Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Ron Paul Criticizes NRA's Plan

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 7:46:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So I just saw this news story about how Ron Paul has become the "first Republican" to criticize the NRA's proposal for school safety, pointing out that that only increases the power of the government. You can read more, including his whole statement, here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

I really like his analysis for the most part (not so much his analysis that religion needs to be reemphasized in our culture). But that's how I've always been with Ron Paul. On the whole, he's spot on.

What do you think?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 8:02:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
He isn't the first republican:

http://www.theblaze.com...

The article even stated "first republican congressman", not first "republican". Although, I find the claim he's the first republican congressman to be quite unprovable.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 8:11:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's a good first step, but it is much more costly then repealing the gun free zone act of 1990.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 8:15:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 8:02:08 PM, darkkermit wrote:
He isn't the first republican:

http://www.theblaze.com...

The article even stated "first republican congressman", not first "republican". Although, I find the claim he's the first republican congressman to be quite unprovable.

Love Chris Christie.

Wayne LaPierre is a reactionary who offered a reactionary solution that only works on a reactionary basis. He, because he thinks only of how to use guns to solve a gun problem, came up with something that would further gun ownership. Other than the fact that this treats symptoms rather than prevents causes, this opens the potentiality of school zones becoming urban close combat war zones. His ideal is that armed guards could shoot and kill an assailant... and that would minimize the collateral damage.

A better solution would keep the weapons that enable that sort of carnage to take place off the streets. Like requiring mental health screening for gun ownership, creating a national gun registry and requiring safety classes once every five years and and an intensive gun education class before being issued a firearm license. I'd be OK with six month waiting periods too. Moreover, I would place limits on the amount of ammunition any one person could own or buy at a given time.

I would couple this with fines in the tens of thousands of dollars for illegal gun possession, illegal ammunition stockpiling and twenty five year labor camp (in russian style labor penal colonies) sentences for domestic arms dealers.

The point is to make the penalties SO severe that no law abiding citizen would consider even having a gun illegally and that ONLY those who TRULY wanted guns would be willing to go through the certification process which -I would argue- should also be paid for exclusively by those persons who wish to own guns. This would also apply to people who already own guns, who desire to continue to own guns after the passage of the legislation I'm advocating for here.
Tsar of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 10:12:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 8:15:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/28/2012 8:02:08 PM, darkkermit wrote:
He isn't the first republican:

http://www.theblaze.com...

The article even stated "first republican congressman", not first "republican". Although, I find the claim he's the first republican congressman to be quite unprovable.

Love Chris Christie.

Wayne LaPierre is a reactionary who offered a reactionary solution that only works on a reactionary basis. He, because he thinks only of how to use guns to solve a gun problem, came up with something that would further gun ownership. Other than the fact that this treats symptoms rather than prevents causes, this opens the potentiality of school zones becoming urban close combat war zones. His ideal is that armed guards could shoot and kill an assailant... and that would minimize the collateral damage.

A better solution would keep the weapons that enable that sort of carnage to take place off the streets. Like requiring mental health screening for gun ownership, creating a national gun registry and requiring safety classes once every five years and and an intensive gun education class before being issued a firearm license. I'd be OK with six month waiting periods too. Moreover, I would place limits on the amount of ammunition any one person could own or buy at a given time.

I would couple this with fines in the tens of thousands of dollars for illegal gun possession, illegal ammunition stockpiling and twenty five year labor camp (in russian style labor penal colonies) sentences for domestic arms dealers.

The point is to make the penalties SO severe that no law abiding citizen would consider even having a gun illegally and that ONLY those who TRULY wanted guns would be willing to go through the certification process which -I would argue- should also be paid for exclusively by those persons who wish to own guns. This would also apply to people who already own guns, who desire to continue to own guns after the passage of the legislation I'm advocating for here.

I, partially, agree. Much of what you say (mental check, background check) are actually already on the books, and enforcing them is what the NRA has been pushing. I also agree we should raise penalties for illegal weapons, as that does not affect gun ownership rates nor does it infringe the second amendment. Raising penalties for illegal weapons, in my opinion, will not increase crime like a lot of gun control does. I see no downside.

Now, I disagree on prohibiting assault weapons. These guns are used in less than one percent of violent crime. So, even if we assume these controls work, it only has (at maximum) a 1% benefit. Now, there is something known as the "substitution effect". Criminals would have two options: obtaining guns illegally (your proposal would only affect the law abiding, not criminals who are planning to hurt others. It is also easy to construct weapons with minimal tools). Criminals, assuming they don't enter a black market, give away their guns, and/or decide not to use the weapon due to increased penalties (unless they plan on murder, suicide, or believe they can avoid charges) would substitute their weapons. They would opt for handguns or legal long guns. So, likely, the net effect is zero. As false as it seems, Gary Kleck in Targeting Guns: Firearms And Their Control actually proves "assault weapons" are used less in crime than in any other firearm, as assault weapons are harder to conceal they prefer pistols. Interestingly, not one peer-revewed study has shown the 1994 assault weapons ban was effective. The DOJ study (can be accessed here: https://www.ncjrs.gov...) failed to produce any benefit of the 1994 assault weapons ban, and that the ban cannot be attributed to the nations drop in gun crime. And I don't see why you say guns that can be used in these massacres. "assault" weapons actually work the same way as a normal hunting rifle, and are less deadly. My hunting rifles are 30 calibers, and the AR-15's are .223, about the same diameter of a .22 long rifle, with only more gun powder. Further, the AR bullet causes smaller holes (so less chance of death) then a hollow point .45 would because their ammunition does not allow for an expanding or explosive actions on impact. An AR-15 is really no different from any other weapon, neither is an AK-47 (though the AK has a larger round than the AR). Really, if you are focused on weapons in massacres, you would need to ban all semi-automatics, as all of the shooters have handguns on their person. This video shows AR's are the same as other hunting rifles.
=

This study is not refuting your post, however it shows free zones in schools have increased school violence.
http://www.davidkopel.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 11:23:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 10:12:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/28/2012 8:15:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/28/2012 8:02:08 PM, darkkermit wrote:
He isn't the first republican:

http://www.theblaze.com...

The article even stated "first republican congressman", not first "republican". Although, I find the claim he's the first republican congressman to be quite unprovable.

Love Chris Christie.

Wayne LaPierre is a reactionary who offered a reactionary solution that only works on a reactionary basis. He, because he thinks only of how to use guns to solve a gun problem, came up with something that would further gun ownership. Other than the fact that this treats symptoms rather than prevents causes, this opens the potentiality of school zones becoming urban close combat war zones. His ideal is that armed guards could shoot and kill an assailant... and that would minimize the collateral damage.

A better solution would keep the weapons that enable that sort of carnage to take place off the streets. Like requiring mental health screening for gun ownership, creating a national gun registry and requiring safety classes once every five years and and an intensive gun education class before being issued a firearm license. I'd be OK with six month waiting periods too. Moreover, I would place limits on the amount of ammunition any one person could own or buy at a given time.

I would couple this with fines in the tens of thousands of dollars for illegal gun possession, illegal ammunition stockpiling and twenty five year labor camp (in russian style labor penal colonies) sentences for domestic arms dealers.

The point is to make the penalties SO severe that no law abiding citizen would consider even having a gun illegally and that ONLY those who TRULY wanted guns would be willing to go through the certification process which -I would argue- should also be paid for exclusively by those persons who wish to own guns. This would also apply to people who already own guns, who desire to continue to own guns after the passage of the legislation I'm advocating for here.

I, partially, agree. Much of what you say (mental check, background check) are actually already on the books, and enforcing them is what the NRA has been pushing. I also agree we should raise penalties for illegal weapons, as that does not affect gun ownership rates nor does it infringe the second amendment. Raising penalties for illegal weapons, in my opinion, will not increase crime like a lot of gun control does. I see no downside.

Now, I disagree on prohibiting assault weapons. These guns are used in less than one percent of violent crime. So, even if we assume these controls work, it only has (at maximum) a 1% benefit. Now, there is something known as the "substitution effect". Criminals would have two options: obtaining guns illegally (your proposal would only affect the law abiding, not criminals who are planning to hurt others. It is also easy to construct weapons with minimal tools). Criminals, assuming they don't enter a black market, give away their guns, and/or decide not to use the weapon due to increased penalties (unless they plan on murder, suicide, or believe they can avoid charges) would substitute their weapons. They would opt for handguns or legal long guns. So, likely, the net effect is zero. As false as it seems, Gary Kleck in Targeting Guns: Firearms And Their Control actually proves "assault weapons" are used less in crime than in any other firearm, as assault weapons are harder to conceal they prefer pistols. Interestingly, not one peer-revewed study has shown the 1994 assault weapons ban was effective. The DOJ study (can be accessed here: https://www.ncjrs.gov...) failed to produce any benefit of the 1994 assault weapons ban, and that the ban cannot be attributed to the nations drop in gun crime. And I don't see why you say guns that can be used in these massacres. "assault" weapons actually work the same way as a normal hunting rifle, and are less deadly. My hunting rifles are 30 calibers, and the AR-15's are .223, about the same diameter of a .22 long rifle, with only more gun powder. Further, the AR bullet causes smaller holes (so less chance of death) then a hollow point .45 would because their ammunition does not allow for an expanding or explosive actions on impact. An AR-15 is really no different from any other weapon, neither is an AK-47 (though the AK has a larger round than the AR). Really, if you are focused on weapons in massacres, you would need to ban all semi-automatics, as all of the shooters have handguns on their person. This video shows AR's are the same as other hunting rifles.
=

This study is not refuting your post, however it shows free zones in schools have increased school violence.
http://www.davidkopel.com...

I'll read over the study, but the first words that come to mind based on what I have heard to the argument that gun free zones increase school violence are post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Tsar of DDO
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 11:47:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 7:46:44 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So I just saw this news story about how Ron Paul has become the "first Republican" to criticize the NRA's proposal for school safety, pointing out that that only increases the power of the government. You can read more, including his whole statement, here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

I really like his analysis for the most part (not so much his analysis that religion needs to be reemphasized in our culture). But that's how I've always been with Ron Paul. On the whole, he's spot on.

What do you think?

Why do people care what that nut thinks?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 12:00:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You've got to realize though that the whole "armed guards" argument is no more than the NRA saying "f*ck you, we aren't giving an inch."

Its purposefully crafted to be politically infeasible. It's like if someone said "would you be willing to trade beans for chickens?" and the other replies "sure, if i can f*ck your mom first." Its not a serious opening bid fir negotiations.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 12:03:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 12:00:57 AM, Wnope wrote:
You've got to realize though that the whole "armed guards" argument is no more than the NRA saying "f*ck you, we aren't giving an inch."

Its purposefully crafted to be politically infeasible. It's like if someone said "would you be willing to trade beans for chickens?" and the other replies "sure, if i can f*ck your mom first." Its not a serious opening bid fir negotiations.

Notice how the news cycle is startong to focus on the nra impossible reform so actual reform loses the spotlight until enough time has passed since the shootings.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 12:09:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Assault rifles are designed to be used in conjuction with light machineguns, mortars, rockets, and a variety of other small arms. They are deadly, because they are able to lay down an accurate base of fire, which helps suppress the enemy. That in and of itself does not make the assault rifle a deadlier weapon than a handgun or a shotgun, and I'd say that a handgun or shotgun taken by themselves are far more deadly than an assault rifle.

No, the assault rifle only really shines as a killing tool when it is combined with the suppressive fire of a squad automatic weapon. Its accurate fire and higher volume of ammo make it effective for fire and manuever, which can only happen when suppression has been established. The assault rifle shines in urban warfare, but only when supported by military shotguns and explosive charges. The assault rifle shines in rural warfare, but only been supported by indirect fire weapons and armored vehicles.

To sum it up, the assault rifle is not designed to be an efficient weapon for crime or even for home defense. The assault rifle isn't even the center of gravity in an infantry squad-the SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) is. The weapon is designed to work in conjuction with other military grade small arms weapons. Without the supporting weapons or squad, the assault rifle is less useful than the common handgun.

A handgun can be concealed, the gunfire isn't nearly as loud and it is less likely to give away your position. The handgun is superior for self-defense, because it can be carried easily on your person. With that said, there is no logical reason to ban assault rifles. Assault rifles are only useful in one self-defense situation, and that's a situation where looting in rampant and law enforcement are unable to protect citizens; and in this situation, the assault rifle is far more useful to the law abiding citizen than it is to the criminal.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 12:17:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 11:23:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/28/2012 10:12:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/28/2012 8:15:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/28/2012 8:02:08 PM, darkkermit wrote:
He isn't the first republican:

http://www.theblaze.com...

The article even stated "first republican congressman", not first "republican". Although, I find the claim he's the first republican congressman to be quite unprovable.

Love Chris Christie.

Wayne LaPierre is a reactionary who offered a reactionary solution that only works on a reactionary basis. He, because he thinks only of how to use guns to solve a gun problem, came up with something that would further gun ownership. Other than the fact that this treats symptoms rather than prevents causes, this opens the potentiality of school zones becoming urban close combat war zones. His ideal is that armed guards could shoot and kill an assailant... and that would minimize the collateral damage.

A better solution would keep the weapons that enable that sort of carnage to take place off the streets. Like requiring mental health screening for gun ownership, creating a national gun registry and requiring safety classes once every five years and and an intensive gun education class before being issued a firearm license. I'd be OK with six month waiting periods too. Moreover, I would place limits on the amount of ammunition any one person could own or buy at a given time.

I would couple this with fines in the tens of thousands of dollars for illegal gun possession, illegal ammunition stockpiling and twenty five year labor camp (in russian style labor penal colonies) sentences for domestic arms dealers.

The point is to make the penalties SO severe that no law abiding citizen would consider even having a gun illegally and that ONLY those who TRULY wanted guns would be willing to go through the certification process which -I would argue- should also be paid for exclusively by those persons who wish to own guns. This would also apply to people who already own guns, who desire to continue to own guns after the passage of the legislation I'm advocating for here.

I, partially, agree. Much of what you say (mental check, background check) are actually already on the books, and enforcing them is what the NRA has been pushing. I also agree we should raise penalties for illegal weapons, as that does not affect gun ownership rates nor does it infringe the second amendment. Raising penalties for illegal weapons, in my opinion, will not increase crime like a lot of gun control does. I see no downside.

Now, I disagree on prohibiting assault weapons. These guns are used in less than one percent of violent crime. So, even if we assume these controls work, it only has (at maximum) a 1% benefit. Now, there is something known as the "substitution effect". Criminals would have two options: obtaining guns illegally (your proposal would only affect the law abiding, not criminals who are planning to hurt others. It is also easy to construct weapons with minimal tools). Criminals, assuming they don't enter a black market, give away their guns, and/or decide not to use the weapon due to increased penalties (unless they plan on murder, suicide, or believe they can avoid charges) would substitute their weapons. They would opt for handguns or legal long guns. So, likely, the net effect is zero. As false as it seems, Gary Kleck in Targeting Guns: Firearms And Their Control actually proves "assault weapons" are used less in crime than in any other firearm, as assault weapons are harder to conceal they prefer pistols. Interestingly, not one peer-revewed study has shown the 1994 assault weapons ban was effective. The DOJ study (can be accessed here: https://www.ncjrs.gov...) failed to produce any benefit of the 1994 assault weapons ban, and that the ban cannot be attributed to the nations drop in gun crime. And I don't see why you say guns that can be used in these massacres. "assault" weapons actually work the same way as a normal hunting rifle, and are less deadly. My hunting rifles are 30 calibers, and the AR-15's are .223, about the same diameter of a .22 long rifle, with only more gun powder. Further, the AR bullet causes smaller holes (so less chance of death) then a hollow point .45 would because their ammunition does not allow for an expanding or explosive actions on impact. An AR-15 is really no different from any other weapon, neither is an AK-47 (though the AK has a larger round than the AR). Really, if you are focused on weapons in massacres, you would need to ban all semi-automatics, as all of the shooters have handguns on their person. This video shows AR's are the same as other hunting rifles.
=

This study is not refuting your post, however it shows free zones in schools have increased school violence.
http://www.davidkopel.com...

I'll read over the study, but the first words that come to mind based on what I have heard to the argument that gun free zones increase school violence are post hoc ergo propter hoc.

He gives more empirical data later on.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 11:01:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 8:15:25 PM, YYW wrote:
Love Chris Christie.
Why? He's an annoying FF RINO.

Wayne LaPierre is a reactionary who offered a reactionary solution that only works on a reactionary basis.
He's reactionary responding a week later, but not all those in the media that were calling for severe gun control even while the bodies were still at the scene. Right.

He, because he thinks only of how to use guns to solve a gun problem, came up with something that would further gun ownership.
What's wrong with furthering responsible gun ownership? If I'm not mistaken, it's irresponsible gun ownership that got us this mess: aka, the cause not the symptom.

Other than the fact that this treats symptoms rather than prevents causes, this opens the potentiality of school zones becoming urban close combat war zones.
I think you need to look up the word potential: I do not think it means what you think it means.

His ideal is that armed guards could shoot and kill an assailant... and that would minimize the collateral damage.
Are you disputing that?

A better solution would keep the weapons that enable that sort of carnage to take place off the streets.
He did not obtain the gun legally; ergo, he might have been able to obtain it illegally. Perhaps you would feel better if he had done this with hand guns, or machete, or explosives? Talk about treating the symptoms...

Like requiring mental health screening for gun ownership...
Already the case, as he was turned sown repeatedly for firearm ownership.

...creating a national gun registry and requiring safety classes once every five years and and an intensive gun education class before being issued a firearm license.
Besides it being the case in many states (aside from the firearms registry, which only hand guns are a part of in most states) these great ideas have done and/or could have done NOTHING to prevent the tragedy.

I'd be OK with six month waiting periods too. Moreover, I would place limits on the amount of ammunition any one person could own or buy at a given time.
Controlling the amount of ammo a person can own is not reasonably possible: how do you know what they have? How do you know what they spent? Not to mention that it would create a huge black market for ammo. Again, this would have done nothing to prevent what happened as the guns were obtained illegaly.

I would couple this with fines in the tens of thousands of dollars for illegal gun possession, illegal ammunition stockpiling and twenty five year labor camp (in russian style labor penal colonies) sentences for domestic arms dealers.
How very constitutional and civil of you! Yet again, this would have done NOTHING to prevent what happened.

The point is to make the penalties SO severe that no law abiding citizen would consider even having a gun illegally and that ONLY those who TRULY wanted guns would be willing to go through the certification process which -I would argue- should also be paid for exclusively by those persons who wish to own guns. This would also apply to people who already own guns, who desire to continue to own guns after the passage of the legislation I'm advocating for here.
And the end result of your symptom treating? Would not have prevented what happened. What happened was an irresponsible adult that taught her mentally ill son to be proficient with a variety of firearms, including an assault riffle, and then kept said fair arms unsecured in a household with a mentally disturbed person. What's unfortunate is that the shooter didn't turn the gun onto himself immediately after pumping 4 rounds into is sleeping mother's face.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.