NebraskaHarry Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 I would like to know the statistics on people who own or don't own guns and their opinion on gun control. 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. 1 Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 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? 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. No, I think it was your post that tried to connect drunk driving with gun murder. I was just commenting on Harry's earlier post that reducing murder by banning guns equates to banning alcohol to control drunk driving. Oh, and tried to insert a shot of humor about the pursuit of happiness by drinking, but it obviously didn't work. 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. Now let me think... The first thing you half to do in order to get legally drunk is drink. The second thing you need to do is utter the words, 'Oh I'm OK to drive don't worryabout me. Wake up sd'skers. T_O_B 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. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 gun owners should own greater liability insurance, as should smokers pay higher health insurance premiums. that is just common sense. and if any damage is caused by your gun, regardless of who controlled it at the time of damage, the gun owner should pay. Link to comment
NebraskaHarry Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 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? 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. No, I think it was your post that tried to connect drunk driving with gun murder. I was just commenting on Harry's earlier post that reducing murder by banning guns equates to banning alcohol to control drunk driving. Oh, and tried to insert a shot of humor about the pursuit of happiness by drinking, but it obviously didn't work. 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. Now let me think... The first thing you half to do in order to get legally drunk is drink. The second thing you need to do is utter the words, 'Oh I'm OK to drive don't worryabout me. Wake up sd'skers. T_O_B 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. Link to comment
B1G Red Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Knapp, Don't fool yourself, the government keeps lists of cars and homes cuz they want to tax the crap out of you for them. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Oh, I see now. I can't believe I didn't see it before. We need more regulations. Just like the drunk driving regulations. 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? 2 Link to comment
B1G Red Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Harry, my guess is your could put sd'sker in the "non - owner" category. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Knapp, Don't fool yourself, the government keeps lists of cars and homes cuz they want to tax the crap out of you for them. that was not his point. are you afraid of lists because you do not want the government to tax your guns or take your guns? try to stay on the same page here. 1 Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Harry, my guess is your could put sd'sker in the "non - owner" category. or you could put me in the 'don't want myself or family to get killed by a gun' category. 1 Link to comment
NebraskaHarry Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 gun owners should own greater liability insurance, as should smokers pay higher health insurance premiums. that is just common sense. and if any damage is caused by your gun, regardless of who controlled it at the time of damage, the gun owner should pay. Smoking and Guns are NOT THE SAME THING. Not remotely even close. Link to comment
B1G Red Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 prohibitive tax is the same as a ban, already a $200 stamp on "prohibited" class 3 firearms. Link to comment
B1G Red Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 sd'sker, you and your family are 100% safe from any gun I own, provided you don't accidentally break down my back door in the middle of the night sometime. Probably a lot more at risk from the drunk drivers out there. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 gun owners should own greater liability insurance, as should smokers pay higher health insurance premiums. that is just common sense. and if any damage is caused by your gun, regardless of who controlled it at the time of damage, the gun owner should pay. 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. prohibitive tax is the same as a ban, already a $200 stamp on "prohibited" class 3 firearms. no it is not. one is a ban, the other is a tax. 1 Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 sd'sker, you and your family are 100% safe from any gun I own, provided you don't accidentally break down my back door in the middle of the night sometime. Probably a lot more at risk from the drunk drivers out there. that is great. a real comfort. never said that you were a risk to me or my family. i think it is great that you own guns for whatever reason you do, but can you assure that everyone else who owns guns is as responsible as you? Link to comment
NebraskaHarry Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Oh, I see now. I can't believe I didn't see it before. We need more regulations. Just like the drunk driving regulations. 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? Link to comment
Recommended Posts