Jump to content


NebraskaHarry

Members
  • Posts

    3,480
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by NebraskaHarry

  1. The government already "takes away" many types of arms. You cannot own a tank, for example. You cannot make pipe bombs in your garage. So given this, why is taking away the AR-15 assault rifle the line where the government can go no further? A tank and bomb is not a firearm. Stop comparing apples and oranges. The constitution says nothing about firearms. It says we have the right to bear arms, not firearms. ...k.
  2. I'm a scientist too. They call me Dr. Love. Oh I do that as a hobby on my spare time.
  3. Sure! I'm all for it. I can find a title for you. HuskerBoard Scientist?
  4. The government already "takes away" many types of arms. You cannot own a tank, for example. You cannot make pipe bombs in your garage. So given this, why is taking away the AR-15 assault rifle the line where the government can go no further? A tank and bomb is not a firearm. Stop comparing apples and oranges.
  5. I work on bacterial strains useful in the alternative fuels industry. So I believe the correct republican term for me is "evil scientist". I'm a scientist too. I work with wildlife and habitat conservation and management.
  6. Would he have died without the gun? Oh god. Now you're trying to control everything and take responsibility for everyone. Mind your own business. If I accidentally kill myself jumping over a fence while hunting pheasant thats my own fault and stupidity.
  7. Many of you claim we need more gun laws... well what are those. Oh and I'm all for background checks. But taking away certain types of guns because some bureaucrat thinks it's a dangerous gun is where I start to draw the line. Because where does it stop.
  8. Are you claiming that someone jumping over a barb wire fence while hunting and the gun accidentally killing themself is the same as someone robbing a store and shooting the clerk are the same thing?
  9. What claim would you like me to provide evidence for? I like how he provides that he's a scientist. I mean what kind of scientist? Haha.
  10. Smoking and Guns are NOT THE SAME THING. Not remotely even close. They are, is the thing. Studies have repeatedly shown that smoking increases your risk of cancer and death. Studies have repeatedly shown that owning a gun increases the likelihood that you or someone in your house will die by a gun. That is simply a fact you cannot dispute. If that were true then owning a knife technically increases your chance of someone in your house dieing by a knife. Heck, the same holds true for owning a cat. You can just about make excuses for anything potentially dangerous. People like me and many people on here who are responsible gun owners are going to be the ones who get punished for doing things the right way. If you can show a study that demonstrates that houses with knives have death rates which are higher than houses with no knives at all (good luck finding those houses, btw), and show that these rates are statistically significant, then you have an argument. I could cite peer-reviewed scientific studies, literally all day long, that show owning a gun significantly increases the likelihood that someone in your house will die by a gun. Can you show me two peer-reviewed scientific studies that show knives or cats are the same threat? Until you can actually cite data that supports your claims, your argument is nothing more than "I WANT MY GUNS!!!" You're missing the point. So to follow the direction you want I will use vehicles as an example since there are studies. Owning a vehicle technically increasing your chance on injury or death by owning a car. More so than owning a gun btw. Yet we're not banning vehicles. Sure vehicles are safer and such, but that's not the point. You're comparing apples and oranges, trying to lump gun related accidents with gun related homicides (non-accidents). And they're not the same thing.
  11. Smoking and Guns are NOT THE SAME THING. Not remotely even close. They are, is the thing. Studies have repeatedly shown that smoking increases your risk of cancer and death. Studies have repeatedly shown that owning a gun increases the likelihood that you or someone in your house will die by a gun. That is simply a fact you cannot dispute. If that were true then owning a knife technically increases your chance of someone in your house dieing by a knife. Heck, the same holds true for owning a cat. You can just about make excuses for anything potentially dangerous. People like me and many people on here who are responsible gun owners are going to be the ones who get punished for doing things the right way.
  12. This is going no where. I'm thinking about calling it too.
  13. sd'sker those charts in those articles actually show a downward trend in gun related fatalities since the 1980's.
  14. Those types of solutions only hurt the people who do nothing wrong in the first place.
  15. do you realize how substantially drunk driving fatalities have decreased in just a few decades? just because of a few changes in the law that no one now would ever doubt unless you just want to seem like a raging alcoholic? But aren't drunk driving fatalities still higher than gun related fatalities? so what if they are? the point is that traffic fatalities from drunk driving are less because of actions society took. why would i comparing the number of traffic fatalities cause by drunk driving to the number of gun fatalities? that makes no sense? then you would compare the same actions to reduce drunk driving fatalities to gun fatalities and that makes even less sense. So I guess I haven't see the statistics that gun related fatalities are way up then they were in the past. You care to share that info?
  16. Smoking and Guns are NOT THE SAME THING. Not remotely even close. this is absurd. every point i make is instantly misconstrued into something totally nonsensically and then never addressed. i did not bring up smoking, but they are both inherently dangerous acts that cause greater risk. owning a gun and smoking both make you a greater liability to an insurer. so that was my point that you responded to by emphatically stating something that made no sense. no it is not. one is a ban, the other is a tax. Misconstrued? You want guns owners to pay higher taxes because they own something the could in theory hurt someone else. But maybe you're right. Also, I think it is our best interest to tax knife owners. And owners with big dogs. I'll be damned if they're gonna hurt my family without paying higher taxes.
  17. do you realize how substantially drunk driving fatalities have decreased in just a few decades? just because of a few changes in the law that no one now would ever doubt unless you just want to seem like a raging alcoholic? But aren't drunk driving fatalities still higher than gun related fatalities?
  18. Smoking and Guns are NOT THE SAME THING. Not remotely even close.
  19. drunk driving laws have radically changed since the '70s, you know, when they were virtually nonexistent. when did i claim that drunk driving is a fixed problem? i said it has been mitigated through a change in societal attitudes and better regulations. you are equating drunk driving and gun control in a very odd matter. how has gun control improved? you are focusing on gun control when i am focusing on gun deaths; the problem is not gun control, that is just one solution (and not a total solution, but an area where regulations could lead to a mitigation in the problem). finally, the 'wild west' had shockingly low levels of gun violence. i got the joke and i thought it was funny. do not know what more i should have done there. but my post tried to connect well focused regulations to limiting a problem. prohibition was not enacted to reduce drunk driving, so i really did not understand your point. that is not entirely true. the first thing you have to do to get legally drunk is be of age. after that, i really do not understand your point. Oh, I see now. I can't believe I didn't see it before. We need more regulations. Just like the drunk driving regulations.
  20. Life NRA member, avid shooter of clay targets, paper, metal plates, and assorted edible critters, shooting instructor, strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, personally never put more than 5 rounds in a 30 round clip. personally would tolerate some restrictions on transfers or even magazine limits, but have ZERO faith that those restrictions don't become the seeds that grow into more bans. Semiauto "assault" rifles, becomes semiauto rifle, becomes semiauto anything, becomes goodbye semiauto skeet gun. People may think I'm nuts, but I don't trust a federal agency with a list of who has what for firearms. If the federal government has it, then so does the rest of the world. 10 years from now, you won't be able to get homeowners insurance becasue they know you have firearms or ammunition in your home, or you are denied/pay more for health insurance because the CDC calls gun ownership a disease. I don't smoke but ask a smoker what insurance companies are like. So I support those who resist any 2nd amendment restriction, because I don't trust the outcome. I agree. Some politicians already have their foot in the door, now they're trying to shove themselves all the way in.
  21. I don't know what you're talking about, someone broke in and stole my guns last week. I don't own any guns, Mr. Government person.
  22. I own several (my wife would probably say many) guns. I support reasonable regulation including (but probably not limited to) universal background checks. There is one data point for your curiosity. Used to be a member of the NRA back when they were a little more reasonable. I'm all for background checks. Every gun I own had a background check. Never was an NRA member nor do I want to be, but many people, including our many politicians want to go further than background checks.
  23. Last I checked we already had laws for murder. what was that? was that an argument? i am not sure what you are responding to. You're trying to compare drunk driving to gun shootings. And if that's the case alcohol is to guns as driving drunk is to shooting people. How that has anything to do with gun regulation, I don't no. Plus we still have drunk driving we these regulations you mention so I guess we should just ban alcohol to reduce drunk driving I guess. Kind of like banning guns to reduce shootings. Makes sense to me. what? the point is that there was a threat to public safety. the laws were adjusted. the problem has since been mitigated. it is really pretty simple. drunk driving was better regulated, just as gun ownership should be. driving a car necessitates certain responsibilities. why should gun ownership be any different? The regulations on guns has been just as on par over the years as it has on drunk driving. It appears your claiming that drunk driving is a fixed problem and gun control is not. I will say that drunk driving has probably improved, but so has gun control... whatever that means I guess. I mean we're not exactly living in the "wild west" any more are we?
  24. I would like to know the statistics on people who own or don't own guns and their opinion on gun control.
  25. Last I checked we already had laws for murder. what was that? was that an argument? i am not sure what you are responding to. You're trying to compare drunk driving to gun shootings. And if that's the case alcohol is to guns as driving drunk is to shooting people. How that has anything to do with gun regulation, I don't no. Plus we still have drunk driving we these regulations you mention so I guess we should just ban alcohol to reduce drunk driving I guess. Kind of like banning guns to reduce shootings. Makes sense to me.
×
×
  • Create New...