Ban Assault Weapons

[calmstateofmind]

By the same logic, no one would be killed by drunk drivers if we stopped everyone from owning cars. Are you personally willing to give up owning or driving your own private property to save lives?

No, we would have no deaths from drunk driving if nobody drove drunk. .. ... .... .......

If someone broke into my house to steal my TV and computer, I'd let them instead of killing someone over $10k worth of plastic. I'm still going to get reimbursed from my insurance (or if I don't have insurance for monetary reimbursement, life still goes on). And if a person is that bad off to where they have to go to extremes, such as breaking into my house to get some cash, go right ahead. That doesn't mean I welcome it, or that I won't try to defend it, but I'm not going to kill someone over a TV or a few possessions. Even if I had a gun I wouldn't shoot to kill, I'd shoot to cripple.

Every one of the mass shootings that have occurred since Columbine have been perpetrated by mentally unstable persons who needed psychiatric help. Given that these mass shootings are the result of someone who is mentally unstable, and you even state in the above quote that there will always be outlying situations and that you can't base a rule off the exceptions, why do you deny your own admission and continue to push for banning all firearms for all people; that makes no sense!

Because there are other ways of preventing occurrences like that from happening than to issue every single person in the US a gun. I'm not saying police officers or special, authorized individuals couldn't have a gun of some sorts, but when we're holding guns that fire automatically and have 20-30 bullets per round in them, that's getting carried away.

Preventing a few hundred deaths a year but causing tens of thousands of deaths a year doesn't add up to me. You're fighting fire with fire, and the fire only going to get bigger and more out of control as time goes by.

 

[calmstateofmind]

Simply look at Australia and their gun ban. After it went into effect, violent crimes went up.

How about the UK? The Bobbies are now armed.. in a place where guns are banned. Why do they need to be armed? Because all the criminals with guns!

Because when an officer is called to a situation, there's already a known status of the situation; one that may require a gun because there's a mob of people, or someone is held hostage, or someone else has a gun and is killing people, etc. Cops and civilians play completely different roles in society, and a police officer's role alone would permit the idea of carrying a more lethal weapon than a civilian. As well, cops spend months and even years getting trained on how to react to high stress situations, on how to handle and use dangerous weapons, and are constantly being audited of their performance. The same can not be said for everyone's next door neighbor.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

No, we would have no deaths from drunk driving if nobody drove drunk. .. ... .... .......

If someone broke into my house to steal my TV and computer, I'd let them instead of killing someone over $10k worth of plastic. I'm still going to get reimbursed from my insurance (or if I don't have insurance for monetary reimbursement, life still goes on). And if a person is that bad off to where they have to go to extremes, such as breaking into my house to get some cash, go right ahead. That doesn't mean I welcome it, or that I won't try to defend it, but I'm not going to kill someone over a TV or a few possessions. Even if I had a gun I wouldn't shoot to kill, I'd shoot to cripple.



Because there are other ways of preventing occurrences like that from happening than to issue every single person in the US a gun. I'm not saying police officers or special, authorized individuals couldn't have a gun of some sorts, but when we're holding guns that fire automatically and have 20-30 bullets per round in them, that's getting carried away.

Preventing a few hundred deaths a year but causing tens of thousands of deaths a year doesn't add up to me. You're fighting fire with fire, and the fire only going to get bigger and more out of control as time goes by.

Then locking your door is a false sense of security, and if you dont, your insurance may not pay you either, depending.
And since we are talking about sometimes sickos, maybe they want more than your PC.
Shooting someone doesnt stop this crime, as Ive said, neither does arresting druggies.
And since prescription drugs are the largest threat to our future, and not guns, should we then abolish them as well?
Or, go after only those who abuse them?
The guy that ate that guys face, he didnt use a gun, wasnt armed, but he was on drugs.
Drug violence happens, much more so than gun violence, and much gun violence is the root of drug usage.
As we wind down this road, shall we be consistant?
Or, should we handle each scenario individually?
Want to go further down this path?
How many liberties do we have to give away anyways?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I said aways back, taxing cigarettes was just a beginning.
At the time, I warned the obese were next.
Sure enough, taxes and regulations on foods now as well.

Look at mans history.
It wasnt Romes barbarian ways that brought them down, its the direct we are heading now, BUT, it was the barbarians that did eventually bring them down.
All some of are saying is, beware barbarian, we are armed and will use them, what others are saying is, lets not learn from our past, and dither ever forwards

 

[calmstateofmind]

Then locking your door is a false sense of security, and if you dont, your insurance may not pay you either, depending.
And since we are talking about sometimes sickos, maybe they want more than your PC.
Shooting someone doesnt stop this crime, as Ive said, neither does arresting druggies.
And since prescription drugs are the largest threat to our future, and not guns, should we then abolish them as well?
Or, go after only those who abuse them?
The guy that ate that guys face, he didnt use a gun, wasnt armed, but he was on drugs.
Drug violence happens, much more so than gun violence, and much gun violence is the root of drug usage.
As we wind down this road, shall we be consistant?
Or, should we handle each scenario individually?
Want to go further down this path?
How many liberties do we have to give away anyways?

A lock does provide a false sense of security, but only if you solely rely on the lock for safety. I'm aware that a lock can only do so much, so there's nothing false about it. People who buy guns though think they're then immune, or at least properly equipped and capable to gun someone down in the dark as adrenaline is pumping through their viens, their kids are crying in the background and the thief is somewhere unknown in the house, or possibly even pointing their gun at you...

A gun offers no solution, and you're only thinking in absolutes. You don't need to abolish pills entirely, only educate people on their impact if abused. Just because PCP, or morphine, or cocaine is available at the local drug store (as it once was in the 20's, morphine at least), doesn't mean I'm going to purchase and use it. To this day I have never smoked a cigarette. Not once. Not even one drag. And I never will, because I'm fully educated on what cigarettes really are.

It all comes down to education and awareness, of which most people have none, so they have to be treated like children and told what they can and can't do. If our government had some peace of mind that we wouldn't abuse something, they might be more prone to leaving it up to our discretion, or at least offering some type of flexibility. That is, if the government actually had the best interest of their citizens in mind.

 

[chunkymonster]

No, we would have no deaths from drunk driving if nobody drove drunk.

We would have no deaths, no one would be killed...semantics...don't resort to arguing semantics.

If someone broke into my house to steal my TV and computer, I'd let them instead of killing someone over $10k worth of plastic. I'm still going to get reimbursed from my insurance (or if I don't have insurance for monetary reimbursement, life still goes on). And if a person is that bad off to where they have to go to extremes, such as breaking into my house to get some cash, go right ahead. That doesn't mean I welcome it, or that I won't try to defend it, but I'm not going to kill someone over a TV or a few possessions. Even if I had a gun I wouldn't shoot to kill, I'd shoot to cripple.

So, are you saying that you would willingly allow yourself to be victimized because your insurance company will give you money for the items that were stolen? Is that what you're saying? This reminds of the so-called feminists telling women to tell their potential rapist to put a condom on before they allow themselves to be raped.

Me personally, I take extreme offence at the thought of being victimized and will do everything and anything to prevent and defend myself from being victimized. I would not willingly allow someone to illegally encroach on my right to privacy and my right to private property.

You may choose to be a victim, but I do not. By choosing to be a victim, you choose to live a life of helplessness, passivity, lack of control over your own life, feelings of guilt, shame, and self-blame. Is that how you would willingly choose to live your life?

Because there are other ways of preventing occurrences like that from happening than to issue every single person in the US a gun. I'm not saying police officers or special, authorized individuals couldn't have a gun of some sorts, but when we're holding guns that fire automatically and have 20-30 bullets per round in them, that's getting carried away.

Preventing a few hundred deaths a year but causing tens of thousands of deaths a year doesn't add up to me. You're fighting fire with fire, and the fire only going to get bigger and more out of control as time goes by.

I'm not saying issue every single person in American a gun either. What I am saying is do not restrict the ability of people to own a gun if they want to, aside from the fact that it is also their Constitutional right to do so. Also, a gun that fires automatically (a fully automatic firearm) is and has been restricted and regulated since 1934. So, no one is legally "holding guns that fire automatically" unless you work for the federal government or are properly permitted by the government to own/sell such firearms. Truly though, the fact that you infer the average American is "holding guns that fire automatically" displays to me that you do not have a working knowledge of existing gun control laws and/or no working knowledge of how the various types of firearms operate. Lastly, the number of round a magazine holds is a straw man argument and like saying that less people would be killed by drunk drivers if cars could not go faster than 30mph.

Have you ever fired a gun? If so, what type of firearms was it? Have you ever attempted to purchase a firearm? If so, what was your experience?

 

[chunkymonster]

It all comes down to education and awareness, of which most people have none, so they have to be treated like children and told what they can and can't do. If our government had some peace of mind that we wouldn't abuse something, they might be more prone to leaving it up to our discretion, or at least offering some type of flexibility. That is, if the government actually had the best interest of their citizens in mind.

Wow! Just wow! Holy crap...

Are you familiar with American history and culture at all? What elitist environment did you grow up in to be taught that people need to be treated like children? What progressive propaganda were you spoon-fed to think that rights are given to the American people by the government?

Wow! I'm in shock and your outlook and your lack of faith in your fellow man!

Well, at least you somewhat recognize that the government does not have the best interest of us citizens in mind.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

A lock does provide a false sense of security, but only if you solely rely on the lock for safety. I'm aware that a lock can only do so much, so there's nothing false about it. People who buy guns though think they're then immune, or at least properly equipped and capable to gun someone down in the dark as adrenaline is pumping through their viens, their kids are crying in the background and the thief is somewhere unknown in the house, or possibly even pointing their gun at you...

A gun offers no solution, and you're only thinking in absolutes. You don't need to abolish pills entirely, only educate people on their impact if abused. Just because PCP, or morphine, or cocaine is available at the local drug store (as it once was in the 20's, morphine at least), doesn't mean I'm going to purchase and use it. To this day I have never smoked a cigarette. Not once. Not even one drag. And I never will, because I'm fully educated on what cigarettes really are.

It all comes down to education and awareness, of which most people have none, so they have to be treated like children and told what they can and can't do. If our government had some peace of mind that we wouldn't abuse something, they might be more prone to leaving it up to our discretion, or at least offering some type of flexibility. That is, if the government actually had the best interest of their citizens in mind.

After this statement, which was a response to mine, I would remind you of my last line:
How many liberties do we have to give away anyways?
You do know why we have a military dont you?
A policeforce?
Theyre there to protect our liberties, not the other way around.

I feel somewhat dumbfounded you said this, as chunky pointed out.
Somehow freedom isnt really freedom it seems

 

[calmstateofmind]

It's not a semantic. If there are no drivers who are intoxicated from alcohol, it's impossible to have a death occur from drunk driving - nobody would be driving drunk. I don't see how that's a semantic...

And it's not willing. I wouldn't just open the door and let the guy walk right in. But if there's a dark figure in my house, and I walk in on him, I'm not going to jeopardize my life for a damn TV or computer, or any possession in my house really; especially if I have a family to take care of. Your ego is getting in the way by you saying that you won't be victim and you will control your life how you see fit. Well guess what, most of our lives we have no control over. You don't have control of that guy breaking in, all you can do is react. You're already helpless in the situation because it's already happening. You can't prevent it, only deal with it. So if you want to kill someone, take someone's life away, feel like a God for a few seconds, go right ahead. But what if you shoot and he shoots back? Maybe he missed you, but hit your child, or wife...or maybe he does hit you?

Criminals are common, and they are generally poor. If guns are illegal, and even more expensive and hard to come across, do you really think that the average criminal is going to carry a gun? No.

And I didn't mean a fully automatic weapon, I meant a weapon that requires no preparation to shoot other than sliding a clip in and pulling the trigger. Compare the guns today with guns a few hundred years ago; they're completely different and much easier to use.

I don't claim to be an expert in firearm laws, or the guns themselves, but this topic doesn't require such a technical knowledge. This is about the principle of the average american feeling so threatened to where they feel the need to carry around a lethal weapon that has a very high success rate of killing someone when used, and it being approved by our government that mass production and distribution of these weapons are completely legal. I say each person in the US having a gun because there are 300 million guns in the US, and 310 million people living in the US. That averages to about 1 gun per person, though I'm aware that the reality of it is a little different.

Yes, I've fired a gun on several occasions. I've fired a shotgun and a handgun. The shotgun was a 30 ought 6 and the handgun was a smith & wesson 6 chamber revolver. I've also grown up around guns, with my dad's brother being a world known taxidermist and has his shop just down the street from where I live. I visit somewhat often. I've also tried "hunting" in the past, but didn't like the idea of sitting in a box freezing my butt off waiting 4 hours to snipe a helpless deer that's in it's natural habitat, just to entertain boredom.

I've never tried to purchase a gun, because I don't feel that I need one in my everyday life. I take an old handgun camping with me when I go, as I should, but I borrow it from a relative. Anything less than being alone in the wilderness, a mile away from the roads and no one else around, I don't need a gun. And so far I've been correct, and fortunate.

 

[calmstateofmind]

Wow! Just wow! Holy crap...

Are you familiar with American history and culture at all? What elitist environment did you grow up in to be taught that people need to be treated like children? What progressive propaganda were you spoon-fed to think that rights are given to the American people by the government?

Wow! I'm in shock and your outlook and your lack of faith in your fellow man!

Well, at least you somewhat recognize that the government does not have the best interest of us citizens in mind.

Unless you completely detach from society and go live in isolation within nature, there will always some entity telling you what you can and can't do. Yes, you can operate a vehicle, but you have to wait until you're 16, you can only drive this fast, and you can't do these things while you're driving. You can take that principle and apply it to every aspect of your life, and it fits.

There's no such thing as freedom, only the illusion of it. And if the government doesn't regulate your rights, what is a law then? Or the lack of a law? What is this "constitution" you're referencing, stating that it's your "right" to carry arms...? Oh yeah, that's something the government said.

And yes, I've lost much faith and hope in humanity for many reasons; this conversation included.

 

[riser]

Because when an officer is called to a situation, there's already a known status of the situation; one that may require a gun because there's a mob of people, or someone is held hostage, or someone else has a gun and is killing people, etc. Cops and civilians play completely different roles in society, and a police officer's role alone would permit the idea of carrying a more lethal weapon than a civilian. As well, cops spend months and even years getting trained on how to react to high stress situations, on how to handle and use dangerous weapons, and are constantly being audited of their performance. The same can not be said for everyone's next door neighbor.

1) Should law abiding citizens be allowed to own guns?
2) Do you have any issue with a law abiding citizen owning a gun?
3) How does unarming a law abiding citizen prefer criminals from commiting crimes?

 

[chunkymonster]

Unless you completely detach from society and go live in isolation within nature, there will always some entity telling you what you can and can't do. Yes, you can operate a vehicle, but you have to wait until you're 16, you can only drive this fast, and you can't do these things while you're driving. You can take that principle and apply it to every aspect of your life, and it fits.

Waiting until the age of 16 and how fast you can drive and equating it to federal law is disingenuous and a straw man.

There's no such thing as freedom, only the illusion of it. And if the government doesn't regulate your rights, what is a law then? Or the lack of a law? What is this "constitution" you're referencing, stating that it's your "right" to carry arms...? Oh yeah, that's something the government said.

Freedom is an illusion...again, wow! just wow!

What is law? Laws are the mutually agreed upon rules that we as citizens willingly choose live by. The lack of law is the enabler of greater freedom, which is why the Constitution intentionally limits the power and authority of the federal government.

The right to bear arms is not something the government says I am allowed to have, it is a right that we the people confer upon ourselves and guarantee within the Constitution as to prevent the federal government from infringing upon. This right was intentional to prevent our federal government from doing what every despot has done throughout history just before instituting draconian and authortarian laws.

The fact that you use the phrasing, "what is this "constitution" you're referencing" solidifies my belief that you do not have a working knowledge of the Constitution and how it guarantees your rights as a citizen. The fact that you actually think the government created the Constitution and gave the People their rights displays a gross ignorance of our history and shows no understanding of why and how the Constitution was written.

Please allow me to clarify...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

...do you see the bolded text, it says 'We the People'...NOT the federal government of America...and then further clarifies with 'do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America'. It is very plainly stated in the preamble of the Constitution that the Constitution was created by the People and intentionally written to guarantee our rights as defined within the Constitution so that a federal government can not usurp those rights. Contrary to what you may think, the People are the owners and administrators of their rights and willingly subject themselves to the laws. And, if the people do not like those laws, it is our right and duty as citizens to change the laws to meet our needs in order to establish justice and secure the blessing of liberty.

Freedom is not an illusion and the government does not grant rights to the People. The Constitution of these United States if very plain about that, and given it is still the supreme law of the land, it is the governing principle in which all Americans live under.

 

[calmstateofmind]

1) Should law abiding citizens be allowed to own guns?
2) Do you have any issue with a law abiding citizen owning a gun?
3) How does unarming a law abiding citizen prefer criminals from commiting crimes?

1. In my opinion, yes. I feel though that a more stringent process of issuing one, and then tracking said gun, should be enforced. Something like an interview and approval process (not just a background check), or enrollment in a government program and then report every 6 months on the status of the gun, update it online, etc.; something along those lines. The system we have is way too lose, practically nonexistent, and the amount of guns that are being manufactured are way too high.

2. Right now I do have a problem with it because of previously mentioned concerns.

3. Less guns are circulated with the population, making the amount of guns a criminal can obtain, or the channels they can utilize to obtain one, more scarce. Gun shows are held all the time in my city and from what I understand you can buy a gun straight from an individual, all you need is a piece of paper (FFA) - a piece of paper that can easily be forged.

Might I remind you too: A law abiding citizen can easily become a criminal, and a law abiding citizen can very well be a criminal that's yet to get caught.

 

[chunkymonster]

It's not a semantic. If there are no drivers who are intoxicated from alcohol, it's impossible to have a death occur from drunk driving - nobody would be driving drunk. I don't see how that's a semantic...

Yes, it is semantics. Here's why, my semantic rebuttal is; if there were no vehicles, then it is impossible for a death to occur from drunk driving. See? Semantics...

And it's not willing. I wouldn't just open the door and let the guy walk right in. But if there's a dark figure in my house, and I walk in on him, I'm not going to jeopardize my life for a damn TV or computer, or any possession in my house really; especially if I have a family to take care of. Your ego is getting in the way by you saying that you won't be victim and you will control your life how you see fit. Well guess what, most of our lives we have no control over. You don't have control of that guy breaking in, all you can do is react. You're already helpless in the situation because it's already happening. You can't prevent it, only deal with it. So if you want to kill someone, take someone's life away, feel like a God for a few seconds, go right ahead. But what if you shoot and he shoots back? Maybe he missed you, but hit your child, or wife...or maybe he does hit you?

Well, I do control my own life as I see fit. It is not a matter of ego, I just have determined that I will not live in fear and will do what is necessary to live a principled life. I may not have control over the guy breaking in, but I do have control over how I react. In my own home, I am not helpless, it is my house, I know where and what things are, the burglar does not, he is walking in blind. He is at the tactical disadvantage. If the said burglar has force-ably entered my home, I can presume he has bad intentions to hurt either me or my family, I am within my rights to use whatever force I deem necessary to ensure the safety of my property, person, and family; regardless of whether that means injuring him or killing him. Also, killing someone would not make me feel like a God, that is just ridiculous, killing anything is a sad situation (just as you refer to below about deer hunting), but as I said, I choose to not be a victim and will do what is necessary. You may or may not, that is your choice.

Criminals are common, and they are generally poor. If guns are illegal, and even more expensive and hard to come across, do you really think that the average criminal is going to carry a gun? No.

Please do not generalize. I'm common. I'm just some guy living the middle income American dream in the suburbs of New Jersey and I am far from being a criminal. Guns are illegal to the criminal. If you have been convicted, in most States, you can not own a firearm. That is why State and Federal background checks are required in order to purchase a firearm. To prevent criminals from legally obtaining firearms. And, what the heck is an "average criminal"? Is the average criminal the one that only got C's and D's in Criminal College?

And I didn't mean a fully automatic weapon, I meant a weapon that requires no preparation to shoot other than sliding a clip in and pulling the trigger. Compare the guns today with guns a few hundred years ago; they're completely different and much easier to use.

I don't claim to be an expert in firearm laws, or the guns themselves, but this topic doesn't require such a technical knowledge. This is about the principle of the average american feeling so threatened to where they feel the need to carry around a lethal weapon that has a very high success rate of killing someone when used, and it being approved by our government that mass production and distribution of these weapons are completely legal. I say each person in the US having a gun because there are 300 million guns in the US, and 310 million people living in the US. That averages to about 1 gun per person, though I'm aware that the reality of it is a little different.

Well, yes, this topic does require a moderate level of technical knowledge, if you want to have an intelligent and informed conversation about gun control. Otherwise, the conversation degrades into emotional rhetoric and misguided intentions.

I do not think the average American feels so threatened to where they need to carry "a lethal weapon that has a very high success rate of killing someone". I think that the average American would much rather be left alone and not have to worry about the fact that they may need a firearms in the instance that they may need to use it. Most Americans would much prefer to have existing laws enforced and not have a skewed and perverted legal system where a pot smoker get 30 years and the murderer get 5 years with a chance of parole after three.

Yes, I've fired a gun on several occasions. I've fired a shotgun and a handgun. The shotgun was a 30 ought 6 and the handgun was a smith & wesson 6 chamber revolver. I've also grown up around guns, with my dad's brother being a world known taxidermist and has his shop just down the street from where I live. I visit somewhat often. I've also tried "hunting" in the past, but didn't like the idea of sitting in a box freezing my butt off waiting 4 hours to snipe a helpless deer that's in it's natural habitat, just to entertain boredom.

I've never tried to purchase a gun, because I don't feel that I need one in my everyday life. I take an old handgun camping with me when I go, as I should, but I borrow it from a relative. Anything less than being alone in the wilderness, a mile away from the roads and no one else around, I don't need a gun. And so far I've been correct, and fortunate.

Well, sorry if I came off with an edge. I thank you for admitting to at having fired a gun of some kind and not claiming some false technical knowledge of firearms and firearms laws. I would ask you to follow this link, A Brief History of Firearms Regulation in America, it is exactly what the title says. Hopefully after reading it and perhaps even performing some further research, you will see that a large number of the laws being proposed to further regulate and control firearms have been existing law in one form or another or have been repealed because the law was ineffective.

Lastly, I will leave you with this. DO NOT borrow a relative's handgun when you go camping. Depending on what State you live in, being caught with a firearm that is not registered to you could find yourself being arrested and prosecuted for illegally possessing a firearm. Besides, a responsible gun owner should not be loaning any firearms to anyone, for any reason.

 

[calmstateofmind]

What is law? Laws are the mutually agreed upon rules that we as citizens willingly choose live by. The lack of law is the enabler of greater freedom, which is why the Constitution intentionally limits the power and authority of the federal government.

The right to bear arms is not something the government says I am allowed to have, it is a right that we the people confer upon ourselves and guarantee within the Constitution as to prevent the federal government from infringing upon. This right was intentional to prevent our federal government from doing what every despot has done throughout history just before instituting draconian and authortarian laws.

The fact that you use the phrasing, "what is this "constitution" you're referencing" solidifies my belief that you do not have a working knowledge of the Constitution and how it guarantees your rights as a citizen. The fact that you actually think the government created the Constitution and gave the People their rights displays a gross ignorance of our history and shows no understanding of why and how the Constitution was written.

Okay, apparently you can't detect sarcasm over the Internet...

Please allow me to clarify...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

...do you see the bolded text, it says 'We the People'...NOT the federal government of America...and then further clarifies with 'do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America'. It is very plainly stated in the preamble of the Constitution that the Constitution was created by the People and intentionally written to guarantee our rights as defined within the Constitution so that a federal government can not usurp those rights. Contrary to what you may think, the People are the owners and administrators of their rights and willingly subject themselves to the laws. And, if the people do not like those laws, it is our right and duty as citizens to change the laws to meet our needs in order to establish justice and secure the blessing of liberty.

Freedom is not an illusion and the government does not grant rights to the People. The Constitution of these United States if very plain about that, and given it is still the supreme law of the land, it is the governing principle in which all Americans live under.

"We The People", "Government of the United States", now you're arguing semantics. 😉

It's all the same man. The bottom line is that it's a large group of people that I've never met before are coming up with what's "best" for me. I didn't have a say or come up with any law that exists within the United States, yet here I am having to abide by every single one of them or I'm punished. Some freedom...

 

[chunkymonster]

Might I remind you too: A law abiding citizen can easily become a criminal, and a law abiding citizen can very well be a criminal that's yet to get caught.

How very true! Look at what just happened in New York State.

Overnight, tens of thousands of previously law-abiding gun owners are now criminals because they have semi-auto pistols with a detachable magazine that holds more than seven rounds.

Overnight, these people were given an ultimatum to either remain a criminal or give up legally obtained private property. Private property that was, less than 36 hours ago, perfectly legal for them to possess and own.

What a friggin' shame!

 

[calmstateofmind]

How very true! Look at what just happened in New York State.

Overnight, tens of thousands of previously law-abiding gun owners are now criminals because they have semi-auto pistols with a detachable magazine that holds more than seven rounds.

Overnight, these people were given an ultimatum to either remain a criminal or give up legally obtained private property. Private property that was, less than 36 hours ago, perfectly legal for them to possess and own.

What a friggin' shame!

Right. So where's the freedom in that? It doesn't exist. The government will do what it pleases (generally speaking) and if someone gets in the way, they're taken down. It's sickening.

 

[calmstateofmind]

@calmstateofmind
Do you mind me asking how old you are and in what part of the USA you live? (dont have to be specific on ur location, just general area)

24 years of age, living in KY, though my opinions aren't derived from regional politics, or my family's beliefs. (not that they're opposing either, just independent from each other)

I'm all for more freedom, but you have to be practical in some cases, especially when it comes to issuing lethal firearms. I will never be comfortable with the idea of a 14 year old boy who plays Call of Duty all the time owning or having access to a gun. I just won't, and that should be a reasonable position to take. All it takes is one parent who didn't hide their gun well enough, or can't because of it's physical properties, for a kid to get a hold of it and potentially use it.

If the public wants to hold firearms, that's fine, but tighter regulations and precautions need to be enforced if a person is going to weld that extra, very deadly power. There has to be a compromise.

"Yes, you can use the car for the night but you have to be home by 11". That's reasonable, and so is a more enforced gun policy. (though the seriousness/impact of the two situations are on completely different levels)

...I don't know why I keep using car scenarios for analogies, lol.

 

[riser]

1. In my opinion, yes. I feel though that a more stringent process of issuing one, and then tracking said gun, should be enforced. Something like an interview and approval process (not just a background check), or enrollment in a government program and then report every 6 months on the status of the gun, update it online, etc.; something along those lines. The system we have is way too lose, practically nonexistent, and the amount of guns that are being manufactured are way too high.

2. Right now I do have a problem with it because of previously mentioned concerns.

3. Less guns are circulated with the population, making the amount of guns a criminal can obtain, or the channels they can utilize to obtain one, more scarce. Gun shows are held all the time in my city and from what I understand you can buy a gun straight from an individual, all you need is a piece of paper (FFA) - a piece of paper that can easily be forged.

Might I remind you too: A law abiding citizen can easily become a criminal, and a law abiding citizen can very well be a criminal that's yet to get caught.

What does gun registration accomplish? How does this stop crime?

Why are you concerned about law abiding citizens owning guns? They have done nothing wrong.

You say less guns circulating means less guns for criminals. I beg to differ. Simply look at the UK. Very few guns now, yet many criminals have guns. How can that be when guns are banned?

A law abiding citizen is not a threat. A criminal is a threat. I'm not against a background check when purchasing a gun. Then again, criminals do not go out to the store, by a $1300 Kimber 1911 to commit a crime. They buy the cheapest thing they can find.

Gun registration exists.
Did you know that every gun purchased in the US can be traced back to the person who purchased the gun? I bet you didn't even know that. The whole gun registration database is simply a method to have quick access to who has what. It is a pre-emptive strike against law abiding citizens. If the gun isn't used in a crime, then it shouldn't be an issue. When a gun is used in a crime, then it should be an issue. In the end, either way, they must recover the gun in order to track who purchased it. Either through registration or the current system.. not often is the gun left behind when the criminal is still alive. But hell, at that point you have fingerprints. That begs the question, if everyone has to register their guns, should everyone in the US be fingerprinted as well? Maybe we should put little GPS trackers in people too.

 

[calmstateofmind]

What does gun registration accomplish? How does this stop crime?

Why are you concerned about law abiding citizens owning guns? They have done nothing wrong.

You say less guns circulating means less guns for criminals. I beg to differ. Simply look at the UK. Very few guns now, yet many criminals have guns. How can that be when guns are banned?

A law abiding citizen is not a threat. A criminal is a threat. I'm not against a background check when purchasing a gun. Then again, criminals do not go out to the store, by a $1300 Kimber 1911 to commit a crime. They buy the cheapest thing they can find.

Gun registration exists.
Did you know that every gun purchased in the US can be traced back to the person who purchased the gun? I bet you didn't even know that. The whole gun registration database is simply a method to have quick access to who has what. It is a pre-emptive strike against law abiding citizens. If the gun isn't used in a crime, then it shouldn't be an issue. When a gun is used in a crime, then it should be an issue. In the end, either way, they must recover the gun in order to track who purchased it. Either through registration or the current system.. not often is the gun left behind when the criminal is still alive. But hell, at that point you have fingerprints. That begs the question, if everyone has to register their guns, should everyone in the US be fingerprinted as well? Maybe we should put little GPS trackers in people too.

No, I'm very aware of those facts. Each gun has its own serial, along with most ammunitions; that's why you get the hallow points!

It all comes down to the nature of the person and their current situation. And unless we decrease the amount of drugs, increase the amount of education and enforce stricter policies on these matters, at least initially, we'll get nowhere. But stop defending 12,000 deaths a year just so you can have a piece of metal sit in the corner of your room to show off to your friends when they come over, or similar, trivial uses.

A question to everyone in this conversation: How many of you own a gun and have actually had to use it to defend your life or the life of someone else, aside from being in armed services? I'm curious...

edit: if you could also include your age, that would be appreciated

 

[riser]

No, I'm very aware of those facts. Each gun has its own serial, along with most ammunitions; that's why you get the hallow points!

It all comes down to the nature of the person and their current situation. And unless we decrease the amount of drugs, increase the amount of education and enforce stricter policies on these matters, at least initially, we'll get nowhere. But stop defending 12,000 deaths a year just so you can have a piece of metal sit in the corner of your room to show off to your friends when they come over, or similar, trivial uses.

A question to everyone in this conversation: How many of you own a gun and have actually had to use it to defend your life or the life of someone else, aside from being in armed services? I'm curious...

edit: if you could also include your age, that would be appreciated

Ammunition doesn't have a serial number. FYI. It is Hollow point, not Hallow point as well. Hollow point bullets are designed mainly for personal defense or hunting and to not penetrate deeply. Whereas a FMJ is cheaper to make and used more for plinking as it will penetrate deeper. This is why Gabby Giffords (sp) lived. She was shot with a FMJ, not JHP round.

Increasing education means nothing is the society being educated doesn't care. Everything you stated relies on society being in your mindset. That is a fundamental flaw of your argument. You assume everyone has the same desire to learn, be educated, etc. Look at the people who commit crimes. A vast majority all have the same type of issues; Mental illness, reclusive, low education level; society issues if you will.

I may or may not own a firearm. Have I ever used a firearm for protection? Yes. I recently wrote of a situation where I used an AR-15 when there was a small group of people trying to get into my neighbor's house where the mother with her two younger kids were. It took the police over 30 mintues to show up. Yes, I trained an AR-15 with a high capacity magazine on around 7 individuals trying to cause harm to my neighbors. This is called self defense of another individual in harm's way.
In another instance I did use a handgun as a deterrent against two or three people who seemed to have been randomly trying to break into apartments.

I would guess you have never encountered someone on something like meth, pills, or cocaine? I have on a few occassions and I have seen what these individuals are capable of doing. A baseball bat or multiple people against one person on drugs is very, very hard to handle. I once watched a police officer get beat severely by a guy high on PCP and something else. I went to high school with the kid at the time. The officer suffered a concussion, broken arm, and cracked ribs. In these instances, a firearm is what makes everyone even.

How does a 5' 110lbs woman match herself up to defend herself against a 6'2" 250lbs man? The only way is a firearm. A baseball bat in her hands wouldn't intimidate most guys. A firearm will.

You have 2 methods to deal with a situation: Reason and force. If you are unable to reason with someone, your only other option is force. Think about that in any situation and those are the only two methods you have.

Do you know why kids are bullied at school? Because they lack force. Everyone has reason, many people lack force. You think of the high school jock picking on kids.

Hell, you look at Adam Lanza. He had the ability to reason but it wasn't working for him. He was being forced to do stuff. Guess what? He resorted to using Force. When you can't reason, you have to use force.

A firearm evens it up. You can look at it from the criminal perspective. Sure, 16,000 murder and suicides a year. Over 310,000,000 firearms in the country. By your very logic, we should have a very, very, very high death rate based on the number of firearms in this country. Fact is, we don't.

Since the 1960s, the last thing I bothered to look up, mass murders and all have actually DECLINED as firearm ownership has gone UP.

Look at Washington, DC's crime rate when the handgun ban was overturned. Over night crime rate dropped extensively.

Look at the recent articles written about NYC: "No one shot yesterday in NYC."

Ban guns, they'll find another way. That just means the people who lack force will become victims. The UK proves this with their increase in violent assaults and gun crimes after the gun ban was in effect.

Investigate and educate yourself. Ban guns and you create a society of victims for those who will not obey the law. We can not go down this path!

Another note:
Of Mice and Men. The guy had all the force, absolutely no reason. A reversal of the situation I mentioned. Think about it.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Laws and freedom
See: Bible
Yes, there are laws their as well, 10 of them.
You cant have free will with too many laws

 

[MU_Engineer]

All of those stories are rare situations, which is why they make the news and gain such high exposure. You're basing the rule off the exception, and that's not proper logic.

...just like you and the Democrat stooges are using the very rare exceptions such as the recent school shooting to base their rules off of?

I worked with a woman once who told me she was from Montana. Guns are a way of living there, so she says. She told me she gave her son a crossbow for his 4th birthday. There's no way you can tell me that there's nothing wrong with that...

It may very well be. If it's a Nerf crossbow, who cares? If it is a hunting crossbow, it may be a little early since I doubt he could even physically handle it. However when he is a few years older it would be appropriate to give him one as a gift and properly instruct him as to its safe use.

 

[MU_Engineer]

So instead of just dealing with the situation, buying a gun, why not try to fix the problem? The problem stems from poverty, from drugs, and from a lack of education. People don't normally steal if they're content with themselves. People don't normally lose control of their anger and shoot someone they love when they're been properly educated to control their emotions, or aren't on serious drugs.

People really are just animals with a thin veneer of behavior that runs counter to that instinct. You hippie liberals are deluding yourself that human nature is not human nature as there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But I guess I would not expect any logic from a group that calls falsehoods like Keynesian economics and global warming "science."

Yes, I'll stop crime by shooting the criminal. How does that make any sense at all?

Yes, it does. The vast majority of habitual criminals are opportunists. They want an easy grab with little risk. They look for the unlocked car to swipe stuff out of, the unoccupied-looking house to break into, the drunk girl stumbling around by herself to rape, and the cell-phone-distracted scrawny looking individual who is clearly in an unfamiliar section of town to mug. Regularly shooting criminals makes the risk much more and many will not want to take on people who will not only be likely to foil their crime attempt but possibly kill the criminal in the process. Now obviously you still have your insane people and the VERY FEW cases of "crimes of passion" to deal with (which really do still have a significant psychiatric component to them) but those are rare exceptions and to tell the truth not much can really be done about them since they are generally few true warning signs and no risk-reward logic that you can fight against like with a habitual criminal. We just need to accept that as part of human psychophysiology and move on.

 

[calmstateofmind]

I'm not a liberal...