Gun rights/control/ownership

[Kestra15]

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem, including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.

Like how you've yet to comment on this?

[Vhale]

You said you were posting a counter and mention anti-gun mentalities. I posted Biden to point out that it's not exactly anti-gun. As MANY people have continuously pointed out but get ignored. We aren't anti-gun. I have a gun. I've hunted. But, I'm still allowed to laugh at morans who buy a gun, have no training and abuse the privilege of owning it. And fact is, there are people with a vested, monetary interest in convincing them to behave that way.

[Slaskia]

You said you were posting a counter and mention anti-gun mentalities. I posted Biden to point out that it's not exactly anti-gun. As MANY people have continuously pointed out but get ignored. We aren't anti-gun. I have a gun. I've hunted. But, I'm still allowed to laugh at morans who buy a gun, have no training and abuse the privilege of owning it. And fact is, there are people with a vested, monetary interest in convincing them to behave that way.

I know the majority of you folks here don't want to ban all guns, hell, techniclaly I am very 'anti-gun' as I hate them, but I am not about to deny people's rights to them. I'm not against some form of gun control (mandatory training classes, storage requirements, etc: a gun is more dangerous to everyone around when the person doesn't respect or know how to use it properly!).

 

Notice I said 'some' gun control: what certain reps in the government want to do is too heavy handed for even my tastes. They just want to treat the symptom of the gun violence (the guns), not the source (people).

[demonicvampiregirl]

I hope you aren't really serious here. If gun bans were put into effect, the ONLY people to have guns would be the "robbers" - and law abiding citizens would be defenseless.

Your comment sounds like you think that if guns were banned then there would be none? They would cease to exist?

 

Let's put it into perspective.. drugs are illegal/banned. So does that mean that no one has or uses drugs?

 

Exactly.

 

Criminals will always be able to get a gun on the black market if they want to. And believe me, they will not hesitate to do so.

 

I am a proud member of the NRA and a gun owner. I don't hunt, but my reasons for owning firearms are the same as what Phil said in his second post. (And to protect myself and family in my home)

 

100% against gun control of any kind here.

I can agree. All these laws and crap they wish to put on people will only stop the honest people from having one. Criminals wont give a damn about any laws and will get what they want/need to do whatever they are trying to do.

 

There's 5 guns in this house and when I move out I may actually get one of my own for home protection. I wont use it until I need to. I wont hunt with it I wont threaten one with it.

 

Want to know why?

 

I was taught not to.

 

Something kids these days aren't anymore. They just give them iPhones, iPads and everything else to keep them out of the way or keep them busy. Like I've said before teach people this kind of thing and if you think they are a threat take some action and try to stop them before it starts.

 

People want to blame video games and movies and all other forms of entertainment for these kinds of things when it's not the over all problem. They need to be taught that those are just fake and not real and you can't do them. The news is also a problem me and my dad got into a conversation about how all they report about is mostly fear based things if it isn't celebrity related. (Main reason why I even stopped watching the news anymore.)

 

I been playing violent video games since I was 4 and have no desire to go shoot someone just because I can in a video game. That's what the video games are for is so you can do things you can't do in real life. Irritates the crap out of me that people want to look into these video games and put the blame on them. :/

[Vhale]

I know the majority of you folks here don't want to ban all guns, hell, techniclaly I am very 'anti-gun' as I hate them, but I am not about to deny people's rights to them. I'm not against some form of gun control (mandatory training classes, storage requirements, etc: a gun is more dangerous to everyone around when the person doesn't respect or know how to use it properly!).

 

Notice I said 'some' gun control: what certain reps in the government want to do is too heavy handed for even my tastes. They just want to treat the symptom of the gun violence (the guns), not the source (people).

My apologies then I took your post the wrong way. I pretty much agree with all that.

 

I think the problem is both sides can at least agree that people aren't being taught to use guns properly. The problem is, is there anything the government can do besides require registration with classes? IE a drivers license? Because if families aren't teaching, and won't, that's all that is left.

[philpot123]

The daily /facepalm

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/20707...hter-for-grades

 

 

 

Amusing comment about the article

 

Well, there's one more idiot who won't ever be allowed to own a gun again. And we can all be happy about that. In my state, pointing a firearm at someone you don't intend to shoot in self-defense is a felony, loaded or unloaded. I didn't see specified if that was a felony conviction in that state, but any sort of violent misdemeanor will keep you from legally obtaining a firearm in some states.

 

I think the problem is both sides can at least agree that people aren't being taught to use guns properly. The problem is, is there anything the government can do besides require registration with classes? IE a drivers license? Because if families aren't teaching, and won't, that's all that is left.

 

My libertarian sensibilities lead me to the conclusion that seeking out gun safety courses is absolutely a responsibility that every gun owner has; however, the government shouldn't enforce it. So no, there really isn't anything the government can do except require that, and I personally don't think they should.

Edited January 27, 2013 by philpot123

[Alpha1]

Sadistic?? How? Do you have any idea how much bigger the wound cavity would be if I used my .45 with hollowpoint rounds instead of my AK?

 

A ballistic tip like Hornady zombie/SST is a better comparison to your HP .45 rounds than mil spec combloc fodder. A 30-30 is its ballistic twin. You think your handgun is better than that?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/263931

 

“Wounds inflicted by high velocity, center-fire rifles firing hunting ammunition are radically different from wounds caused by handguns or .22 rim-fire rifles. Injuries from pistol or .22 rim-fire bullets are confined to tissue and organs directly in the wound track. In contrast, high velocity rifle bullets can injure structures without actually contacting them. This is due to the temporary cavity produced by such missiles with the resultant shock waves having pressures of up to 200 atmospheres (20 MPa). Organs struck by such high velocity rifle bullets may undergo partial or complete disintegration. Hunting ammunition, as it passes through the body, tends to shed fragments of lead from its core, producing a characteristic snowstorm picture on X-ray.”

 

Still could have prevented access to the gun that wasn't his. That was her fault.

 

He could have tricked her into opening the safe.

 

There are hunting rifles with 10 round fixed magazines that can be reloaded with stripper clips in a very short amount of time.

 

Then don’t make them like that or don't allow speed loaders for revolvers and other guns? I know that horse is already out of the barn, so it’s not really politically feasible, but the point is that it could be limited. Look how many AR-15 magazines are on back order, yet there are older hunting rifles where it’s hard to even find a replacement or look at hinge floor plates (not possible to lose) or blind magazines.

 

No, I don't think they should be. Now obviously that's never going to change, but according to what I believe to be the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment AS IT STANDS, civilians should be allowed to possess a fully automatic firearm if they so choose. Whether or not that's OKAY is up for debate, but I believe that, properly understood, the constitution grants that right.

 

What about a portable nuclear weapon?

 

 

Scalia answered, “What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was, I believe, a misdemeanor.

 

So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood was reasonable limitation.”

 

Define comparable. I'm not saying gun rights is the same as civil rights, but I'm saying that in regards to this specific situation, Rosa Parks did not "need" to sit at the front of the bus. She had no demonstrable, quantifiable need to sit in that particular seat. She had a fundamental right to do so if she so wished, and she exercised that right. Whether or not I need my AK is not the issue, the issue is the fact that I have the fundamental right to own it.

 

It isn't that simple. Go look up the effects of segregation. They also didn’t need to go to the same restrooms, drink from the same fountains, go to the same schools, etc. In comparison, if semi-auto rifles are gone, you still have bolt action, sliding-block, break, lever, pump, and inline muzzleloaders.

 

Abortion is a much more subtle approach to slaughtering innocents. I imagine you're just playing devil's advocate here, though.

 

No, I’m being serious. It always seems like they value the guns much more than the unborn.

 

The vast majority of guns owned are semi-automatic. Most hunting rifles, any pistol that isn't a single action revolver. If you banned semi-auto weapons, that's basically a blanket ban on almost everything that could be effective for any conceivable use.

 

:/ I’m pretty sure most rifles used for medium/big and dangerous game are bolt action, and most shotguns are pump action.

 

[philpot123]

A ballistic tip like Hornady zombie/SST is a better comparison to your HP .45 rounds than mil spec combloc fodder. A 30-30 is its ballistic twin. You think your handgun is better than that?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/263931

 

“Wounds inflicted by high velocity, center-fire rifles firing hunting ammunition are radically different from wounds caused by handguns or .22 rim-fire rifles. Injuries from pistol or .22 rim-fire bullets are confined to tissue and organs directly in the wound track. In contrast, high velocity rifle bullets can injure structures without actually contacting them. This is due to the temporary cavity produced by such missiles with the resultant shock waves having pressures of up to 200 atmospheres (20 MPa). Organs struck by such high velocity rifle bullets may undergo partial or complete disintegration. Hunting ammunition, as it passes through the body, tends to shed fragments of lead from its core, producing a characteristic snowstorm picture on X-ray.”

Clearly it depends on the type of ammo. I can't afford zombie, so I've got Russian surplus FMJ. My .40 or .45 is going to do a lot more damage to any intruder than my AK will

 

He could have tricked her into opening the safe.

 

So there's a best-case hypothetical and a worst-case hypothetical. Still a better chance if she had taken proper precautions.

 

Then don’t make them like that or don't allow speed loaders for revolvers and other guns? I know that horse is already out of the barn, so it’s not really politically feasible, but the point is that it could be limited. Look how many AR-15 magazines are on back order, yet there are older hunting rifles where it’s hard to even find a replacement or look at hinge floor plates (not possible to lose) or blind magazines.

 

Sure it COULD be limited in production and purchase. But that doesn't change the fact that the SKS with a fixed 10 round box magazine is one of the most widely available rifles in both North America and Canada. They're everywhere!

 

What about a portable nuclear weapon?

 

Scalia answered, “What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was, I believe, a misdemeanor. So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood was reasonable limitation.”

 

I don't believe anyone should possess a nuclear weapon, civilians or governments. As that isn't feasible, I can't reasonably defend myself with a portable nuke without endangering myself, so it's completely impractical. I would say (and this is probably terribly inconsistent of me) that nuclear weapons are a whole class to themselves that don't really fit under the 2nd Amendment definition of "arms" because of their nature. Ideally, people would realize that and nobody would have them. In an imperfect world, no, I don't want the right to own a nuclear warhead.

 

It isn't that simple. Go look up the effects of segregation. They also didn’t need to go to the same restrooms, drink from the same fountains, go to the same schools, etc. In comparison, if semi-auto rifles are gone, you still have bolt action, sliding-block, break, lever, pump, and inline muzzleloaders.

 

All analogies are flawed. It's simply a way to state that rights have nothing to do with "need."

 

No, I’m being serious. It always seems like they value the guns much more than the unborn.

 

I agree! In fact, I posted this on my facebook wall mere days ago.

 

Guns and abortion

(linked for size)

 

It's terribly inconsistent of us to claim abortion is murder and then to fight harder for our right to have semi-auto weapons than we do for the rights of the unborn. You're absolutely right. And that's a perfectly legitimate criticism.

 

:/ I’m pretty sure most rifles used for medium/big and dangerous game are bolt action, and most shotguns are pump action.

 

I apologize, "most" was a hasty, incorrect wording. MANY hunting rifles are semi-automatic. I own several in smaller calibers, my friend owns two 30-06 semi-automatic deer rifles, and the SKS is a popular, cheap gun for hunting. Semi-auto shotguns are getting increasingly popular, but yes, most are pump action.

[Alpha Gryph]

My libertarian sensibilities lead me to the conclusion that seeking out gun safety courses is absolutely a responsibility that every gun owner has; however, the government shouldn't enforce it. So no, there really isn't anything the government can do except require that, and I personally don't think they should.

I just like to stalk the debate topics, but I was confused on this stance. Wouldn't it frighten you to have a bunch of people with guns, who weren't trained to use them responsibly? I feel like if people weren't required to do safety training, a lot of them would flat out not do it...

[philpot123]

I just like to stalk the debate topics, but I was confused on this stance. Wouldn't it frighten you to have a bunch of people with guns, who weren't trained to use them responsibly? I feel like if people weren't required to do safety training, a lot of them would flat out not do it...

No, because I don't think that's what it would be like. As it is, there are no safety requirements to purchase a firearm. If someone wants to learn how to use it properly, it's a personal responsibility issue. So that half of it (gun ownership) is like it is now. Let someone of legal independent age purchase a firearm with no required training. As it stands, most people don't leave it there. Most people do not simply purchase a firearm and never learn to use it or safely handle it. The number of gun owners who seek out further training with their firearm FAR outweighs the number of irresponsible gun owners. Think about the fact that, according to some estimates, there are at least three MILLION AR-15 rifles in private hands across the country. Three million. How many of those get used maliciously? Very few, considering "murders with rifles" is one of the lowest-rate categories of violent crime. How many of them aid in accidental deaths? Some, but I'd hazard a guess that most accidental firearm deaths are due to handguns, not rifles. Proportionally, the idea that people should take responsibility for their own course of action in safety training seems reasonable. It's just common sense. Sure, there are people that don't do it. But that's part of personal liberty. Some people are idiots, and they should be free to be idiots, and be punished when they harm someone else.

 

The second part of this whole libertarian ideal is gun carry without a permit. It sounds pretty scary, but realize that there are at least two states that allow unpermitted open carry if you are of a certain age. They don't have an obscene violent crime rate. I'm not going to say that the low violent crime rate is BECAUSE of firearms carried in an open manner, but I believe we can say that there is not much evidence to suggest that those areas have seen an increase in crime simply because anyone who wants to can carry a gun on their hip.

 

It all boils down to the fact that I don't like the government, and I don't like government control. I do like personal liberty, and I'd like as much of that as possible. I believe there's benefits to such a system both in principle and in practicality.

[skauble]

It all boils down to the fact that I don't like the government, and I don't like government control. I do like personal liberty, and I'd like as much of that as possible. I believe there's benefits to such a system both in principle and in practicality.

I think that the issue comes when you have a conflict of rights.

 

Citizens have a right to life. When we talk about not being allowed to do things like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, we're talking about the balance between the right to free speech and where that conflicts with people's right to live.

 

Gun violence is a pretty big problem this society struggles with, and I think that it brings the issue in line with the idea of the conflict of the 2nd amendment right and a person's right to life. The trick, of course, is to secure one right with the most minimal effect possible on the other.

 

If background checks, waiting periods, permit requirements, and the like are shown to have a demonstrable impact (which, frankly, we'd know better if we could do more record keeping and data collection in regard to all of this), then I think that it can't be looked at purely through the scope of how it restricts one right without also weighing if it measurably secures another.

 

The fact is, that to have a society, there needs to be some order in it. And that's not just about protecting life, it's that society flourishes in an environment with a certain amount of stability and security. And I would submit that we have placed some limitations on rights that haven't slippery sloped away our freedoms.

 

For instance, I would argue that the 1st amendment is actually more important than the 2nd, and yet we don't allow people to perjure themselves in court, to call in false police reports, to slander people and ruin their livelihood. We've been able to create those limits and, when carefully applied, they don't restrain the intended goal of protecting speech in the first place.

 

Which isn't to say that I think that this should be undertaken lightly. I think that all changes like this should be very carefully weighed and very thoughtfully carried out and I think that they should be subject to rigorous review so that things that end up not being effective can be undone.

 

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.

 

I don't disagree with that, but I think that it needs to be noted that, at this point, that's not the situation. And unless we're going to seriously scale down our military some then I do think that the "fighting against government tyranny" is a somewhat disingenuous bases for much of the debate because we're intentionally creating a situation where a successful revolution is almost entirely impossible. And while I understand that you, and others, may agree that military spending is kind of overwhelming, I do think it's worth pointing out, when this subject finds its way to the public stage again, as it has now, that many of the people citing that as the reason they need guns are the very same people who are infuriated by any suggestion that we cut defense in this country.

[skauble]

Also, Section 4 of Article II in the U.S Constitution;

 

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

 

And now, taken from a quote of the U.S law on Wikipedia...

 

"The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence says the following in regard to constitutionality:

 

    The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void. (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)"

 

Original Article;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality

I might be way off here (that tends to happen to me a lot ), so please correct me if I've misunderstood - are you saying that the president has done something treasonous in conjunction with the gun control issue?

 

If that was the meaning, then I have two problems with it:

 

One, laws that are eventually ruled unconstitutional get passed all the time. That's why we have the courts, to review those laws and strike down those that are in violation. But we generally don't see either the supporting or passing of those laws as treasonous.

 

Now, if the president refused to respect the court's ruling and purposefully enforced a law that the Supreme Court had struck down, that would be another story. Which leads to...

 

Two, the Supreme Court has said that the 2nd amendment isn't an absolute, blanket right. So I don't think that there's any treason in exploring what might be considered appropriate limits. At the end of the day we know that someone will take any new laws through the courts, so it's not like anything is being suggested that they aren't planning to have reviewed.

[Alpha1]

Clearly it depends on the type of ammo. I can't afford zombie, so I've got Russian surplus FMJ.

 

You can't afford it? How many people have you killed?

 

SST/V-max is the same thing. Zombie is just marketing to hook survivalists.

 

My .40 or .45 is going to do a lot more damage to any intruder than my AK will

 

Depends if the FMJ is also steel core or not. You realize, though, that 9 mm +p, 40S&W, .45 ACP, and .357 SIG with current JHP perform similarly?

 

“That's when Stevens went to his car and grabbed his .45 caliber pistol.

According to Col. Greg Phares, "[Mr. Stevens] orders Mr. Temple to stop and get off the officer. The verbal commands are ignored and Mr. Stevens fires four shots, all of which struck Mr. Temple."

 

Perry Stevens fired four shots into Temple's torso. Officer Harrison had already fired one shot into Temple's abdomen. With Temple still struggling with the officer, Perry continued to advance toward the scuffle.”

 

That 1911’er must have been shocked.

 

So there's a best-case hypothetical and a worst-case hypothetical. Still a better chance if she had taken proper precautions.

 

I don’t see how it would have mattered. She undoubtedly had some “quick response” weapons, too. Besides the family describing him as having AS and being a loner, was there anything that would have barred him from purchasing a long gun?

 

Sure it COULD be limited in production and purchase. But that doesn't change the fact that the SKS with a fixed 10 round box magazine is one of the most widely available rifles in both North America and Canada. They're everywhere!

 

You said this previously, “My AK is functionally identical to most hunting rifles.”

However, a lot of hunting rifles are like 3+1 or 4+1 or even 1+1 if WSSM.

 

As that isn't feasible, I can't reasonably defend myself with a portable nuke without endangering myself, so it's completely impractical.

 

Allah hu akbar

 

I would say (and this is probably terribly inconsistent of me) that nuclear weapons are a whole class to themselves that don't really fit under the 2nd Amendment definition of "arms" because of their nature. Ideally, people would realize that and nobody would have them. In an imperfect world, no, I don't want the right to own a nuclear warhead.

 

How about hand grenades? If not, what about this new grenade launcher?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25_CDTE

 

All analogies are flawed. It's simply a way to state that rights have nothing to do with "need."

 

Someone could argue that you gain little utility from owning a semi-auto with lots of detachable magazines while there’s more potential gain from disallowing it.

 

I apologize, "most" was a hasty, incorrect wording. MANY hunting rifles are semi-automatic. I own several in smaller calibers, my friend owns two 30-06 semi-automatic deer rifles, and the SKS is a popular, cheap gun for hunting. Semi-auto shotguns are getting increasingly popular, but yes, most are pump action.

 

“Paul A. Smith, outdoors editor for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, has stated that while assault rifles "have gained favor among some hunters and sport shooters in recent decades, they constitute a small fraction of deer hunting rifles in use today."

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bolt_action.htm

 

“The rifle action of choice for most shooters today is the bolt action. I have read that there are more bolt action rifles in use today than any other kind.”

 

You’ll also hear the sentiment that the bolt action is inherently more accurate a lot, and it is cheaper.

 

[blackhilllife]

Alrighty...

This has been an amusing thread to go through.

I've noticed two things here.

One - most of the anti-gun posters are a) young live in a city, and c) are great at regurging the popular opinion of the day.

Two - and most thankfully, you appear to have never been a victim.

 

I carry concealed. Every where.

You will never know that if you are in public with me. That's ummm...what concealed means kiddies.

So there is absolutely no way what so ever that I'm affecting you, or your business/pleasure if we are out in public at the same time.

 

And if you are going to spend all your outing being paranoid that someone around you IS carrying a gun...then who is actually affecting your good time outing...you, yourself...or the grandmotherly, good looking woman walking across the mall from you, sitting at the next table over in the restaurant, or sitting two rows behind you in a movie theater.

 

I will have guns in my home for protection, and on the privacy of my own property, I will carry a side arm...unconcealed...on my person to protect my livestock, my self, and my children from any danger that would come along.

 

I'm really uninterested in any gun control rhetoric, personally, because long after they attempt to ban gun ownership, I will still have a concealed carry permit, and will continue carrying a weapon every where I go, and the only time some young anti-gun person would know I was carrying a weapon, would be when I push them down, cover their body, and defend their life from some crazed idiot trying to mass murder the public.

And if it ends up being MY bullet between the eyes of the crazed shooter, I will go home content, happy, and satisfied that the young, anti-gun person lived to vote...even if it is against my personal rights.

 

Love,

Your local (hot) grandmotherly LEO

[TikindiDragon]

One - most of the anti-gun posters are a) young live in a city, and c) are great at regurging the popular opinion of the day.

Two - and most thankfully, you appear to have never been a victim.

Hrrrm, wrong on at least two counts in my case.

 

Wether or not I'm 'young' depends on your definition of said. I'm cartainly old enough that I have nieces & nephews (noting that I was the oldest child).

 

I live in a rural area, thank you.

 

I have drawn my own conclusions about things, and certainly my opinion is not influenced by American popular opinion, as I don't live in the US (and if you knew much about politics in the UK it would become ragingly obvious that I reject rather a lot of popular opinion here)

 

You are right that I have never been a victim. And, yes, I am thankful for that. I will also note that as I live in a country with pretty strict gun-control laws the liklihood of my becoming a victim of gun crime is also significantly lower than that of someone in the US (and, w/regards other crime, see my previous comment about living in a rural area - rural crime rates are pretty low in the UK. Certainly where I am).

 

I still would argue that you need tighter gun laws in the US, though.

[MURDERcomplexx]

This probably adds fuel to the big gun control debate going on in congress right now, but there was another school shooting in Atlanta which is pretty much less than an hour from my campus.

 

Here's the link

 

I've lost count of how many of these things have happened recently that the news has been covering.

It seems like way more than usual though.

[Obscure_Trash]

One - most of the anti-gun posters are a) young live in a city, and c) are great at regurging the popular opinion of the day.

Two - and most thankfully, you appear to have never been a victim.

Please define anti-gun. Are you speaking of those who wish to ban assault weapons or just those of us who want gun regulation?

 

It's also rather wrong to come in and imply someone's opinion is lesser because of the reasons you listed. That's not addressing any of the arguments.

Edited February 1, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler

[blackhilllife]

Sock Puppet Strangler...

anti gun= guns are bad, I hate guns and they should all be taken away, no one should own a gun, etc., none of which address the argument either.

But they are their opinions, as I have mine. Deal.

Edited February 2, 2013 by blackhilllife

[KageSora]

Sock Puppet Strangler...

anti gun= guns are bad, I hate guns and they should all be taken away, no one should own a gun, etc., none of which address the argument either.

But they are their opinions, as I have mine. Deal.

I hope you certainly aren't lumping all of the people who support gun control into that category, though.

 

Seeing as then you wouldn't have actually read the thread at all, as several of us have stated we're not for banning guns, just tighter regulation.

 

(I just woke up from a nap, brain is a bit sleepy, so I'm just checking that you DO only mean the people who have been 100% anti-gun)

[Vhale]

No, because I don't think that's what it would be like. As it is, there are no safety requirements to purchase a firearm. If someone wants to learn how to use it properly, it's a personal responsibility issue. So that half of it (gun ownership) is like it is now. Let someone of legal independent age purchase a firearm with no required training. As it stands, most people don't leave it there. Most people do not simply purchase a firearm and never learn to use it or safely handle it. The number of gun owners who seek out further training with their firearm FAR outweighs the number of irresponsible gun owners. Think about the fact that, according to some estimates, there are at least three MILLION AR-15 rifles in private hands across the country. Three million. How many of those get used maliciously? Very few, considering "murders with rifles" is one of the lowest-rate categories of violent crime. How many of them aid in accidental deaths? Some, but I'd hazard a guess that most accidental firearm deaths are due to handguns, not rifles. Proportionally, the idea that people should take responsibility for their own course of action in safety training seems reasonable. It's just common sense. Sure, there are people that don't do it. But that's part of personal liberty. Some people are idiots, and they should be free to be idiots, and be punished when they harm someone else.

 

The second part of this whole libertarian ideal is gun carry without a permit. It sounds pretty scary, but realize that there are at least two states that allow unpermitted open carry if you are of a certain age. They don't have an obscene violent crime rate. I'm not going to say that the low violent crime rate is BECAUSE of firearms carried in an open manner, but I believe we can say that there is not much evidence to suggest that those areas have seen an increase in crime simply because anyone who wants to can carry a gun on their hip.

 

It all boils down to the fact that I don't like the government, and I don't like government control. I do like personal liberty, and I'd like as much of that as possible. I believe there's benefits to such a system both in principle and in practicality.

Back along this line (sorry it took me awhile to get back to it)

 

I think the only method that might be, hrm, palatable? to both sides would be a free market solution. IE, one would assume if having a gun did make you safer, it would stand to reason that your home owner insurance and general health care insurance would go down. Kind of akin to taking a Defensive Driving class to get your car insurance down. But I would guess, simply owning a gun would not be enough to encourage companies to do that. I would guess taking a self defense class or training would. But in theory, if having a gun granted a significant advantage in health, protection etc, one would think insurance companies would offer a better commercial rate for those that show they follow that path. Maybe some do?

 

I know I was required to take CPR certification when we ran a daycare in our house. However, while everyone in that house owned several guns, they never checked to see if they were locked up. Never questioned our proficiency. Never asked about them at all. Generally speaking, they were much more concerned about potential abuse or neglect than protection.

[~Kat~]

Alrighty...

This has been an amusing thread to go through.

I've noticed two things here.

One - most of the anti-gun posters are a) young live in a city, and c) are great at regurging the popular opinion of the day.

Two - and most thankfully, you appear to have never been a victim.

 

I have to agree with you about the young people.

 

I also agree with the rest of what you posted.

 

[NobleOwl]

One - most of the anti-gun posters are a) young  live in a city, and c) are great at regurging the popular opinion of the day.

Two - and most thankfully, you appear to have never been a victim.

 

A. I don't consider myself young. Maybe from some stretch of the imagination. I mean, to my grandmother I'm still a baby and to my children I'm ancient.

 

B. I live in a city currently, but I was raised on a reservation, and you can't get much more rural than that.

 

C. I think guns are important. My wife has extreme moral scruples about farmed meat, as she believes it destroys the animal spiritually, so I am quite accustomed to her going out and coming back with food. However, that said, I do believe limitations are necessary.

 

2. I've been shot before, accidentally, and my wife has been shot three times now -- all not accidentally.

[Dark-Azkrin666]

Just here to give my short & to the point opinion on guns.

 

While I do not like them in practice and will likely never own one. I do believe it is sadly a necessary evil and will likely for a long time be a necessary evil.

 

Necessary Evil (how I see it) = Something dangerous used to counter itself and other dangers

[greatguy]

Just here to give my short & to the point opinion on guns.

 

While I do not like them in practice and will likely never own one. I do believe it is sadly a necessary evil and will likely for a long time be a necessary evil.

 

Necessary Evil (how I see it) = Something dangerous used to counter itself and other dangers

I agree. I'm nonviolent as a rule, and I wouldn't use one even in self-defense. I do think people should be allowed to own them though.

[grammydragon]

Before anyone calls for a ban on any type weapon or ammunition, they

should read the actual 2nd amendment. I don't see where it says the

right is limited to only having a single shot weapon to be used for hunting

of small wild animals, or limited to use for skeet shooting at a club range.

I would be more interested in holding Eric Holder responsible for the

weapons furnished to illegal and/or foreign owners. Or to put the same

restrictions on gun shows that retail stores have.

 

Soon our government will be telling us what names we are allowed to

use or give our children just like Iceland, Germany, and Denmark do

already: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21280101