatic Weapon: U.S. Political broad term for weapons that are semi automatic, look visually similar to military grade weapons, are not bolt action, uses a magazine (regardless of how many bullets the magazine can old) in conjunction with other features like; a pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug. Please note this is a political term, not a technical term and therefore is subject to change at any time.

I need to take a moment and note what I see as a blatant attempt to mislead the General Public. You say "Assault Weapon" and people think machine guns like you see in movies or video games, etc. They do not think of hand guns or a shot gun with 4 bullets in it. The blatant attempt to prey on the fears of the masses upsets me so I must try extra hard to be unbiased in this part of the journal unless giving my opinion of course. Lets begin.

The Bill would establish certain accessories on a gun as "Bad Features." This includes folded stocks (the part you put against your shoulder) pistol grips (The part of the pistol you hold onto) or a magazine that can possibly hold 10 rounds or more (They have since changed it to what they call "High Capacity" or 30 bullets or more.) If a gun has any one or more "Bad Feature," it is considered an Assault weapon under their working definition. This would include guns with a built in magazine as well.

In my opinion, This magazine thing is just more preying on fears of the General Public. If a gun uses a magazine, why then could you not design a magazine for it with 10 bullets or more? Therefore, banning guns with "The possibility" of "using" magazines with 10 bullets or more really means: Ban Guns that use magazines/clips.  To be fair, they said 900 guns would be exempt by name but did not say which. It's possible for now, this problem might not be so extreme in the final draft. Of course it would go there eventually as every massacre results in an incremental escalation of more gun control laws that don't save any lives and that only law abiding citizens follow.

This law would ban varies guns by name which closes the loop hole of just changing features on said guns. It also bans "features" meant to prevent new guns with the same functions to hit the shelves with different names. Banned guns would no longer be manufactured in the U.S.

Guns already owned legally would be Grandfathered in. However all the shot guns, rifles (assault or not) and handguns grandfathered in would need to be registered the way machine guns are. This puts a lot of new regulations such as: cannot cross state lines without approval which currently takes 4-6 months to get. After the bill it would be millions of requests instead of the couple thousand currently. Lots of paperwork, background checks, pictures, fingerprints, police chief paperwork they must sign that would be generated for each individual gun. (This is not initial back ground checks, it's redundant ones, etc)  This is going to cost a large amount of money that we don't have.

Looking over the bill and then thinking about what happened at Sandy Hook, makes me ask what I feel is an obvious question.. "How is this bill going to have any effect on preventing or discouraging the incident from happening again?" In fact, making an argument for a single life being saved is hard and not firmly founded. Sure it can be done, "oh discourages gun sales" but by the same argument one could say that increases violence with guns. It's just not an argument. Really I can't make a single argument in how this would save any lives. The usual ones don't stand to any scrutiny.

Honestly, we are now faced with what this Bill is actually about. Registration. Extreme Registration, with random checks of documentation and verifying the guns are where they should be or face minimum 10 years in Federal prison. (even if the guns were stolen with how it was written last I checked.) Don't forget that this only targets legally owned guns by law abiding citizens. What concerns people like me is escalation. Where does the next step lead? Always to, confiscation and I value all our rights under the Constitution.

Is that all this is really about? It's not my place to speculate on their intentions but we at least know what isn't their intentions by their actions: Saving lives.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6: Closing


In closing, it has become clear that saving lives is not what concerns this current gun control push. At best, it attempts to fix 15% of guns used by criminals since 40% are from friends and family (legally bought) and 45% black market on the streets. It is good to fix 15% but only 1 or 2 parts of the entire plan the Obama Administration has posted effects this, and even just that creates Constitution Battles. Never mind that it doesn't really help in the end anyway. (Shrugs) In the end, I find the majority of people are too distracted or afraid to face the reality. As Ash said in the movie, Army of Darkness "Good, Bad, I'm the guy with the gun."

Too many people that want Gun Control for all the right reasons have no knowledge on the topic and thus act contrary to their goals. They say silly things like, "Less guns = less gun injuries" but California guns increased by millions and injury falls every year further by thousands. This no more proves more guns = less injuries then the opposite statistic would. This isn't an argument.

I personally do blame the pro gun control mob mostly because of their ignorance. People that like their guns are too busy trying to resist the silly actions Gun Control fanatics to do anything meaningful or helpful. "From my cold dead hands" and they wonder why those ignorant of guns get so scared.

Side note: "Nobody blamed the Light saber."  Just had to throw that in somewhere.

Religious people are very emotionally invested in what they believe to the point they only listen to other like minded people whenever gathering what they think is evidence to back up their claims regardless of what reality has to say. Gun control fanatics appear to be very emotionally invested from what I've seen and thus incapable or unwilling to objectively study the situation. Because I usually deal with Religion, perhaps that's why I feel able to relate to the Gun fans despite that I don't like guns. It's stressful trying to explain to things that cover their ears and shut their eyes, humming all the time.

When I started this project, I did not expect this result. I had anticipated a fair and reasonable discussion on both sides of the line. My assumption was it boils down to value judgments, a simple subjective difference of opinion. I was incorrect, which means I am now faced with telling the vast majority of Gun Control fanatics what i must say to Religious.


There is NO EXCUSE for your ignorance in the age of the Internet and Search Engines.

Grow up.


End




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7: Sources

My Journals usually have no source section it's generally just one book... their Holy Book. This has given me the bad habit of not keeping careful track of my sources when writing these so please bare with me as I site the ones I used for this one from memory as best I can.

1: Federal Bureau of Investigations. For any #'s used on death counts. Due to how many variables are involved in their process, there is a margin of error I didn't bring up nor cared enough too. The data is reliable enough to form the conclusions I made, and is unbiased enough for these purposes as well.

2: Wikipedia. I feel dirty using this but it served well in reminding myself about a few specific people and was a good refresher on previous shootings.
I also found a list of school shootings on it and their death counts. There is a margin of error in doing this but after debating the points with myself, I decided to use it. My points still stand even if you decided to double the death counts, hell even if you tripled them.

3: Google and various sites: Lightning strikes and death tolls from them. Went to multiple sites and don't remember which one I stuck with. The numbers i went with were conservative and focused on the U.S. only instead of world wide to help lower the margin of errors. Even though the numbers I used were shocking enough, the correct numbers are actually higher, probably by about 66%. I chose to error by being overly conservative, because the shock values are still high enough and it prevents people from arguing I'm padding the data since I'm doing the opposite.

4: Diane Feinsteins website for the Gun Laws drafted in her Bill. These aren't finalized yet, only drafted. (Update: Though these proved accurate enough in the official release from the Obama Administration after this journal was written.)

5: Gun Enthusiasts / store owner in the town. To explain what guns these law actually effects and to demonstrate things I didn't know since I am not a gun enthusiast, nor know a lot about the various types of guns that exist. I wouldn't know which guns are targeted, only what features were. They also showed me a lot of guns in the process so I could see and understand better.

6: The Obama Administrations plan released and covered by multiple news agencies. I went to the original PDF's instead of just a news story. Unlike T.V. and Newspaper news, I'm not a stenographer. I actually research things.
Note: As I wrote the journal, the story was evolving and overall insignificant changes have and will occur. Maybe the amount of bullets on a clip or magazine will change (They did, from 10 to 30), but my points would be relatively unchanged.
Update: and really weren't changed enough to matter anywhere in this journal.



Now, the next journal is actually finished already and just waiting me to type it from paper, and proof read it.  I'll be turning my gaze back to Religion, this time in the form of the 12 step Program.   I'm also considering doing some notes regarding marriage since a lot of Christians incorrectly believe their religion founded the practice despite the church not even writing it into Canon Law until 1563.   *shrugs*   we'll see.  
As for me, been dealing with a lot of stuff. I"d prefer not being a drama queen so I won't explain everything I've been dealing with. I'll draw again sometime when I'm up to it.


-CM

Hope you enjoyed the read.
Viewed: 49 times
Added: 5 years, 7 months ago
 
Sasparillafizz
5 years, 7 months ago
Mmm. Agree with your hypothesis and such in 3. If a guy is that determined, that he is GOING to inflict multiple murders of people this morning, making it inconvenient for him isn't gonna bloody stop him. "Gee. I can only get a pistol and not an AK, I guess I'll call it off." Is not going to cross his mind. "Gee, I can't get a gun. Guess I'll just mope and do nothing." Doesn't seem likely either. If hes so dead set to take the action, he'd kill his mother with his bare hands, a knife, or a random blunt object. Its premeditated, methodical desire to KILL. Not wound, not get upset and throw something across the room that knocks he over and accidentally breaks her neck, he intends to kill. Inconvenience acquiring a weapon is not going to be a deterrent by the time he has reached this decision.

As far as blanket solution goes, I'll also agree to there is none. I did like a bit by John stuart. I'm just gonna post the quick bit from the transcript since he puts it much more eloquently than I can:

"We're not looking for some magic... flying solving projectile.  We're looking for a series of steps from different areas that over time can improve the situation.  As opposed to what we have now, which is legislative riders snuck into appropriation bills that prevent the ATF from inspecting gun dealers' inventories, and bills that make it harder to put disturbed individuals on "do not buy" lists, and laws exempting gun makers from any legal accountability for their product."

I'm personally for most of the ones Obama put forward. As far as I can see they seemed fairly reasonable collectively. To the pro-gun folk who argue about tyranny and such, I'd honestly have to ask which of the proposals is the one raising red flags? The universal background checks? I know my state has a 7 day mandatory waiting period (usually a slightly longer 8-10 days because its slow) because state law has mandatory background checks. Heaven forbid you don't have same day service because they actually CHECK the 'Do not buy because this person has been hospitalized for severe mental disorders' list before handing over a loaded weapon to a stranger who walks into your store...
Sasparillafizz
5 years, 7 months ago
Erf. Stupid word limits.

That said I'm not blindly approving of "Rah rah. Get rid of the guns. People don't need guns. Only our military and police!" crap. None of the ones, specifically mentioned, in Obama's proposal rub me the wrong way and seem reasonable enough. And I do believe that guns in general on a private and state run level should continue. I just think we should have a smarter process of rooting out the worst troublemakers who would abuse them.
CrystalMendrilia
5 years, 7 months ago
I didn't read all this, just a part of your post caught my eye. I'm actually about to crash into bed. SLEEPY!    

BUT you said something that caught my eye. "None of the ones, specifically mentioned, in OBama's proposal rub me the wrong way and seem reasonable enough."  I don't think you read my journal. Not one of them actually does anything to help anything regarding gun violence.
CrystalMendrilia
5 years, 7 months ago
*Crashes into bed*
CrystalMendrilia
5 years, 7 months ago
Hmm, should point out Universal Background checks is something the NRA and most gun owners support and suggested first.

Regardless though, there are Constitutional questions about forcing background checks on private sales, such as Gun Shows.  Personally I think they should still be done if only for moral reasons. *shrugs*  But can't really credit Obama with that suggestion sadly.

8-10 days! Haha I have a friend that's into guns that sure wishes the wait was just that. xD    

Anyways, I'm in favor of saving lives, and combating violence which is why the Obama Administrations suggestions piss me off so much, since they do not address this. They ignore it.
Sasparillafizz
5 years, 7 months ago
I'll grant that. There's nothing they can do about illegal or guns stolen from friends/neighbors. But then again, what do you suggest they DO about that? If its illegally purchased, no laws will address that period. Illegal means of acquiring guns kinda ignore laws no matter what they say, it tends to be a requirement of 'illegal.' And stolen firearms its down to the safety measures of the one who purchased the gun. Closest thing they could do is require gun licenses to have safety tests like drivers licenses, on 'This is an appropriate way to store your gun. Do not loan your gun to others. etc'

I'll also grant that the various proposals in place right now don't raise and alarms with me particularly, likely because our state is already moderately strict on gun control. So nothing that has been proposed is more or less different than how its been for quite some time here. (An yet, my coworkers and friends still cheerfully acquire firearms and hit up the shooting ranges and such for fun without any serious impediment.) So I can see how it would be alarming from the states that you can basically do anything you bloody well want without repercussions because their laws are so much more lax.

For your part on the dealing with illegally acquired guns, the only way to really do that is for them to create a federal database on gun transactions; which they are prohibited from doing. They are also of course unable to take inventory of private sellers of firearms, so they cannot check to see if any of these guns are missing from their inventory or unaccounted for. Which is a serious problem for the illegal guns. Sellers are very much allowed to sell the gun illegally and say it is still in the back room on paper, and ATF is not allowed to do anything to prove otherwise without the gun seller giving them permission to check. I can see from the illegal search argument about this law, but it also means there is not much they can actually DO when they know it is being done.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/us/politics/gop-sena...
I recall them moving to renew those last month

But it'll be a much longer uphill battle to get those policies changed, especially since they are already in place. Its only been a couple months since the school shooting started the gun scare, your gonna have to wait a while to see any policy changes that have a meaningful impact. The ones pushing through now just seem fairly common sense ones when dealing with weapons who's main purpose and design are for the purpose of killing.
CrystalMendrilia
5 years, 7 months ago
See, you're asking me what do "I" think we should do. Since I don't have all the answers to everything in this world even if they are small problems created by us, I therefore should shut up or something.  I think we should be having the discussion, we should try and collectively solve the problem. Since we aren't and haven't been doing that at all, I think THAT is a problem and we should stop wasting our time. (assuming the goal is to save lives.)    

The idea regarding checks and all still would be only as effective as the DMV retesting people. Doesn't matter. the Drunk, is still dangerous. People know how to drive correctly, you see it every time a cop is nearby. The moment the cop hops along, most people go back to driving like idiots. You have parents that are crazy, buying guns for their crazy children. That's a problem. We ought to be discussing it, not magazine sizes which we almost have no control over anymore.

My problem with the current gun control proposals aren't raising some kind of "Alarm" It's that they are completely ineffective if your goal. None of the ideas are Rational if your goal is saving lives.  Effectively, they are A: Feel good laws, or B: Trying to get closer to the inevitable step of confiscation. Saving lives has nothing to do with it.

"So I can see how it would be alarming from the states that you can basically do anything you bloody well want without repercussions because their laws are so much more lax."

I feel that's off topic as a tangent. But I should point out in contrast from you, I live in one of the toughest gun control states in the Union. Diane Feinstein is from California.  ~_~   And whenever her stupidity fails in Washington, they still manage to get something like it passed here.  *shrugs*  But as I don't like guns, it doesn't effect me directly beyond our rights being infringed upon more and more.

Regarding your point about sales of illegal guns. While an actual issue and should be addressed, it's still an insignificant amount of illegally owned guns.    Cutting off supply isn't the answer anyway, that would only create another Al Capone. The answer lies in accepting the reality of, you will never be able to prevent 100% of murder unless we were to begin rewriting everyones brains through science.  Therefore, the aim is to curve the death tolls and encourage people to not want to do that.

Hmm,  "weapons who's main purpose and design are for the purpose of killing"      Odd statement to say when talking about Guns, that's kind of the point. :P   I can only assume you are referring to like, the AR15 that the Government is pretending to be a military grade weapon designed specifically to kill humans?   Hunting Rifle actually, but also excellent for home defense. I'd prefer one of those since a shot gun is so clumsy.   But then, I don't own any guns. Tempted too these days since to save money they are releasing felons on the streets, that way the government can keep paying their pensions to themselves....  ~_~
CrystalMendrilia
5 years, 7 months ago
By the way, I'm glad you're thinking on the topic! ^_^  
auramaster
5 years, 6 months ago
finally a person with a sound mind and a level head has done the proper research. i applaud you and your effort in writing this long list of facts. and i agree that people should learn the facts before spouting random nonsense.
CrystalMendrilia
5 years, 6 months ago
I actually made this far, smaller than my first two drafts because I was trying to keep it simple, and easy to understand.   Just, there's so much to cover with all the nonsense spouted here.  It was very... well, amazing to me just how absurd the arguments in favor of Gun Control are. When I started the project, I had expected an actual debate.
3timer
5 years, 5 months ago
Yo crystal.  Hope you don't mind some late comments.

Interesting journal, I had to put you in my watchlist so I'd remember to come back to it later.  I wanted to express my appreciation for your passion on the issue, especially considering your lack of interest in firearms.  I also wanted to gently correct you on some of the terminology and possibly expand it a bit.  "Magazine" is a generic term for ammunition storage for a repeating firearm.  They can be removable or built into the firearm.  For instance, the magazine on most (but not all) pump or semi-automatic shotguns is a tube directly under the barrel.  It cannot be removed without dismantling the weapon, but it can be loaded without removal.  "Clip" is a somewhat layman's term for any drop-out style magazine, more commonly used in reference to semi-auto pistols.  The chain gun (minigun) in Predator is actually belt fed.  The ammunition is all linked together in a long belt, or chain, of cartridges.  "Bolt-action" is not strictly a single shot weapon.  Some of them are, but most have an integral magazine that hold from two to five rounds.  The shooter still has to work the bolt between shots, but doesn't have to reload each individual cartridge into the receiver.  Drop-out magazines with up to ten rounds are not unheard of but larger magazines can make the weapon cumbersome since it is typically fired from a prone or rested position.  

Also you used "Automatic Weapon" where I believe you meant to say "Assault Weapon".  

Anyway, all the nit-picky stuff aside...

I don't care for that "one child saved" argument since as you said you can use it for almost anything.  What's more, how many people have to get robbed, raped and/or murdered to save that one child?  It's an argument based purely on emotion and the flawed logic that guns = dead children.  Seems to me that schools also equal dead children, so we should ban schools too.  Hell, if we do that I can practically guarantee that there will never ever be another massacre like what happened at Sandy Hook.  

Nobody talks about that.  Seems easier than gun control.  Get rid of a lot of bullying issues too.  What's more, whenever a child is abducted when does it happen?  Usually on their way to or from school.  When children have a schedule that everybody is aware of it makes it easier to hurt them.  Gun or no gun.

At any rate I respect your position, Crystal.  Nobody says you have to love guns.  It's a Bill of Rights, not a bill of requirements.  I'm just glad you have enough common sense to see through the B.S.  
CrystalMendrilia
5 years, 5 months ago
Oh how dare you respond late! I'm offended!   :P   Do people actually get mad at that?  o_O

Haha so I did use Automatic Weapon instead of Assault Weapon. xD   How did I not notice this?

Thanks for the explanations on the terms I had explained not so... accurately.   I actually knew all this but when I wrote the first part of the journal, my knowledge was lacking. Over time, I began to understand them better but never thought to back track and varify. ~_~  


Yeah you don't have to like something to be in favor of it. People should vote without the intention of taking away freedom just because they don't like "X."
3timer
5 years, 5 months ago
Some folks do get annoyed at necroposting and this subject has sorta fallen out of the news.  Also I wrote that after two days without sleep.  I'm amazed it's even legible.  

I don't know if you remember this, but they used to use the term "Black Guns" for what they call "Assault Weapons".  I don't know what became of that term.  I guess someone decided it sounded racist or at least it sounded like the guns were being marketed to African-Americans.  

One other thing I wanted to touch on was eluded to in one of your previous replies.  The gun show "loophole" that comes up every now and again.  I'm not sure who started this or why it never seems to die, but there is no loophole.  In order to set up a booth to sell guns at a show you have to be a licensed dealer.  A dealer must abide by the federal regulations and the regulations of the state that the show is physically taking place in.  So if a state has a 10 day waiting period for a pistol, the buyer still has to wait 10 days before receiving the firearm.  He/she may purchase the weapon at the show, but the weapon would have to go to a third party (typically the local police department) to hold until the law allows the purchaser to take possession of it.  

It is true that a private seller isn't required to make a federal background check on who they are selling to, however, many states do have laws concerning private sales that must be followed.  To do otherwise might put the seller at risk if the weapon did happen to be used in the commission of a crime somewhere down the line.  
CrystalMendrilia
5 years, 5 months ago
Heh, actually I never heard the term, "Black Guns" but political correctness certainly would have eaten that up.  It's like how you can't say "niggardly" without people playing the racism card out of their own ignorance.

There's a large discussion to be had about private sales which this "Loophole" thing really is about.   In the end though, it's bickering over what clearly isn't the big problem. It's focusing on the overall good citizens instead of the criminals.
Nachtfangen
5 years, 3 months ago
Pretty DAMN good.

Damn, where's the fav button!
CrystalMendrilia
5 years, 3 months ago
Glad you enjoyed the read. ^_^
Nachtfangen
5 years, 3 months ago
Honestly, you should take this journal and actually make a submission out of it so that we can fav and vote on it, and have it available at will.
I linked it to one of my SF journals for others to get a gander at (a few have actually dropped by to read) because it's a nicely logical argument laid out in a non-confrontational manner that is all too rare these days.
CrystalMendrilia
5 years, 3 months ago
Mmmm alright, I'll convert it to a submission. ^_^
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.