Less than an hour ago the rather lengthy discussion on gun regulations that had grown out of the re-awakened political debate about "Gun Control" was alive and well.
Now it appears to have vanished!
Where did it go?
'Dude
Where did the gun regulations sticky go?
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Seriously? It was the best, most reasonable discussion I'd read and I wasn't caught up. I attempted to go to the next page and its gone? I will be very upset if the only honest and noninflammatory discussion was just "pulled" for no reason. I really wanted to read the rest of it - it was the first discussion about gun rights that spanned a political spectrum and a geographical spectrum. Something that can't seem to happen in this country which I find very tiresome at best.
G
G
Indeed, if this was a moderator's decision I hope they will reconsider. Of the many discussions I've seen in the past few weeks, some on very reputable news websites, this one strayed the least of all into personal attacks and abusive language. Sure things became heated at times. Such is the nature of the subject, as it touches on some very deep emotions. But it never degraded nearly to the level of a Russ-style mudslinging match and I feel it was a debate which needed to continue, especially here on a site dedicated to safe uses of weapons.
OMG, is Russ still around. I'd have thought lightening would have struck him by nowGerard wrote:Indeed, if this was a moderator's decision I hope they will reconsider. Of the many discussions I've seen in the past few weeks, some on very reputable news websites, this one strayed the least of all into personal attacks and abusive language. Sure things became heated at times. Such is the nature of the subject, as it touches on some very deep emotions. But it never degraded nearly to the level of a Russ-style mudslinging match and I feel it was a debate which needed to continue, especially here on a site dedicated to safe uses of weapons.
If that was the case then just "lock" it, no further comments allowed. Yeah it was getting a little windy but did make for some good reading.I think it was getting pretty windy, though generally cordial. Maybe it served its purpose, but perhaps not, in that it was supposed to garner sympathy for the victims and families.
Maybe everything was said that needed to be said.
'Dude
I agree. Just lock it.justadude wrote:If that was the case then just "lock" it, no further comments allowed. Yeah it was getting a little windy but did make for some good reading.I think it was getting pretty windy, though generally cordial. Maybe it served its purpose, but perhaps not, in that it was supposed to garner sympathy for the victims and families.
Maybe everything was said that needed to be said.
'Dude
I had only made it halfway through and I found it very informative as the experiences of people from many different countries were brought up and it was, at least halfway through, extremely deferential and polite.
I hope the moderator reconsiders and puts the thread back up. As someone who enjoys guns but is more politically center left I found it very interesting to hear the spectrum of opinions. I was explaining to my wife last night how the thread was the first discussion I'd seen that didn't simply regurgitate NRA talking points and that I was looking forward to following it and learning more.
I'm very disappointed.
Gregor
I hope the moderator reconsiders and puts the thread back up. As someone who enjoys guns but is more politically center left I found it very interesting to hear the spectrum of opinions. I was explaining to my wife last night how the thread was the first discussion I'd seen that didn't simply regurgitate NRA talking points and that I was looking forward to following it and learning more.
I'm very disappointed.
Gregor
I agree. I had found an article with a very unique, non statistical viewpoint that I wanted to share. I guess here will do:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswa ... is-amoral/
Cheers,
Joel
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswa ... is-amoral/
Cheers,
Joel
Perhaps this is not related... but I can't help wondering if yesterday's use of a semi-auto rifle in the murders of 3 and injuries to 2 Swiss villagers might have been related? Switzerland being a country where there is an even heavier gun presence among the populace. And the weapon used being an 'SBR' or Scary Black Rifle, this one here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_SG_550
Perhaps this is overly cynical guesswork... but the coincidence of timing seems a little odd. Swiss man gets drunk, uses his service rifle to slaughter neighbours, potentially throwing fuel on the fire of the American 'assault rifle' debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_SG_550
Perhaps this is overly cynical guesswork... but the coincidence of timing seems a little odd. Swiss man gets drunk, uses his service rifle to slaughter neighbours, potentially throwing fuel on the fire of the American 'assault rifle' debate.
Yes, Gerard, you are making overly cynical guesswork. I did not know of this until you brought it up.
For the record, the post was deleted by a person here who was over aggressively deleting spam. Truly deleted, not moved to the trash forum. I looked for it or way to find the data and restore it earlier this morning. it's gone.
But since you brought up Switzerland, let me make a point. But first my condolences to my Swiss friends and those involved in this tragedy.
The point is, Switzerland is every anti-gunners worst nightmare on the discussion of "assualt rifles" Every male in the country of military age is required to keep a real assualt rifle in their home. Not the fake cosmetic "asualt rifle" that we are discussing ownership of here in the US. Those real assualt rifles, fully automatic "machine" guns have been highly regulated here in teh US since 1934, and the NRA in an attempt to be "reasonable" threw under the bus future ownership of those guns in 1986. But I digress. If the mere presence of an assault rifle created additional death/shooting/crime (insert your malfeasance of choice here) then Switzerland should be rampant with those deeds. But we know they are not.
And another point from Switzerland that shows just exactly how stupid gun laws are. In a country where 99% of the households have machine guns in them, do you know what kind of guns are outlawed? Pump shotguns! The same kind that every pro-ban politician will say is "allowed for hunting" per their twisted view of the 2nd Amendment. Why does Switzerland outlaw seemingly innocent pump shotguns? Because a gang used them to shoot up a judge and a courtroom several decades ago.
For the record, the post was deleted by a person here who was over aggressively deleting spam. Truly deleted, not moved to the trash forum. I looked for it or way to find the data and restore it earlier this morning. it's gone.
But since you brought up Switzerland, let me make a point. But first my condolences to my Swiss friends and those involved in this tragedy.
The point is, Switzerland is every anti-gunners worst nightmare on the discussion of "assualt rifles" Every male in the country of military age is required to keep a real assualt rifle in their home. Not the fake cosmetic "asualt rifle" that we are discussing ownership of here in the US. Those real assualt rifles, fully automatic "machine" guns have been highly regulated here in teh US since 1934, and the NRA in an attempt to be "reasonable" threw under the bus future ownership of those guns in 1986. But I digress. If the mere presence of an assault rifle created additional death/shooting/crime (insert your malfeasance of choice here) then Switzerland should be rampant with those deeds. But we know they are not.
And another point from Switzerland that shows just exactly how stupid gun laws are. In a country where 99% of the households have machine guns in them, do you know what kind of guns are outlawed? Pump shotguns! The same kind that every pro-ban politician will say is "allowed for hunting" per their twisted view of the 2nd Amendment. Why does Switzerland outlaw seemingly innocent pump shotguns? Because a gang used them to shoot up a judge and a courtroom several decades ago.
Thank you for clarifying this Pilkguns, and I regret somewhat having the smallest of suspicions regarding the 'motive' behind what turns out to have been an unrelated reason for losing that thread.
I just wrote a lengthy thing about rapid-fire shotguns and my perspectives on sport hunting... but this thread isn't that thread, so I'll drop it. Sorry for your loss of that discussion; as I've not been alone in saying, it had value. Whichever moderator deleted it ought to keep a note taped to their monitor reminding them to archive such things as 'hidden' or somesuch for a period before permanently deleting, after consultation with at least one other moderator. At least that's how I handled such judgment calls when I was moderating a tech forum for years... but this is your show, run it as you see fit, including nightly backups if that has value...
I just wrote a lengthy thing about rapid-fire shotguns and my perspectives on sport hunting... but this thread isn't that thread, so I'll drop it. Sorry for your loss of that discussion; as I've not been alone in saying, it had value. Whichever moderator deleted it ought to keep a note taped to their monitor reminding them to archive such things as 'hidden' or somesuch for a period before permanently deleting, after consultation with at least one other moderator. At least that's how I handled such judgment calls when I was moderating a tech forum for years... but this is your show, run it as you see fit, including nightly backups if that has value...
The avaliability of guns does not induce crime. These assault rifles are widespread in Switzerland and they are not generally used in crimes.pilkguns wrote:But since you brought up Switzerland, let me make a point. But first my condolences to my Swiss friends and those involved in this tragedy.
The point is, Switzerland is every anti-gunners worst nightmare on the discussion of "assualt rifles" Every male in the country of military age is required to keep a real assualt rifle in their home. Not the fake cosmetic "asualt rifle" that we are discussing ownership of here in the US. Those real assualt rifles, fully automatic "machine" guns have been highly regulated here in teh US since 1934, and the NRA in an attempt to be "reasonable" threw under the bus future ownership of those guns in 1986. But I digress. If the mere presence of an assault rifle created additional death/shooting/crime (insert your malfeasance of choice here) then Switzerland should be rampant with those deeds. But we know they are not.
And another point from Switzerland that shows just exactly how stupid gun laws are. In a country where 99% of the households have machine guns in them, do you know what kind of guns are outlawed? Pump shotguns! The same kind that every pro-ban politician will say is "allowed for hunting" per their twisted view of the 2nd Amendment. Why does Switzerland outlaw seemingly innocent pump shotguns? Because a gang used them to shoot up a judge and a courtroom several decades ago.
This basically show that guns do not equal crime.
This can also be food for thought to the US politicians and society. Are the presence of guns the reason for the rise of crimes in the US (if there is one, I have not properly researched this)?
Or are there other reasons that must be first adressed?
actually...
Actually, the shooter was among those few people in Switzerland who are not supposed to own guns.
from the Los Angeles Times:
"Officials said it was unclear how the suspect obtained the two guns used in the killings, one a 20th century military rifle historically used by Swiss militiamen. Police confiscated his weapons when he went into a psychiatric ward in 2005; records show no weapons owned by the man since, authorities said."
Of course, none of this "proves" anything.
FredB
from the Los Angeles Times:
"Officials said it was unclear how the suspect obtained the two guns used in the killings, one a 20th century military rifle historically used by Swiss militiamen. Police confiscated his weapons when he went into a psychiatric ward in 2005; records show no weapons owned by the man since, authorities said."
Of course, none of this "proves" anything.
FredB
-
bpscCheney
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Wisconsin
-
BenEnglishTX
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 8:34 pm
- Location: Texas
Would you like it recovered?pilkguns wrote:For the record, the post was deleted by a person here who was over aggressively deleting spam. Truly deleted, not moved to the trash forum. I looked for it or way to find the data and restore it earlier this morning. it's gone.
I've managed to get about 80% of it from Google cache. Page 2 is entirely missing and it's a good bet that the last few posts on each page are also gone. However, I've got a giant text file with most of the data.
If you'd like me to post it, say the word. It will have to wait until tomorrow when I have time to edit it; making a barely readable wall of text out of the mess that PHP boards create is time consuming and tedious but I could get it posted by sometime tomorrow.
-
BenEnglishTX
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 8:34 pm
- Location: Texas
So Rover, the obvious conclusion to be drawn from your rant is that EVERY citizen who wants a firearm for defensive use should have access to one, correct? But with poverty numbers as they are, and with violent crimes harming the poorest at the highest rates, the obvious first step (after changing government's mindset that is) would be to distribute free firearms and ammunition to those on welfare and those living on the street, correct? Or is the protection of property and the middle class/rich more in tune with the intentions of your founding fathers and their oh-so-relevant-today 2nd amendment?