Jump to content
philpot123

Gun rights/control/ownership

Recommended Posts

A "decent span of years" should actually be every year, if not sooner. Your mental stability can pretty much do a 180 in the span of hours.

 

 

Though, i dunno how ammo COULD be regulated--you could easily just hoard it, and then regulating how much you can buy does nothing. I can see a reasonable cap on the amount purchased each time, but aside from that...

Share this post


Link to post

Psychiatric evaluation on anyone requesting more than a single magazine of a hand sized gun, paid for by the individual. A one time test, or perhaps once every (decent spread of years). Everyone has the rights to a few bullets in self defense. Everyone after that has to take the responsibility of paying for a psych exam if they want to be able to unload a good amount of them at a range or wherever the excuse may be.

I do agree with mental evaluations and gun-handling tests for someone renewing or getting a gun license, and guns being properly registered and individual. The fact that I have a legit gun license should be enough for me to freely obtain rounds, since I already got my evaluation when I obtained my gun permit.

Edited by Shienvien

Share this post


Link to post

As far as her continuing to shoot, that's something I've been taught as well. I went through a friend having a restraining order against her husband threatening to kill her and her kids. Luckily, she works closely with the police and knows several officers. They were extremely clear and specific. If you shoot someone, you empty the clip. You make sure they stay down. Dead people, don't sue. I've no idea how common that advice is, but some other friends in other states who are officers have agreed with it when I mentioned it.

Share this post


Link to post
As far as her continuing to shoot, that's something I've been taught as well. If you shoot someone, you empty the clip. You make sure they stay down. Dead people don't sue. I've no idea how common that advice is, but some other friends in other states who are officers have agreed with it when I mentioned it.

I've heard that, too, granted. Even some official gun courses, in fact, instruct people to aim to kill should one shoot someone in self defense.

 

It's just that I personally consider an excess, and do not agree with it. If someone is clearly no longer a threat, I don't think dealing any more harm is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post

At the same time, I'm sure we both hope we won't be tested on whether we'd do that. I guess I feel badly for her being second-guessed harshly when already in a terrible situation. Hindsight is 20/20 etc.

Share this post


Link to post
At the same time, I'm sure we both hope we won't be tested on whether we'd do that. I guess I feel badly for her being second-guessed harshly when already in a terrible situation. Hindsight is 20/20 etc.

I can agree with the comment that I'd rather her situation not been politicized at all. But since it was, I had to comment, on which my comment was more supposed to be about gun culture than her actions specifically, although I did a horrid job getting that across. =(

Share this post


Link to post
For every crazy serial killer with a gun, there are over 400 million law abiding citizens with guns.

 

Just because theres a few "weirdos" doesnt mean we should have all our protection taken away.

It should be noted that there are far, far, far more safe and responsible people travelling on aircraft that there are hijackers. That didn't stop The USA instigating by far the most stringent travel security procedures going, though.

 

To a certain extent I wouldn't mind the position some people take if it weren't for the startling leves of hypocricy about it. I totally fail to understand why guns are so seperate and sacrosanct compared to everything else that has to be registered and regulated.

Share this post


Link to post
This has probably been mentioned before, but what I don't really get is that many of the same folks out there who have been railing about having the right to bear arms being necessary to protect against the tyranny of government are often the very same people arguing against any kind of cuts in the defense budget that has created a military that there is absolutely zero chance they can defend against.

While I agree that our military budget is bloated, the concept behind "protection from government" isn't a Rambo-ish desire to fight off the entire US armed forces from your fortified suburban home. It's the idea that if EVERYONE had a gun, or at least POTENTIALLY had a gun, the government would be far less likely to attempt anything ridiculously beyond their boundaries, because revolutions can and do happen. Any sane person would agree that if it came down to me vs. any sort of police/military, they'd be dead inside of a minute.

 

My point ~ I think semi-automatic guns should have some limitations but legal, and automatic guns should be illegal except for the military. I think whenever someone has a mental disability it should be illegal for them to own any firearms. I also think that previous criminals that have been found guilty of robbery, murder, or any other crime involving a gun, that it should also be illegal for them to own firearms for the next 15-30 years (depending on the crime.) Americans do, however, have a right to own guns and this should not be taken away from us; there is a reason the founding fathers made this an amendment.

 

What you've said is basically what the restrictions are now. Fully automatic rifles are illegal for civilians to own unless you possess a Class 3 weapons permit, something that is difficult to obtain. Anyone convicted of a felony or a violent crime is not permitted to purchase a firearm from a dealer.

 

As far as her continuing to shoot, that's something I've been taught as well. I went through a friend having a restraining order against her husband threatening to kill her and her kids. Luckily, she works closely with the police and knows several officers. They were extremely clear and specific. If you shoot someone, you empty the clip. You make sure they stay down. Dead people, don't sue. I've no idea how common that advice is, but some other friends in other states who are officers have agreed with it when I mentioned it.

 

That's the generally accepted advice. If you have to shoot, you shoot until you can't shoot anymore.

 

It should be noted that there are far, far, far more safe and responsible people travelling on aircraft that there are hijackers. That didn't stop The USA instigating by far the most stringent travel security procedures going, though.

 

To a certain extent I wouldn't mind the position some people take if it weren't for the startling leves of hypocricy about it. I totally fail to understand why guns are so seperate and sacrosanct compared to everything else that has to be registered and regulated.

 

Right, but the TSA is about the worst argument for more government control possible. Seriously.

 

Oh, and as far as consistency, I don't like vehicle registration either wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post

If someone invades my home by illegal entry to rob or kill a member of my family, they just gave up all their rights as far as I am concerned. I come from a family of law enforcement and my sons are in law enforcement and the military. You shoot to kill.

 

A person who breaks into a home, how many other times have they already done this. How many others have they killed. I do not feel sorry for people like this, as they sure do not feel bad about robbing or killiing their victims.

 

Thugs need to think about when they do bad things to others, and they are the ones that get shot, want to beg for their lives, well, they should have thought about that before they committed the crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Right, but the TSA is about the worst argument for more government control possible. Seriously.

 

Oh, and as far as consistency, I don't like vehicle registration either wink.gif

Oh, I wasn't using it as an argument for more government control in this case (I've worked security - the additional procedures we had for planes going to the US were a nightmatre). Largely because it *is* ridiculous. I was pointing out the inconsistencies of large numbers of people on this issue. More control on aircraft was accepted blindly and meekly after 9/11 - heck, a lot of people now ranting about losing their guns were the ones calling for it. It just makes me want to bang my head against a wall. I wouldn't mind so much if they were anti-government in *everything*, but so many of them only seem to become anti when the subject is guns.

 

I's hope you know by now that I have a fair bit of respect for you, Phil. I can't say I agree with you very often, but I do respect you. You actually *do* reason your views out, you are consistent about them, and you don't treat the rest of us like idiots for disagreeing with you. Debates of any kind would be much nicer places if both sides could behave like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Oh, I wasn't using it as an argument for more government control in this case (I've worked security - the additional procedures we had for planes going to the US were a nightmatre). Largely because it *is* ridiculous. I was pointing out the inconsistencies of large numbers of people on this issue. More control on aircraft was accepted blindly and meekly after 9/11 - heck, a lot of people now ranting about losing their guns were the ones calling for it. It just makes me want to bang my head against a wall. I wouldn't mind so much if they were anti-government in *everything*, but so many of them only seem to become anti when the subject is guns.

 

I's hope you know by now that I have a fair bit of respect for you, Phil. I can't say I agree with you very often, but I do respect you. You actually *do* reason your views out, you are consistent about them, and you don't treat the rest of us like idiots for disagreeing with you. Debates of any kind would be much nicer places if both sides could behave like that.

This.

 

I want to see more of this on the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
So...instead of responsibly contacting 911/the police, she contacted her husband (who made sure to take the time to remind her how to use a gun and then encouraged her to continuously shoot a man), then she shot a man an extraneous number of times in front of her children, and she's being heralded as a responsible gun owner?

 

I'm glad that she and the children stayed physically safe from the intruder, but really? That's supposed to be an example of responsibly using a gun?

 

Quite frankly, that's terrifying.

 

I'm certainly not going to deny that people have saved themselves with guns or that having a gun saved people from even being intruded, but I think that in this case having a gun in the house controlled her actions. Her mind was preoccupied with the gun and how it could protect her rather than trying to get safely out of the situation without having to use the gun.

This.

 

And

Although I did a horrid job getting that across. =(

 

You did an excellent job.

 

and @ MinervaClay re TikiniDragon (with whom I usually, and in this case, PARTICULARLY about airport control, agree):

 

This.

 

I want to see more of this on the internet.

A - Very-Men !

Share this post


Link to post
Oh yay. A slippery slope argument. You realise those are considered to be completely unfounded in most cases, and are generally not accepted in serious debates?

And Charlie Daniels is totally biased - well known for it. I think I might post a blog article myself, and link to it.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, I wasn't using it as an argument for more government control in this case (I've worked security - the additional procedures we had for planes going to the US were a nightmatre). Largely because it *is* ridiculous. I was pointing out the inconsistencies of large numbers of people on this issue. More control on aircraft was accepted blindly and meekly after 9/11 - heck, a lot of people now ranting about losing their guns were the ones calling for it. It just makes me want to bang my head against a wall. I wouldn't mind so much if they were anti-government in *everything*, but so many of them only seem to become anti when the subject is guns.

 

I's hope you know by now that I have a fair bit of respect for you, Phil. I can't say I agree with you very often, but I do respect you. You actually *do* reason your views out, you are consistent about them, and you don't treat the rest of us like idiots for disagreeing with you. Debates of any kind would be much nicer places if both sides could behave like that.

I wholeheartedly agree. Many of the same people who are railing against "dem lib'rals wantin to take muh guns" are the same crowd who praised Bush for his actions following 9/11. It's disgusting to me, on both sides. As someone who very much doesn't like the government, it bothers me when people champion certain liberties and ignore others. "You can trample our privacy rights, but dang you'll never get my guns!" I don't like that sort of inconsistency, no matter what camp it comes from. So we're on the same page here as far as our feelings towards them go tongue.gif

 

 

Thank you. I really appreciate that. I'd like to think that I've gotten a little more tolerable during my time here with you guys since I started frequenting the boards. I'm still in that wonderful time where I'm trying to cement my opinions and ideals and figure out how that looks in practical application, so I appreciate all of you guys bearing with me through these discussions these past months. As much as I disagree with almost everyone here, I can't say I don't like you guys smile.gif

 

Below is an article by Charlie Daniels

 

Precedent Teaches Us The Left Really Wants ALL Our Guns

 

http://cnsnews.com/blog/charlie-daniels/pr...ts-all-our-guns

 

FACT CHECK. Hitler didn't disarm Germany.

 

The Hitler Gun Control Lie

 

As much as I love listening to Charlie Daniels's music, that was a pretty poorly reasoned article... and this is coming from someone who doesn't support any sort of gun regulation, soo...

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post
I wholeheartedly agree. Many of the same people who are railing against "dem lib'rals wantin to take muh guns" are the same crowd who praised Bush for his actions following 9/11. It's disgusting to me, on both sides. As someone who very much doesn't like the government, it bothers me when people champion certain liberties and ignore others. "You can trample our privacy rights, but dang you'll never get my guns!" I don't like that sort of inconsistency, no matter what camp it comes from. So we're on the same page here as far as our feelings towards them go tongue.gif

 

 

Thank you. I really appreciate that. I'd like to think that I've gotten a little more tolerable during my time here with you guys since I started frequenting the boards. I'm still in that wonderful time where I'm trying to cement my opinions and ideals and figure out how that looks in practical application, so I appreciate all of you guys bearing with me through these discussions these past months. As much as I disagree with almost everyone here, I can't say I don't like you guys smile.gif

 

 

 

FACT CHECK. Hitler didn't disarm Germany.

 

The Hitler Gun Control Lie

 

As much as I love listening to Charlie Daniels's music, that was a pretty poorly reasoned article... and this is coming from someone who doesn't support any sort of gun regulation, soo...

See - you REASON ! wub.gif (and I would say that yes, you have - I wouldn't say mellowed xd.png but certainly honed the art of honest debate !)

 

And inconsistency is SO much unnoticed when people argue - thanks for bringing that one out of the forgettery ! Bush was just - awful post 9/11. And we are still living with the ghastly consequences - everywhere in the world. Not least the ludicrous so-called airport security.

Share this post


Link to post

We're having a debate about this on my debate team next week. I was placed on the side supporting strengthened gun control. I don't know a lot about this topic, so does anyone want to give me some pointers I can use?

Share this post


Link to post

One very important point to argue is that more gun control =/= taking guns from everybody. That's the biggest assumption I see people make, and it's generally wrong. Very few people actually want to perma-ban all guns.

Share this post


Link to post

Because I'm a gun owner and I use them responsibly, I really just want to throw out some ideas for people to chew on.

 

1. Gun laws will only affect the law-abiding.

 

2. If all guns were banned, the US would have a much harder time keeping guns from being smuggled in because a lot of people have spent a lot of time in Mexico figuring out how to get around a poorly-patrolled border. Unlike England, the US isn't an island, so it'd be assured that criminals could get guns and not citizens concerned for their safety.

 

3. You don't need to buy a military-grade silencer. You can make one out of a pop can and some duck tape.

 

4. Just because a gun looks very tacticool doesn't mean it's dangerous. The only things that make an M16 military issue is the auto and burst fire features. NEITHER is available to civilians, and renders and M16 into an ergonomic rifle. Doesn't even fire a big round.

 

5. user posted image

 

6. The USA has no mental health care system. It was abolished around the time of Reagan. Go look it up if you don't believe me, the Mental Health Systems Act. In fact, when I drive to school, I go right past an shut-up mental hospital that was just locked up and the key thrown away. That means people with mental health problems are just walking around, with no system and nobody to prevent them from doing harm (except their family.) Mental institutions for the criminally insane do NOT prevent crime, they only hold mental patients after those people have committed a crime.

 

7. All the recent shootings were committed by men in their early 20's, which is the same age that mental problems start to present themselves in men. All of these men were, to put it delicately, nuttier than a circus.

 

Just some stuff people may not be aware of.

Share this post


Link to post

6. The USA has no mental health care system. It was abolished around the time of Reagan. Go look it up if you don't believe me, the Mental Health Systems Act. In fact, when I drive to school, I go right past an shut-up mental hospital that was just locked up and the key thrown away. That means people with mental health problems are just walking around, with no system and nobody to prevent them from doing harm (except their family.) Mental institutions for the criminally insane do NOT prevent crime, they only hold mental patients after those people have committed a crime.

 

7. All the recent shootings were committed by men in their early 20's, which is the same age that mental problems start to present themselves in men. All of these men were, to put it delicately, nuttier than a circus.

 

Just some stuff people may not be aware of.

If there's no gun laws, wouldn't there be nothing stopping those kinds of people from obtaining guns legally?

Edited by Syaoransbear

Share this post


Link to post
2. If all guns were banned, the US would have a much harder time keeping guns from being smuggled in because a lot of people have spent a lot of time in Mexico figuring out how to get around a poorly-patrolled border. Unlike England, the US isn't an island, so it'd be assured that criminals could get guns and not citizens concerned for their safety.

The problem with your assumption here is where guns are produced - in this case, it's broadly the USA. There are more gun illegally smuggled *into* Mexico *from* the US than the other way around. We had a load of info on it brought up when we were discussing cartels.

 

So... don't think your point is valid on that one.

 

Although, again, most of us are not arguing for a total ban but for tighter regulation. The two are not one and the same thing.

 

I will note that it appears people in the UK have bought guns from US websites (and been jailed for it over here I might add). Are you guys seriously going to tell me that buying a gun over the internet doesn't seem more than a little worrying to you? Or the fact that there can have been no checks into the person & country the guns were being delivered to (because, hello, you can't tell me someone working in the firearms industry in the US doesn't know that most of them are illegal in the UK. I can also tell you that the sale would have been shut down the moment the retailer tried to make any checks with police in the UK.)?

Share this post


Link to post
Because I'm a gun owner and I use them responsibly, I really just want to throw out some ideas for people to chew on.

 

1. Gun laws will only affect the law-abiding.

 

2. If all guns were banned, the US would have a much harder time keeping guns from being smuggled in because a lot of people have spent a lot of time in Mexico figuring out how to get around a poorly-patrolled border. Unlike England, the US isn't an island, so it'd be assured that criminals could get guns and not citizens concerned for their safety.

 

3. You don't need to buy a military-grade silencer. You can make one out of a pop can and some duck tape.

 

4. Just because a gun looks very tacticool doesn't mean it's dangerous. The only things that make an M16 military issue is the auto and burst fire features. NEITHER is available to civilians, and renders and M16 into an ergonomic rifle. Doesn't even fire a big round.

 

5. user posted image

 

6. The USA has no mental health care system. It was abolished around the time of Reagan. Go look it up if you don't believe me, the Mental Health Systems Act. In fact, when I drive to school, I go right past an shut-up mental hospital that was just locked up and the key thrown away. That means people with mental health problems are just walking around, with no system and nobody to prevent them from doing harm (except their family.) Mental institutions for the criminally insane do NOT prevent crime, they only hold mental patients after those people have committed a crime.

 

7. All the recent shootings were committed by men in their early 20's, which is the same age that mental problems start to present themselves in men. All of these men were, to put it delicately, nuttier than a circus.

 

Just some stuff people may not be aware of.

1. Naive thinking to say the least. Yes, a criminal will always try to get the edge through illegal means. However if you make guns less common and more difficult to get hold of legally, it means that those who obtain the guns through shady legal means then sell them on illegally will find it more difficult to get the same quantity, and thus there will be less guns for sale illegally. It's as simple as maths gets; less guns overall means less guns for each side. Restricting sale of guns (as pointed out, you can by them in the marketplace and over the internet without requiring any background check and that is 'legal' by the American system) will mean it is more difficult for people to get hold of them, regardless of legal or illegal means.

 

2. As has been extensively and exhaustingly pointed out again and again, the problem is more guns being smuggled *into* Mexico. It's so tiresomely overdone that "Mexico = drugs lords wanting blood" that it is frankly racism.

 

3. Correct. But why do you need a silencer?

 

4 & 5. Semi-automatic means one round per pull...but it also means that the rifle will automatically load the next round, so you can still get through a 30-round magazine in a few seconds as you *tap-tap-tap* away. And why do you need such an aggressive-looking weapon if the only reason you need a gun for is hunting? And if you're going for defending your house (which, according to most supporters of keeping gun control as it is, or making it more lax, seems to be a nightly occurrence for Americans), a Ruger is a poor choice. A handgun would be a far better choice - smaller so more convenient to hide and keep to hand, easier to use in close quarters, easier to aim as well since you need the less room to bring it to bear, and you can use one-handed and still have a good enough aim.

 

6. Closing down 'mental hospitals' is more recognising that you cannot segregate mental health from the rest of the health disciplines so cleanly, and thus moving them to integrate into the wider health system. You do still have care communities that specialise in mental health, but mostly it's accepted that you need to have the wider knowledge. You do have a mental health system, but since your entire health system is at best third-world it means your mental health system is appalling to say the least.

 

7. False, on so many levels. Men don't just randomly go 'nutty' in their 20s. Mental health can occur in anyone at any age, and often those with mental health issues don't actually show signs/admit to their mental health problem until a while (sometimes years or decades) after it actually begins. So are you advocating that all men in their 20s are just crazy and shouldn't be allowed guns at all?

 

Just some stuff you were wrong on.

Share this post


Link to post

I myself laughed at the article that Charlie Daniels wrote.

 

These gun laws are going to hurt the law abiding citizens. You are always going to have thugs, criminals and murderers. These people are like drugs, you will never stop it.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with your assumption here is where guns are produced - in this case, it's broadly the USA. There are more gun illegally smuggled *into* Mexico *from* the US than the other way around. We had a load of info on it brought up when we were discussing cartels.

 

So... don't think your point is valid on that one.

 

Although, again, most of us are not arguing for a total ban but for tighter regulation. The two are not one and the same thing.

 

I will note that it appears people in the UK have bought guns from US websites (and been jailed for it over here I might add). Are you guys seriously going to tell me that buying a gun over the internet doesn't seem more than a little worrying to you? Or the fact that there can have been no checks into the person & country the guns were being delivered to (because, hello, you can't tell me someone working in the firearms industry in the US doesn't know that most of them are illegal in the UK. I can also tell you that the sale would have been shut down the moment the retailer tried to make any checks with police in the UK.)?

In Canada, you can have a rifle shipped straight to your door. I could order a semi-automatic SKS with a 10 round box magazine from the internet and get it delivered TO MY HOUSE. In America, gun purchases from internet ordering sites must go through a federally licensed firearms dealer. Of course, this is assuming it's a legitimate website. I've heard whisperings of Deep Web sites where getting illegal guns delivered to your door is not unheard of, but that's already outside the realm of legality.

 

4 & 5. Semi-automatic means one round per pull...but it also means that the rifle will automatically load the next round, so you can still get through a 30-round magazine in a few seconds as you *tap-tap-tap* away. And why do you need such an aggressive-looking weapon if the only reason you need a gun for is hunting? And if you're going for defending your house (which, according to most supporters of keeping gun control as it is, or making it more lax, seems to be a nightly occurrence for Americans), a Ruger is a poor choice. A handgun would be a far better choice - smaller so more convenient to hide and keep to hand, easier to use in close quarters, easier to aim as well since you need the less room to bring it to bear, and you can use one-handed and still have a good enough aim.

 

It looks "aggressive," but it's more practical. Synthetic stock makes it lighter, collapsing butt stock allows for shooters of different builds to comfortably operate the gun, tactical rails allow you to affix sites and flashlights, etc... It's not just made to look scary.

 

Have you seen the statistics of how often firearms are used in self defense? It may be statistically unlikely that I personally will have to defend my home, but chances are there are thousands of people who have done so in the past days.

 

Actually, a handgun isn't all that great for home defense. Shotguns are preferable. Regardless, rifles are used in home defense situations quite often, actually.

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.