Jump to content

Gun Control


Recommended Posts

Here's the question I keep coming back to: why would any rational gun owner reject restrictions and control measures to ensure that people that shouldn't have a gun have as difficult of a time possible obtaining one? 

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And imagine if the people who think they're analyzing the facts actually read the articles in question and understood what per capita means. 

This type of attitude doesn't help. Going around and demonizing anyone who owns a gun and blaming them for what happened isn't right. It's not NRA members (as much as I despise what they've become) go

Lovely.

Posted Images

14 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Well, except no one said that "more guns" would have solved this incident...? 

 

While the "more guns" narrative may play with Wayne LaPierre and his ilk, I don't think anyone on this board has ever said more guns solves anything. 

The argument that guns prevent or minimize home invasions, can stop a mass shooter, etc. are the "more guns" would solve <insert problem> argument. I did a quick search of the thread and found a couple of posts (not trying to point fingers at these posters; I tried to remove their names but couldn't):

On 6/13/2016 at 7:23 AM, Saunders said:

Second, how else am I supposed to protect myself and my family? We live in a subdivision outside city limits. We're at least 15-20 minutes from the nearest police station. If there's a B&E, my wife knows to take our kids to the master bedroom, lock the door, get her gun, and call 911. Without a firearm to even the odds, she's defenseless against an assailant.

 

On 6/13/2016 at 7:24 AM, Redux said:

Let's take it a step further. All guns are gone in America. Crime drops, shootings drop, and liberal America rejoices......for all of a week before ISIS comes in and starts slaughtering us knowing full well citizens are no longer armed. Liberals scratch their heads how this could happen since guns are illegal.

 

Link to post
18 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

This was an argument presented by @Hedley Lamarr a few days ago, and while it didn't pertain to THIS incident, it's germane to the overall gun addiction in America. 

I just believe that if you are a law abiding citizen you should be able to have firearms....if that means more cool if that means the same current amount also cool, if that means less cool too. I will leave it up to the individual to decide if they want to carry their legal firearm. 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot. Odd how that works right? Mostly because these people want to attack sheep and not wolves. 

  • Plus1 3
Link to post
2 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

I just believe that if you are a law abiding citizen you should be able to have firearms

 

Good Guys with guns are well and swell... until they turn into bad guys with guns.

 

The dude who shot up Las Vegas was a law-abiding citizen, wasn't he? All his guns were legally owned, as I recall. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Good Guys with guns are well and swell... until they turn into bad guys with guns.

 

The dude who shot up Las Vegas was a law-abiding citizen, wasn't he? All his guns were legally owned, as I recall. 

we actually know very little about that entire ordeal, seems we moved on pretty quick from that without coming to any further conclusions to the investigations. More often than not the FBI etc drops the ball. 

  • Plus1 3
Link to post

4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Good Guys with guns are well and swell... until they turn into bad guys with guns.

 

The dude who shot up Las Vegas was a law-abiding citizen, wasn't he? All his guns were legally owned, as I recall. 

See, this is the part that makes me think, no guns at all.

 

Because sure that guy "was good" but clearly he was not good, he was horrible.  Now if he was always bad and just hid it well or if he turned bad, who knows.

 

So it should just be one shot-manual reload.  

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
Just now, Hedley Lamarr said:

we actually know very little about that entire ordeal, seems we moved on pretty quick from that without coming to any further conclusions to the investigations. More often than not the FBI etc drops the ball. 

 

We know he had no priors, no history of mental illness, and that all of his guns were purchased legally. He was the epitome of the "good guy with a gun." 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
38 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The argument that guns prevent or minimize home invasions, can stop a mass shooter, etc. are the "more guns" would solve <insert problem> argument. I did a quick search of the thread and found a couple of posts (not trying to point fingers at these posters; I tried to remove their names but couldn't):

 

 

Did those examples call for "more" guns? Or did they just indicate what would happen if there were "no" guns? Because I read arguments for owning a firearm, in general, with no reference to "more".  

 

That, I feel, is the main issue that will have to be ironed out. Taking guns away is the fear, not responsible legislation to make it more difficult for dirt bags. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Did those examples call for "more" guns? Or did they just indicate what would happen if there were "no" guns? Because I read arguments for owning a firearm, in general, with no reference to "more".  

 

That, I feel, is the main issue that will have to be ironed out. Taking guns away is the fear, not responsible legislation to make it more difficult for dirt bags. 

You really don't see that those are arguments in favor of more guns? "Having a gun will make you x% less likely to be home invaded" is an argument for people to go out and buy a gun. Same with "ISIS will get us if enough of us don't have guns".

Link to post

  

1 minute ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Agreed, and they lose their license as well. "Do no harm" is part of the oath I believe. I also agree she should face the consequences of her actions. She has already been fired.

 

My point was more to those saying it was due to her (and in general all police) training that is to blame. She made a tragic mistake. She might have been the best trained, most proficient, officer on their force...we have no idea. 

 

 

Replying here because this is where this conversation belongs & I don't want to continue derailing the other thread.

 

I keep bringing up training because it's clear that "good guys with guns" won't solve our shooter problem, when even the most highly-trained among us make mistakes. The problem is the proliferation of guns. No amount of training will prevent accidents like this. The solution is less guns. 

Link to post

5 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You really don't see that those are arguments in favor of more guns? "Having a gun will make you x% less likely to be home invaded" is an argument for people to go out and buy a gun. Same with "ISIS will get us if enough of us don't have guns".

 

I guess I really don't. Most (like 98%) of my circle are responsible gun owners. I have not heard any one of them advocating for "more guns" to solve any of these issues. Most realize that the US already has plenty of guns. They fear that the government will take their guns. The argument of the "good guy with a gun" does not imply that we need more guns to my knowledge. Just more responsible use and carry.

 

I know that many/most of them are all for responsible reform and regulation, as long as it doesn't take guns away. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

we actually know very little about that entire ordeal, seems we moved on pretty quick from that without coming to any further conclusions to the investigations. More often than not the FBI etc drops the ball. 


Or the NRA pays some people off and we cant get a quality investigation. Just like we cant get the CDC to study gun control because the NRA wont allow it. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

 

I guess I really don't. Most (like 98%) of my circle are responsible gun owners. I have not heard any one of them advocating for "more guns" to solve any of these issues. Most realize that the US already has plenty of guns. They fear that the government will take their guns. The argument of the "good guy with a gun" does not imply that we need more guns to my knowledge. Just more responsible use and carry.

 

I know that many/most of them are all for responsible reform and regulation, as long as it doesn't take guns away. 

I don't see any guns being taken from existing legal owners.  All things considered, It just doesn't seem like it would be a viable option.  What about banning sales of AR's (and the like) as well as high-capacity (however defined) magazines for all weapons?  In other words, you have your AR--you can keep your AR, however after you die, it must be surrendered.  In other words, certain combat weapons would be grandfathered to the the current owner, but cannot be transferred.

Do you suppose those in your circle could get behind something like that?

Link to post
1 hour ago, Decoy73 said:

I don't see any guns being taken from existing legal owners.  All things considered, It just doesn't seem like it would be a viable option.  What about banning sales of AR's (and the like) as well as high-capacity (however defined) magazines for all weapons?  In other words, you have your AR--you can keep your AR, however after you die, it must be surrendered.  In other words, certain combat weapons would be grandfathered to the the current owner, but cannot be transferred.

Do you suppose those in your circle could get behind something like that?

I personally would say yes. Most of my friends would also. There are some who are firmly in the "shall not be infringed" camp and would not. I would hope that something similar to your suggestion would be acceptable to most. I do think that you are on the right wavelength by talking about manufacturing of certain future models and high capacity mags, bump stocks etc

Link to post

How about this...if the gun your company makes, is used to kill someone, then the CEO of that company is executed.

 

I have a feeling that gun loving CEO's would change their stance really freaking quick.

 

But, in all seriousness, single shot ONLY guns that need to be reloaded after every shot, there is no sane argument against that.

 

You can still have your super uzi...you just have to reload it after every shot, by hand.  You can still have your 45 magnum, you just gotta reload it after every shot...

 

Everyone wins, you still can buy the gun you want! 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...