Gun Control

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, Decoy73 said:

Did you see the post from @Hedley Lamarr that I was responding to?   I’d have copied and pasted it, but I’m not smart enough to figure out how.  Anyway, I was referring to the same legal/liability treatment.   I certainly don’t want anyone shot and usually don’t even joke about something like that.   Except terrorists.  They can be shot.  

 

I thought that was exceedingly clear.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[DevoHusker]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

You don't think more people wanting to own guns will lead to more guns? You again seem to be trying not to see it.

 

There are already between 390-400 million privately owned firearms in the US. I honestly don't know how many more can be produced/manufactured before we reach a saturation point. Anti-gun folks aren't buying them for sure. Most people I know don't purchase brand new firearms, they purchase weapons that are "new to them" but are among the 400 million currently in circulation. 

 

I think that if a person has wanted to utilize a gun, such as in the scenario you discussed with @Saunders, they already have one, or several. 

[Decoy73]

6 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I thought that was exceedingly clear.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I guess I can see how it was taken out of context now that I look back.   
 

Thanks for clarifying the way to copy previous posts.  I always wanted to know how, but didn’t want to ask for fear of sounding like a dumba$$. 

[Redux]

42 minutes ago, knapplc said:

This board is pretty easy to follow conversations. All you gotta do is click the little curved arrow on the quote.

 

 

  

 

But sure, let's pretend he meant gun CEOs should be shot. That's part of a good, honest conversation. 

 

Do we hold everyone to that standard?  Asking for a friend.

[DevoHusker]

 

 

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

 

There are already between 390-400 million privately owned firearms in the US. I honestly don't know how many more can be produced/manufactured before we reach a saturation point. Anti-gun folks aren't buying them for sure. Most people I know don't purchase brand new firearms, they purchase weapons that are "new to them" but are among the 400 million currently in circulation. 

 

I think that if a person has wanted to utilize a gun, such as in the scenario you discussed with @Saunders, they already have one, or several. 

Are you arguing that the technical definition of "more guns" only means total gun count? I thought it was pretty clear were talking about both how many people have guns and the number of guns those people have.

 

But even if I were to accept your narrow definition of the debate, millions of guns are being made every year in the US. Somebody is buying them.

[ScarletRevival]

12 hours 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.

 

<snip>

 

Quote

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. 

 

Nonsense. The NRA one of the reasons why we still have a few remaining rights.

 

Disarming the populace hasn't worked out well for the people in leftist totalitarianism regimes, see the USSR, North Korea, Nazi Germany or Communist China.

 

Edit: Public education systems and their unions have done far more to harm this country than the NRA ever could.

 

Quote

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. 

 

Yes, over 20,000 guns laws on the books AFAIK. How about we enforce those laws?

 

Quote

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

 

Yet there are hundreds of millions on firearms in this country that will never be used in the killing of a human so that's false.

 

12 hours ago, Cdog923 said:

What is the need for an AR-15 style weapon, though?

 

 

If there are no police or military around, and a roaming group of marxist insurrectionists stroll through your neighborhood, threatening to kill your dog, rape your spouse and burn your house down you might find out why a person would need one.

 

Furthermore, these are sporting rifles. Many conservationist use these tools when hunting.

 

Lastly, AR style rifles are used in a very small number of homicides.  

 

"You are five times more likely to be killed by a knife than by a rifle. Hands, fists and feet caused twice as many deaths as rifles.

 

According to the FBI’s crime statistics for 2018, there were 14,123 murders committed with a weapon of some kind. Of the total, rifles claimed 297 victims, compared to 1,515 for knives and other cutting instruments, and 672 for “personal weapons” defined as hands, fists, feet and even pushing. Even blunt objects such as hammers and clubs caused more deaths than rifles."

 

http://ninelinenews.com/articles-2/2nd-amendment/gun-activists-in-meltdown-over-new-fbi-stats-on-ar-15-deaths/

 

Quote

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. 

 

I'm not sure about the structure in which you reside or if you own a vehicle, but you don't need those either. You can live in a 10 by 10 tent and walk wherever you'd like to go.

 

 

[DevoHusker]

3 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Are you arguing that the technical definition of "more guns" only means total gun count? I thought it was pretty clear were talking about both how many people have guns and the number of guns those people have.

 

But even if I were to accept your narrow definition of the debate, millions of guns are being made every year in the US. Somebody is buying them.

Honest to goodness,  I think I explained myself well enough, but maybe I didnt. Your perspective is people want more and more (#s) guns. My perspective is there is a plethora of guns right now, and with Boomers dying off, and youngsters leaning left, there won't be a huge call for "more guns", but there are situations where folks want "new" guns, as in different.

 

Thanks for the links on production...that likely shoots a hole, pun intended, in my theory 

[funhusker]

5 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

5 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

WTF does this even mean?

[DevoHusker]

2 hours ago, funhusker said:

 

From the article:

Counties tell NTV they support their sheriff and oppose any law that infringes on the right to bear arms.

[Cdog923]

13 hours ago, ScarletRevival said:

 

<snip>

 

 

Nonsense. The NRA one of the reasons why we still have a few remaining rights.

 

Disarming the populace hasn't worked out well for the people in leftist totalitarianism regimes, see the USSR, North Korea, Nazi Germany or Communist China.

 

Edit: Public education systems and their unions have done far more to harm this country than the NRA ever could.

 

 

Yes, over 20,000 guns laws on the books AFAIK. How about we enforce those laws?

 

 

Yet there are hundreds of millions on firearms in this country that will never be used in the killing of a human so that's false.

 

 

If there are no police or military around, and a roaming group of marxist insurrectionists stroll through your neighborhood, threatening to kill your dog, rape your spouse and burn your house down you might find out why a person would need one.

 

Furthermore, these are sporting rifles. Many conservationist use these tools when hunting.

 

Lastly, AR style rifles are used in a very small number of homicides.  

 

"You are five times more likely to be killed by a knife than by a rifle. Hands, fists and feet caused twice as many deaths as rifles.

 

According to the FBI’s crime statistics for 2018, there were 14,123 murders committed with a weapon of some kind. Of the total, rifles claimed 297 victims, compared to 1,515 for knives and other cutting instruments, and 672 for “personal weapons” defined as hands, fists, feet and even pushing. Even blunt objects such as hammers and clubs caused more deaths than rifles."

 

http://ninelinenews.com/articles-2/2nd-amendment/gun-activists-in-meltdown-over-new-fbi-stats-on-ar-15-deaths/

 

 

I'm not sure about the structure in which you reside or if you own a vehicle, but you don't need those either. You can live in a 10 by 10 tent and walk wherever you'd like to go.

 

 

 

[Cdog923]

17 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

 

 

So he's willing to declare this a safe haven for guns, but not for migrant children (or really any children in the state). 

 

Classic Pricketts. 

[DevoHusker]

Just now, Cdog923 said:

 

So he's willing to declare this a safe haven for guns, but not for migrant children (or really any children in the state). 

 

Classic Pricketts. 

 

I have seen that exact sentiment volleyed back at the poster(s) on Twitter. 

 

To your (and their) credit, that statement is 100% accurate though Pete does not view it that way.

[Cdog923]

1 minute ago, DevoHusker said:

 

I have seen that exact sentiment volleyed back at the poster(s) on Twitter. 

 

To your (and their) credit, that statement is 100% accurate though Pete does not view it that way.

 

Thank God he's term-limited; I'd be willing to vote for almost anyone else at this point. 

 

If he runs for Congress, so help us God. 

[BigRedBuster]

6 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

So he's willing to declare this a safe haven for guns, but not for migrant children (or really any children in the state). 

 

Classic Pricketts. 

When you look at these two issues together, you have to wonder what the hell goes through his mind.