Jump to content

Gun Control


Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, teachercd said:

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

 

Like uhh...... not wanting to be CEO anymore.  

 

In all serious though, I would favor doing away with whatever liability shield the gun manufacturers currently have.  

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 2
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

1 minute ago, Decoy73 said:

Like uhh...... not wanting to be CEO anymore.  

 

In all serious though, I would favor doing away with whatever liability shield the gun manufacturers currently have.  

"I quit"

 

"Too late, there has been a murder"

 

"f#&%!"

  • Haha 2
Link to post
10 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

Like uhh...... not wanting to be CEO anymore.  

 

In all serious though, I would favor doing away with whatever liability shield the gun manufacturers currently have.  

Hope you are for doing that across all industries where individuals illegally use the product they manufacture.  

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
17 hours 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. 

 

That fear has been successfully peddled to them by the NRA: an organization who has done more to harm to this country than most. Sensible gun control laws have been proposed (and enacted) in the past, but lobbying by the NRA has made it virtually impossible for any sort of these sensible gun control laws to be passed again, possibly ever. 

 

2 hours ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

Hope you are for doing that across all industries where individuals illegally use the product they manufacture.  

 

If those industries create products that their primary purpose is to kill other living beings, then sure, go right ahead. 

  • Plus1 3
Link to post

1 minute ago, Cdog923 said:

 

That fear has been successfully peddled to them by the NRA: an organization who has done more to harm to this country than most. Sensible gun control laws have been proposed (and enacted) in the past, but lobbying by the NRA has made it virtually impossible for any sort of these sensible gun control laws to be passed again, possibly ever. 

 

But what is the first thing that is being bandied about? Ban/get rid of/Take any gun that resembles an AR-15. It has nothing to do with what the NRA peddles in a general sense...those on the left that are pushing this want to take guns away as the first action of reform. Or am I misreading what "no one needs an AR-15" means?

  • Plus1 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Just now, DevoHusker said:

 

But what is the first thing that is being bandied about? Ban/get rid of/Take any gun that resembles an AR-15. It has nothing to do with what the NRA peddles in a general sense...those on the left that are pushing this want to take guns away as the first action of reform. Or am I misreading what "no one needs an AR-15" means?

 

What is the need for an AR-15 style weapon, though? I'm willing to wager that, for most people who have one of those or something similar to it, that they don't have an explicit need for it, rather than an explicit want for it, which is what needs to be addressed. And, while the Right screams about mental health and the Left screams about an outright banning of these guns, the answer is somewhere in the middle: we 1000% need more focus on mental health supports (and proper support through budgetary means for that), and it absolutely has to be more difficult for someone to buy and own those types of weapons. 

 

In terms of the NRA, they've formed a Cult of Personality surrounding the idea that "No Guns Are Bad", and that the want for a firearm supersedes the needs of the public good. I've seen that firsthand, and will absolutely not budge on that. 

 

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
18 hours 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):

 

Thinking my specific quote requires context but whatevz

Link to post
On 4/12/2021 at 11:18 AM, Cdog923 said:

 

Forgive my ignorance, but for a P2P sale, doesn't there have to be a change in registration of the gun at some point in time? Why not implement a background check at this stage?

 

I'm not exactly sure what designates a P2P sale. I bought my AR from an employee and the way it worked is, I paid him directly, he took the gun to a gun shop and left it there. I then had to fill out the paperwork and go through the background check, exactly as if I had bought the gun from them. When I received approval they gave me the gun.  AFAIK that is how a P2P sale is supposed to occur. Maybe it's just a Colorado thing.

 

I have no idea why anyone would think it is stupid to have the same checks on a P2P sale as if you had bought it from a store.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
41 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

What is the need for an AR-15 style weapon, though? I'm willing to wager that, for most people who have one of those or something similar to it, that they don't have an explicit need for it, rather than an explicit want for it, which is what needs to be addressed. And, while the Right screams about mental health and the Left screams about an outright banning of these guns, the answer is somewhere in the middle: we 1000% need more focus on mental health supports (and proper support through budgetary means for that), and it absolutely has to be more difficult for someone to buy and own those types of weapons. 

 

In terms of the NRA, they've formed a Cult of Personality surrounding the idea that "No Guns Are Bad", and that the want for a firearm supersedes the needs of the public good. I've seen that firsthand, and will absolutely not budge on that. 

 

 

 

I 100% agree twice. 1- that we have to move towards the middle to get anything done. 2-mental health is a huge aspect of reform.

 

I will say that your stance of "who needs one anyway" is just that...your stance. I am sure you have 2A folks in your circle. Ask them if they agree.

I own one, in .223, and love to shoot it, but have no real attachment to it. It's fun to shoot, and is accurate as heck. I shoot prairie dogs and coyotes with it. 

But, if the US Govt wants to pay me for my costs, I would turn it in. However, I am not most stringent 2A folks. 

  • Plus1 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

31 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

 

I'm not exactly sure what designates a P2P sale. I bought my AR from an employee and the way it worked is, I paid him directly, he took the gun to a gun shop and left it there. I then had to fill out the paperwork and go through the background check, exactly as if I had bought the gun from them. When I received approval they gave me the gun.  AFAIK that is how a P2P sale is supposed to occur. Maybe it's just a Colorado thing.

 

I have no idea why anyone would think it is stupid to have the same checks on a P2P sale as if you had bought it from a store.

You passed a background check?!?!!?  

 

Hahaha

  • Haha 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

Hope you are for doing that across all industries where individuals illegally use the product they manufacture.  

If their product’s intent is also to kill people, then they should get the same treatment.  

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, DevoHusker said:

 

I 100% agree twice. 1- that we have to move towards the middle to get anything done. 2-mental health is a huge aspect of reform.

 

I will say that your stance of "who needs one anyway" is just that...your stance. I am sure you have 2A folks in your circle. Ask them if they agree.

I own one, in .223, and love to shoot it, but have no real attachment to it. It's fun to shoot, and is accurate as heck. I shoot prairie dogs and coyotes with it. 

But, if the US Govt wants to pay me for my costs, I would turn it in. However, I am not most stringent 2A folks. 

 

I don't generally begrudge people spending their money on things of their choosing, but "Need" vs. "Want" is big to me when it comes to certain things. There are a lot of things that I want, but have no need for them, and the justification for me owning them just doesn't work; a gigantic pickup truck as my daily driver in a large city, a gold, heated, LED-lit toilet seat or a firearm with the capacity to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time all generally fall into this category for me (as does most of Abu Dhabi, come to think of it).

 

A lot of those "want" type of people come off to me more like Veruca Salt more than anything, really. 

  • Plus1 3
Link to post
48 minutes ago, Decoy73 said:

If their product’s intent is also to kill people, then they should get the same treatment.  

 

That's a pretty nearsighted way of looking at it.

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...