Jump to content

Recommended Posts

knapplc    19,301

If you decrease legal availability of getting a gun or put in a million checks to keep people from getting guns that shouldn't have them, it will only drive the availability of getting guns on the secondary/black market. Which is worse? Guns are like drugs. If you want to use, you find a way to get what you need.

Flooding the nation with guns & bullets like we've been doing is significantly worse than a nation with fewer guns. The fewer guns in the system, the harder it is for criminals to get them. This is simple, basic logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saunders    6,159

 

 

 

 

Every politician is rich. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

 

I don't live in a mansion. I have guns. I'd like to see significant changes to our gun laws.

It has to do with the laws not applying to certain people. Money matters when the law comes into play.

 

This is a tangent to the question of gun control. Remove the "rich politicians" from the equation, and plenty of regular Americans want change. Stop focusing on the politicians and focus on the problem.

 

It matters because the law needs to apply to everyone. Change needs to be meaningful, or else we end up with another Patriot Act.

 

What are you talking about? These are just empty words about politicians getting special treatment.

 

They aren't empty words. In the post 9/11 hysteria, politicians got the average citizen to gladly hand over individual freedoms in the name of "security" via the Patriot Act.

 

https://www.aclu.org/urge-congress-fix-flaws-patriot-act

 

I don't want that happening again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

The gun issue has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

 

Every other First World nation has reasonable curbs on gun ownership. That's all America wants. This isn't some government takeover, and that hysteria clouds the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enhance    3,498

A couple quick notes. But first, because I feel it is necessary to avoid being labeled a leftist, I'd like to say I believe Americans should have the right to responsibly own guns.

 

That leads into my first point, however, that people need to get off this ridiculous boat of lies that 'leftists', liberals or whatever you want to call them, want all guns taken away. It's a false narrative being heavily billowed by the NRA to push their own agenda. Obama even said in a recent town hall meeting that he doesn't want all guns taken away. A lot of people just want reasonable gun reform that limits access to people who may do harm.

 

Second, I think gun owners themselves need to take more responsibility with gun safety. I've had several law enforcement officials tell me people, as a whole, don't practice enough smart gun safety. And many of the weapons that get onto the street illegally are there because of burglaries, thefts and other crimes where criminals found unsecured weapons in homes. If people want to own weapons, they should take personal responsibility and have heavy, secure safes (like some people I know) to protect them. I also know people who keep a lot of their weapons and ammo unsecured in plain sight. They may be out of the reach of children, but a quick search would reveal them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saunders    6,159

The gun issue has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

 

Every other First World nation has reasonable curbs on gun ownership. That's all America wants. This isn't some government takeover, and that hysteria clouds the question.

The reason I bring up the patriot act is the circumstances in which it was passed. Most of the people voted for it without even reading it because of the push for "security", and it was a bad deal. I'd prefer we don't do the same thing again. Reforms need to be vetted and understood before going into law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saunders    6,159

Second, I think gun owners themselves need to take more responsibility with gun safety. I've had several law enforcement officials tell me people, as a whole, don't practice enough smart gun safety. And many of the weapons that get onto the street illegally are there because of burglaries, thefts and other crimes where criminals found unsecured weapons in homes. If people want to own weapons, they should take personal responsibility and have heavy, secure safes (like some people I know) to protect them. I also know people who keep a lot of their weapons and ammo unsecured in plain sight. They may be out of the reach of children, but a quick search would reveal them.

Agreed. And that all ties into my suggestions regarding a license and government supplied training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

 

The gun issue has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

 

Every other First World nation has reasonable curbs on gun ownership. That's all America wants. This isn't some government takeover, and that hysteria clouds the question.

The reason I bring up the patriot act is the circumstances in which it was passed. Most of the people voted for it without even reading it because of the push for "security", and it was a bad deal. I'd prefer we don't do the same thing again. Reforms need to be vetted and understood before going into law.

 

 

We can all agree the Patriot Act was a mess and ill-advised. So let's not make that mistake again. Let's have everyone on all sides of the gun control debate, from pro-gun to anti-gun to most of the rest of us who are somewhere in between start a reasonable dialogue about the issue rather than further entrenching ourselves in our positions. That's how you prevent another Patriot Act. By completely refusing to discuss the issue, by clouding it with nonsense from the extreme sides of the political spectrum, you force any change to be drastic and likely ill-advised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
teachercd    3,224

 

Second, I think gun owners themselves need to take more responsibility with gun safety. I've had several law enforcement officials tell me people, as a whole, don't practice enough smart gun safety. And many of the weapons that get onto the street illegally are there because of burglaries, thefts and other crimes where criminals found unsecured weapons in homes. If people want to own weapons, they should take personal responsibility and have heavy, secure safes (like some people I know) to protect them. I also know people who keep a lot of their weapons and ammo unsecured in plain sight. They may be out of the reach of children, but a quick search would reveal them.

 

Agreed. And that all ties into my suggestions regarding a license and government supplied training.

Those stories where little kids play around with the family gun and end up hurting themselves are the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    8,066

I still believe this gun control hysteria is fueled behind the scenes from the gun manufacturers and they are laughing all the way to the bank.

 

LINK

 

The call for stricter gun control laws from leaders like President Obama in the wake of this tragedy fueled these fears and prompted the NRA to rally its members to fight against new regulations.

As a result, gun sales soared, and so did donations.

 

 

So.....Obama talks about gun control and the NRA puts out propaganda talking about how Obama wants to take our guns away and gun sales soar.

 

Gun manufacturers donate millions to the NRA (banned from the political action committee) however, they have members on the board.

 

LINK

 

And...of course, there is a nomination committee that elects members of the board. Well....guess who sits on the nomination committee? Gun manufacturers.

 

LINK

 

The gun control hysteria from the right is completely manufactured by gun manufacturers to sell more guns. It's one of the biggest marketing successes in the history of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Landlord    7,848

Do some of y'all just get a monthly newsletter from the NRA with 4 or 5 bullet pointed strawman arguments that don't have anything to do with the actual discussion? My goodness this is one of the most painfully elementary arguments I've seen on here in a long time.

 

 

Here's just a few helpful tidbits.

 

- Nobody wants to take away your guns.

- Nobody has a problem with responsible citizens being able to acquire guns.

- The United States is the only country with this infatuation with firearms, and also the only country where this kind of sh#t keeps happening.

- ALL of the available data worldwide lends to conclusive evidence that fair gun control helps curb gun violence.

- This is a gun issue. It is also a mental health issue. It is also a lot of other issues. Stop making false dichotomies and using "mental health" as a catch-all scapegoat for the ease in which people can get their hands on killing machines. We can work on all of these factors. We can do better.

- We could make our country a safe place, but the NRA is going to fight like hell not to let that happen. While people are dying, they're getting paychecks.

 

 

Now then...

 

 

 

 

If you decrease legal availability of getting a gun or put in a million checks to keep people from getting guns that shouldn't have them, it will only drive the availability of getting guns on the secondary/black market. Which is worse? Guns are like drugs. If you want to use, you find a way to get what you need.

 

 

This is the dumbest thing I've read in this thread. If you restrict access to guns to good folk who want to obtain them legally, then criminals are going to want more of them?

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Also, it's stupid that things like the Orlando shooting are what gets us talking about this stuff again. The mass shootings are horrible and tragic and disgusting, but they're not even the real problem - that's a politicized red herring. Expanded background checks and other reasonable gun reform WOULD go a long way towards reducing gun violence, but almost entirely in interpersonal violence that escalates because of ease of access to firearms, and not as much in terms of mass shooters hellbent on causing mayhem.

 

 

Edit2: also lol redux for your insane hypothetical scenario where first of all the government takes all of our guns, and then somehow ISIS shows up to kill us at our doorsteps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    8,066

And...of course.....who some of the largest donors to NRA PAC???

Obviously the gun companies themselves are banned from donating. But, the owners of the gun companies aren't.

 

Notable names towards the top of the list:

 

Mossberg

Remington

Bushnell

 

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeguyy    3,490

 

 

 

The problem is that America isn't comparable to the other countries you are using to support that logic. They had a problem and fixed it. America has had a problem for a long time and is beyond just a simple fix. In our case, fixing one thing will break another.Surely you can see that it's not so simple that restricting purchase of firearms will solve shootings.

Nobody ever said it would be simple. But claiming that it'll be hard is no excuse for not moving forward to fix this. Every other first-world nation has figured this out. Surely we can, too.

 

Not using it as an excuse.

 

But the simple act of banning firearms isn't the answer.

 

Banning firearms is more an answer than allowing them. One attempts to fix the problem, the other ignores it.

 

But nobody truly wants to "ban firearms." I think most rational people, me included, are interested in getting the automatic weapons off the street, and limiting access to all firearms to people we can most reasonably say are responsible enough to own them.

 

No solution is 100%. But a way to 100% guarantee we never move forward from 20 dead children in Sandy Hook is to continually throw excuses at the problem and refuse to budge. It's only when the majority of Americans get that concept that we can move forward.

 

 

It's exactly what the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby want. Something like this happens, they start to raise a ruckus about Obama and Hillary wanting to "take yer guns" and point out that armed citizens would help mitigate future attacks (I doubt this, personally), and hope the ensuing sh#tstorm leads us to burry our heads in the sand and maintain the status quo without any significant change.

 

If there is a chance for significant legislation, they'll start throwing their massive wealth and influence around a block it.

 

The blanket protection they get from lawsuits is garbage. It disgusts me that the Sandy Hook victims still haven't been able to receive a cent in compensation from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
C N Red    1,365

 

If you decrease legal availability of getting a gun or put in a million checks to keep people from getting guns that shouldn't have them, it will only drive the availability of getting guns on the secondary/black market. Which is worse? Guns are like drugs. If you want to use, you find a way to get what you need.

Flooding the nation with guns & bullets like we've been doing is significantly worse than a nation with fewer guns. The fewer guns in the system, the harder it is for criminals to get them. This is simple, basic logic.

 

My point is that I don't believe there will be fewer guns. The loss of being able to get a gun legally will be made up through illegal ways. Also, more illegally bought guns gives money to really "great and nice" people. I would bet it would lead to things being even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

 

 

If you decrease legal availability of getting a gun or put in a million checks to keep people from getting guns that shouldn't have them, it will only drive the availability of getting guns on the secondary/black market. Which is worse? Guns are like drugs. If you want to use, you find a way to get what you need.

Flooding the nation with guns & bullets like we've been doing is significantly worse than a nation with fewer guns. The fewer guns in the system, the harder it is for criminals to get them. This is simple, basic logic.

 

My point is that I don't believe there will be fewer guns. The loss of being able to get a gun legally will be made up through illegal ways. Also, more illegally bought guns gives money to really "great and nice" people. I would bet it would lead to things being even worse.

 

 

This has not proved true in any other first-world nation. It is an unfounded fear and not a valid excuse to not move forward on this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cm husker    2,045

The gun issue has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

 

Every other First World nation has reasonable curbs on gun ownership. That's all America wants. This isn't some government takeover, and that hysteria clouds the question.

Knapp, how do you define "reasonable curbs"?

 

I want them too, but I don't know that they are ultimately workable in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saunders    6,159

The blanket protection they get from lawsuits is garbage. It disgusts me that the Sandy Hook victims still haven't been able to receive a cent in compensation from them.

Because it opens up pandoras box. Should people be able to sue Budweiser or GM when someone is killed via a DUI or negligent driving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeguyy    3,490

Also, if you used the argument that the government shouldn't regulate illegal drugs just because people will find them through other means, you'd be laughed at.

 

Even if that's true, it serve as a good reason for the government to just sit on its hands and do nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cm husker    2,045

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is that America isn't comparable to the other countries you are using to support that logic. They had a problem and fixed it. America has had a problem for a long time and is beyond just a simple fix. In our case, fixing one thing will break another.Surely you can see that it's not so simple that restricting purchase of firearms will solve shootings.

Nobody ever said it would be simple. But claiming that it'll be hard is no excuse for not moving forward to fix this. Every other first-world nation has figured this out. Surely we can, too.

Not using it as an excuse.

 

But the simple act of banning firearms isn't the answer.

Banning firearms is more an answer than allowing them. One attempts to fix the problem, the other ignores it.

 

But nobody truly wants to "ban firearms." I think most rational people, me included, are interested in getting the automatic weapons off the street, and limiting access to all firearms to people we can most reasonably say are responsible enough to own them.

 

No solution is 100%. But a way to 100% guarantee we never move forward from 20 dead children in Sandy Hook is to continually throw excuses at the problem and refuse to budge. It's only when the majority of Americans get that concept that we can move forward.

It's exactly what the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby want. Something like this happens, they start to raise a ruckus about Obama and Hillary wanting to "take yer guns" and point out that armed citizens would help mitigate future attacks (I doubt this, personally), and hope the ensuing sh#tstorm leads us to burry our heads in the sand and maintain the status quo without any significant change.

 

If there is a chance for significant legislation, they'll start throwing their massive wealth and influence around a block it.

 

The blanket protection they get from lawsuits is garbage. It disgusts me that the Sandy Hook victims still haven't been able to receive a cent in compensation from them.

Plus, even if a heavily armed citizenry would reduce mass shooting fatalities (a claim I doubt), the number of everyday homicides would likely skyrocket, erasing any gains.

 

While I don't disagree that legislation shouldn't be enacted to exempt manufacturers from lawsuits, I do question whether a manufacturer of a legal product should be held liable for the wrongful actions of a consumer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saunders    6,159

 

The gun issue has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

 

Every other First World nation has reasonable curbs on gun ownership. That's all America wants. This isn't some government takeover, and that hysteria clouds the question.

Knapp, how do you define "reasonable curbs"?

 

I want them too, but I don't know that they are ultimately workable in this country.

 

Start with:

 

1. National license (ala drivers license) so it's the same everywher, and is mandatory.

2. Expand NICS system.

3. Increase availability of training, safety classes.

4. Increase wait times for first time buyers.

5. Cut the drug war.

6. Address socioeconomic issues, specifically in the inner cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redux    5,750

 

 

 

If you decrease legal availability of getting a gun or put in a million checks to keep people from getting guns that shouldn't have them, it will only drive the availability of getting guns on the secondary/black market. Which is worse? Guns are like drugs. If you want to use, you find a way to get what you need.

 

Flooding the nation with guns & bullets like we've been doing is significantly worse than a nation with fewer guns. The fewer guns in the system, the harder it is for criminals to get them. This is simple, basic logic.

My point is that I don't believe there will be fewer guns. The loss of being able to get a gun legally will be made up through illegal ways. Also, more illegally bought guns gives money to really "great and nice" people. I would bet it would lead to things being even worse.

This has not proved true in any other first-world nation. It is an unfounded fear and not a valid excuse to not move forward on this problem.

Again, you are comparing America to very different cultures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cm husker    2,045

 

 

 

If you decrease legal availability of getting a gun or put in a million checks to keep people from getting guns that shouldn't have them, it will only drive the availability of getting guns on the secondary/black market. Which is worse? Guns are like drugs. If you want to use, you find a way to get what you need.

Flooding the nation with guns & bullets like we've been doing is significantly worse than a nation with fewer guns. The fewer guns in the system, the harder it is for criminals to get them. This is simple, basic logic.

My point is that I don't believe there will be fewer guns. The loss of being able to get a gun legally will be made up through illegal ways. Also, more illegally bought guns gives money to really "great and nice" people. I would bet it would lead to things being even worse.

I sort of agree with this, but if we kill the drug war, which we absolutely should, the demand for illegal guns will plummet (as will everyday homicides).

 

 

I don't know that a black market is viable/sustainable for the guy who wants to carry out a mass shooting or even just murder his wife. There's just not enough demand to make people take the risks associated with selling to that smaller market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saunders    6,159

Also, if you used the argument that the government shouldn't regulate illegal drugs just because people will find them through other means, you'd be laughed at.

 

Even if that's true, it serve as a good reason for the government to just sit on its hands and do nothing.

By who? Isn't that the very argument for decriminalization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redux    5,750

If we made drugs legal for people 25yrs or older, drug related crime and prison overpopulation would disappear.

 

I have no information to support that claim, but it's a nice thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeguyy    3,490

 

The blanket protection they get from lawsuits is garbage. It disgusts me that the Sandy Hook victims still haven't been able to receive a cent in compensation from them.

Because it opens up pandoras box. Should people be able to sue Budweiser or GM when someone is killed via a DUI or negligent driving?

 

 

On a beer bottle, they have to put a warning right there on the bottle to use their product responsibly. Do you get such a warning with or on your firearm? I ask as someone who has never purchased one. If you do, I assume it's on a waiver you sign before purchase.

 

But again, a hearken back to my earlier point. Intoxicants are designed to recreationally alter their moods. Cars are designed to transport people. Guns are designed specifically to injure and kill.

 

Anybody can use a product for something counter to its intended use. I just think we perhaps should consider holding the deadliest product to a different standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cm husker    2,045

 

 

 

The gun issue has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

 

Every other First World nation has reasonable curbs on gun ownership. That's all America wants. This isn't some government takeover, and that hysteria clouds the question.

Knapp, how do you define "reasonable curbs"?

 

I want them too, but I don't know that they are ultimately workable in this country.

Start with:

 

1. National license (ala drivers license) so it's the same everywher, and is mandatory.

2. Expand NICS system.

3. Increase availability of training, safety classes.

4. Increase wait times for first time buyers.

5. Cut the drug war.

6. Address socioeconomic issues, specifically in the inner cities.

Those all sound reasonable, especially the tangential ideas like 5 and 6.

 

My only concern with the first 4 is that if you have a legal market and you make it more expensive or difficult on first time buyers, you'll definitely create a system where existing owners sell illegally (i.e., a black market). This would be similar to what we seeing in the cigarette industry right now between VA and NY.

 

I wonder what % of guns involved in illegal shootings were purchased legally by the shooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeguyy    3,490

 

Also, if you used the argument that the government shouldn't regulate illegal drugs just because people will find them through other means, you'd be laughed at.

 

Even if that's true, it serve as a good reason for the government to just sit on its hands and do nothing.

By who? Isn't that the very argument for decriminalization.

 

 

There's reasonable evidence that suggests decriminalizing marijuana would be a good thing, and I'm very much on board.

 

I'm not for the government suddenly decriminalizing heroin or opioids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TAKODA    580

First of all, I would like to send prayers to all those affected by the senseless and horrendous massacre in Orlando, Fla. This hardly seams the appropriate time but since it was brought up by President Obama in his address to the Nation yesterday (Gun control) and it sparked this thread, I will add my tidbit and move on.

 

As a law abiding citizen/gun owner, I am all for further/deeper scrutiny prior to obtaining a permit allowing the purchase of any gun, however, don't tell me what I can or cannot buy, how many or what kind of guns I can own!

 

I have paid my dues to this Country and will continue to defend it, if and when it becomes necessary.

 

Like previously stated by Saunders, the assault weapons that are mentioned are no different than a hunting rifle these days (not full auto weapons)!

 

Do they hold more ammunition than a .375, .45/70, 270, 336, .30-30, .308, 30/06, .40, .45, 44mag or 9mm, yes!

 

Are they more lethal than any of the others I mentioned, no!

 

So the question may be asked, why would anyone want such a gun?

 

The answer is, because it's available, and if someone is cleared (I would agree to deeper scrutiny) to own any firearm, leave them the F alone!

 

Again, as a legal gun owner, I have zero problem increasing background checks to insure those who are looking to acquire them, fit the bill.

 

*Edit, (if there is any mental health issues, group affiliation or any other provable concerns), then they do not pass the background check, period!

Edited by TAKODA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saunders    6,159

 

 

The blanket protection they get from lawsuits is garbage. It disgusts me that the Sandy Hook victims still haven't been able to receive a cent in compensation from them.

Because it opens up pandoras box. Should people be able to sue Budweiser or GM when someone is killed via a DUI or negligent driving?

 

 

On a beer bottle, they have to put a warning right there on the bottle to use their product responsibly. Do you get such a warning with or on your firearm? I ask as someone who has never purchased one. If you do, I assume it's on a waiver you sign before purchase.

 

But again, a hearken back to my earlier point. Intoxicants are designed to recreationally alter their moods. Cars are designed to transport people. Guns are designed specifically to injure and kill.

 

Anybody can use a product for something counter to its intended use. I just think we perhaps should consider holding the deadliest product to a different standard.

 

1. Yes. All over the owners manual.

2. Alcohol is a poison. But when used responsibly, we as humans enjoy it.

 

Punishing manufacturers for people doing illegal things with a product is a horrible precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saunders    6,159

 

 

 

The gun issue has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

 

Every other First World nation has reasonable curbs on gun ownership. That's all America wants. This isn't some government takeover, and that hysteria clouds the question.

Knapp, how do you define "reasonable curbs"?

 

I want them too, but I don't know that they are ultimately workable in this country.

Start with:

 

1. National license (ala drivers license) so it's the same everywher, and is mandatory.

2. Expand NICS system.

3. Increase availability of training, safety classes.

4. Increase wait times for first time buyers.

5. Cut the drug war.

6. Address socioeconomic issues, specifically in the inner cities.

Those all sound reasonable, especially the tangential ideas like 5 and 6.

 

My only concern with the first 4 is that if you have a legal market and you make it more expensive or difficult on first time buyers, you'll definitely create a system where existing owners sell illegally (i.e., a black market). This would be similar to what we seeing in the cigarette industry right now between VA and NY.

 

I wonder what % of guns involved in illegal shootings were purchased legally by the shooter.

 

Unfortunately, that's going to happen whether you just restrict them, or ban them outright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cm husker    2,045

 

 

 

 

 

The gun issue has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

 

Every other First World nation has reasonable curbs on gun ownership. That's all America wants. This isn't some government takeover, and that hysteria clouds the question.

Knapp, how do you define "reasonable curbs"?

 

I want them too, but I don't know that they are ultimately workable in this country.

Start with:

 

1. National license (ala drivers license) so it's the same everywher, and is mandatory.

2. Expand NICS system.

3. Increase availability of training, safety classes.

4. Increase wait times for first time buyers.

5. Cut the drug war.

6. Address socioeconomic issues, specifically in the inner cities.

Those all sound reasonable, especially the tangential ideas like 5 and 6.

 

My only concern with the first 4 is that if you have a legal market and you make it more expensive or difficult on first time buyers, you'll definitely create a system where existing owners sell illegally (i.e., a black market). This would be similar to what we seeing in the cigarette industry right now between VA and NY.

 

I wonder what % of guns involved in illegal shootings were purchased legally by the shooter.

Unfortunately, that's going to happen whether you just restrict them, or ban them outright.

True. That's why I'm all over the place on whether we should ban them or make no changes. My sense is that more changes, short of an all out ban,would have little effect and would create a more vibrant black market than an outright ban would allow.

 

It's a a tough nut, no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coach Power'T    1,355

But "leftists" aren't the only ones who want gun control. Moderates, who make up the majority of the American voting bloc, do too.

Moderates exhibit left leaning agenda. Which Gun Control is.

 

It's why they are moderate. They lean left and right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redux    5,750

Let me put this into perspective:

 

I purchased my first hand gun a year ago. I bought it for protection against break ins and in the event of mass hysteria (regardless of how slim a chance either events occur) and because I wanted one to go out and shoot with (target practice).

 

It took me probably a year and a half to finally go about getting one. All it included was going to the sheriffs department and paying $10 for a purchase permit, a few days later I had it and went and bought a gun and took it homr that day.

 

We could very easily make aquiring a purchase permit much more difficult. There have to be steps we can take that don't go to the extreme of making firearms illegal to own or purchase. I'm open to hearing them, but 9/10 people just suggest they be made illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

 

But "leftists" aren't the only ones who want gun control. Moderates, who make up the majority of the American voting bloc, do too.

Moderates exhibit left leaning agenda. Which Gun Control is.

 

It's why they are moderate. They lean left and right.

 

 

 

That becomes semantics, doesn't it? Moderates hold these views, too. My point is, it's not worth labeling who thinks what. Let's address the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
C N Red    1,365

 

 

 

If you decrease legal availability of getting a gun or put in a million checks to keep people from getting guns that shouldn't have them, it will only drive the availability of getting guns on the secondary/black market. Which is worse? Guns are like drugs. If you want to use, you find a way to get what you need.

Flooding the nation with guns & bullets like we've been doing is significantly worse than a nation with fewer guns. The fewer guns in the system, the harder it is for criminals to get them. This is simple, basic logic.

 

My point is that I don't believe there will be fewer guns. The loss of being able to get a gun legally will be made up through illegal ways. Also, more illegally bought guns gives money to really "great and nice" people. I would bet it would lead to things being even worse.

 

 

This has not proved true in any other first-world nation. It is an unfounded fear and not a valid excuse to not move forward on this problem.

 

They can move forward if they want, but I'm not putting up anything as fact. I'm telling you what I believe will happen and would be 100% shocked if it didn't. Criminals are criminals and will continue to be criminals and will look for any how any way to make money. Unless you lock down our country like Russia or North Korea does to their people, we will not be able to control the black market on gun sales, just like we can't do with the drug problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StPaulHusker    5,080

Perhaps the problem is the word "control". No one seems to have a very good definition of it. Maybe we as a society need to look at it as oversight. I don't have a problem with people owning every gun they can get their hands on. I think some of them a silly and pointless. But I think that way about people collecting lots of things.

 

But the fact that a guy was interviewed 2X by the FBI was able to obtain an AR15 in an expedited manner without anyone knowing about it says a lot about where we are today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoogs    6,367

It's a double sided blade. Gun control will stop gun violence from growing but it wont end violence. You can still jump on youtube right now and find plenty of ways to make a projectile weapon or bomb.

First, think the idea that without guns ISIS is going to come in here and slaughter us is sheer fantasy.

 

Second, where is the other edge on that blade? Gun control will stop gun violence from growing -- GREAT! Can't stop everything -- of course! Let's still stop something, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redux    5,750

 

It's a double sided blade. Gun control will stop gun violence from growing but it wont end violence. You can still jump on youtube right now and find plenty of ways to make a projectile weapon or bomb.

First, think the idea that without guns ISIS is going to come in here and slaughter us is sheer fantasy.

Second, where is the other edge on that blade? Gun control will stop gun violence from growing -- GREAT! Can't stop everything -- of course! Let's still stop something, right?

The other edge is the "fantasy" as you so eloquently put it.

 

You honestly think ISIS isn't capable or willing to mass attack us? You honestly think the general public would be better off unarmed in that scenario? Now who is fantasizing...

 

It's unlikely ISIS ever amasses a force so grand that civilians have to take to arms to defend themselves. But it's certainly not impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TAKODA    580

The issue that Potus fails to mention or to identify here is that Muslims are anti "Gay" and believe those who fit that description are fair game. Owning a gun is really not the impetus for what happened in Orlando so let's be sure we separate the two when talking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redux    5,750

The issue that Potus fails to mention or to identify here is that Muslims are anti "Gay" and believe those who fit that description are fair game. Owning a gun is really not the impetus for what happened in Orlando so let's be sure we separate the two when talking.

 

Bingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enhance    3,498

First of all, I would like to send prayers to all those affected by the senseless and horrendous massacre in Orlando, Fla. This hardly seams the appropriate time but since it was brought up by President Obama in his address to the Nation yesterday (Gun control) and it sparked this thread, I will add my tidbit and move on.

 

As a law abiding citizen/gun owner, I am all for further/deeper scrutiny prior to obtaining a permit allowing the purchase of any gun, however, don't tell me what I can or cannot buy, how many or what kind of guns I can own!

 

I have paid my dues to this Country and will continue to defend it, if and when it becomes necessary.

 

Like previously stated by Saunders, the assault weapons that are mentioned are no different than a hunting rifle these days (not full auto weapons)!

 

Do they hold more ammunition than a .375, .45/70, 270, 336, .30-30, .308, 30/06, .40, .45, 44mag or 9mm, yes!

 

Are they more lethal than any of the others I mentioned, no!

 

So the question may be asked, why would anyone want such a gun?

 

The answer is, because it's available, and if someone is cleared (I would agree to deeper scrutiny) to own any firearm, leave them the F alone!

 

Again, as a legal gun owner, I have zero problem increasing background checks to insure those who are looking to acquire them, fit the bill.

 

*Edit, (if there is any mental health issues, group affiliation or any other provable concerns), then they do not pass the background check, period!

My question, particularly with your last line, is what constitutes as provable concerns? Unfortunately, we've seen several cases now where people have committed acts of violence despite several red flags. Those red flags existed with this most recent mass murderer, and they existed with another shooter recently who was on several no-fly lists and was still able to get a gun.

 

Should being on a no-fly list be reason enough to ban gun ownership? Should being suspected of terroristic activity/affiliations - in any way - ban gun ownership? I've gone my entire life without every ending up on a no-fly list or being suspected of terroristic activities, so to me, these seem like reasonable road blocks.

 

The last thing I want to see is what I saw one of my relatives post on Facebook today - massive arming of America's citizens to "stop s*** like this from happening." Guns wouldn't have been allowed in that nightclub anyways, nor hundreds of other gun-free zones across the county. And I don't think most states are going to move towards looser gun laws any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TAKODA    580

Yes, that's ridiculous. But I'm interested in hearing you flesh out this scenario more.

 

Me or Redux, and flesh out about what subject matter "Gun Control" or the "Orlando incident"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redux    5,750

Yes, that's ridiculous. But I'm interested in hearing you flesh out this scenario more.

Flesh out what, acts of terrorism by muslim extremists? Yeah I guess you're right, that could never happen except for all the times it did happen and will continue to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enhance    3,498

 

The issue that Potus fails to mention or to identify here is that Muslims are anti "Gay" and believe those who fit that description are fair game. Owning a gun is really not the impetus for what happened in Orlando so let's be sure we separate the two when talking.

Bingo

 

Traditional Muslim and Christian values go against gays. Although Islam has tended to be more violently reactive to homosexuality, this mindset/argument clouds the issue. Weapons, mental health and murderous motives are all intertwined.

 

This is exactly what the power players in this debate want - people trying to focus on one piece over the other instead of looking at them as one cohesive unit.

 

Guns are a huge problem.

 

People are a huge problem.

 

Stop trying to make it one or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enhance    3,498

 

Yes, that's ridiculous. But I'm interested in hearing you flesh out this scenario more.

Flesh out what, acts of terrorism by muslim extremists? Yeah I guess you're right, that could never happen except for all the times it did happen and will continue to happen.

 

Gun violence in communities, on our own soil, is far more rampant than acts of terrorism from Muslim extremists on our soil.

 

23, 344 shooting incidents have happened in 2016 so far in the U.S. Almost 6,000 of those involved someone dying.

 

I'm not trying to downplay the dangers of terroristic acts against America, but we have a bigger problem neighbor to neighbor than anything else.

 

Edit - I had to adjust some numbers there as they were off. Should be accurate now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Landlord    7,848

We could very easily make aquiring a purchase permit much more difficult. There have to be steps we can take that don't go to the extreme of making firearms illegal to own or purchase. I'm open to hearing them, but 9/10 people just suggest they be made illegal.

 

 

B.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TAKODA    580

 

First of all, I would like to send prayers to all those affected by the senseless and horrendous massacre in Orlando, Fla. This hardly seams the appropriate time but since it was brought up by President Obama in his address to the Nation yesterday (Gun control) and it sparked this thread, I will add my tidbit and move on.

 

As a law abiding citizen/gun owner, I am all for further/deeper scrutiny prior to obtaining a permit allowing the purchase of any gun, however, don't tell me what I can or cannot buy, how many or what kind of guns I can own!

 

I have paid my dues to this Country and will continue to defend it, if and when it becomes necessary.

 

Like previously stated by Saunders, the assault weapons that are mentioned are no different than a hunting rifle these days (not full auto weapons)!

 

Do they hold more ammunition than a .375, .45/70, 270, 336, .30-30, .308, 30/06, .40, .45, 44mag or 9mm, yes!

 

Are they more lethal than any of the others I mentioned, no!

 

So the question may be asked, why would anyone want such a gun?

 

The answer is, because it's available, and if someone is cleared (I would agree to deeper scrutiny) to own any firearm, leave them the F alone!

 

Again, as a legal gun owner, I have zero problem increasing background checks to insure those who are looking to acquire them, fit the bill.

 

*Edit, (if there is any mental health issues, group affiliation or any other provable concerns), then they do not pass the background check, period!

My question, particularly with your last line, is what constitutes as provable concerns? Unfortunately, we've seen several cases now where people have committed acts of violence despite several red flags. Those red flags existed with this most recent mass murderer, and they existed with another shooter recently who was on several no-fly lists and was still able to get a gun.

 

Should being on a no-fly list be reason enough to ban gun ownership? Should being suspected of terroristic activity/affiliations - in any way - ban gun ownership? I've gone my entire life without every ending up on a no-fly list or being suspected of terroristic activities, so to me, these seem like reasonable road blocks.

 

The last thing I want to see is what I saw one of my relatives post on Facebook today - massive arming of America's citizens to "stop s*** like this from happening." Guns wouldn't have been allowed in that nightclub anyways, nor hundreds of other gun-free zones across the county. And I don't think most states are going to move towards looser gun laws any time soon.

 

 

 

Good points Enhance;

 

Your first point:

 

Yes, I would say that if you are on a no fly list or have such proven affiliations, this in itself would keep you from acquiring a permit to buy a gun. Now, you and I both know that if a criminal and or terrorist wants to use a gun, plane, automobile or other to make their statement, they will find a way.

 

Your second point:

 

I believe that if more people had concealed carry permits, there is a likelihood that crime would diminish to some degree! While I know that the population level plays a part in criminal activity, I do believe that rural america, being fully armed, has to keep the criminal element mindful about what home they try to break into. A criminal knows that farmer Joe will rearrange his facial features should he barge in uninvited!

 

As for the gun free zones, I suspect this is already changing as they are already allowing teachers to carry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoogs    6,367

 

Yes, that's ridiculous. But I'm interested in hearing you flesh out this scenario more.

Flesh out what, acts of terrorism by muslim extremists? Yeah I guess you're right, that could never happen except for all the times it did happen and will continue to happen.

The one where America bans guns and that is what opens the floodgates to a mass ISIS invasion whereby we are all slaughtered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×