Gun Control

[BigRedBuster]

I have never been in a situation where I felt I needed a gun to protect myself. However, I have a friend who finally went and got a conceal carry permit because three times he has been in a house that was invaded and the situation could have been really really bad. And, this was in small town central Nebraska. In fact, I think his daughter has her CC permit also. All three times she was in a situation where she was confronted by the person invading the house.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

lol, yeah I would try to make sure that type of mass killing isn't brought up either..

 

It's irrelevant to this discussion.

 

They're not related. Stopping abortions isn't going to stop gun violence from occurring. Stopping gun violence isn't going to stop abortions from happening, and yes, someone can be in favor of more gun control and fewer abortions. So please, take that narrow-mindedness elsewhere. It has no place in this thread.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

94-99% of all gun owners are responsible, I get that. So, if you're responsible, what's to hide? What is so bad about having to jump through a few extra hoops in the name of protecting others' lives from a senseless end if you know that you'll pass a more stringent background check without a problem?

 

You're still going to get your gun to go shoot-shoot-bang.

[Saunders]

 

and a large portion of you are hypocrites if you are not just as loud for getting rid of abortions. Hundreds of thousands of babies a year are killed in the name of choice.. Perfect example of sanctioned mass murder!

 

No love for human life at all!

This is not the place for that discussion.

 

Yeah, it's just gonna derail the thread.

[knapplc]

94-99% of all gun owners are responsible, I get that. So, if you're responsible, what's to hide? What is so bad about having to jump through a few extra hoops in the name of protecting others' lives from a senseless end if you know that you'll pass a more stringent background check without a problem?

 

You're still going to get your gun to go shoot-shoot-bang.

I kinda agree with this, but I mostly don't. The "what've you got to hide" thing is the same argument for government spying. If you aren't doing anything wrong, why should you care that they're spying on your computer? It's the privacy issue that brings me up short there. I think the gun advocates feel similarly about their guns.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

 

94-99% of all gun owners are responsible, I get that. So, if you're responsible, what's to hide? What is so bad about having to jump through a few extra hoops in the name of protecting others' lives from a senseless end if you know that you'll pass a more stringent background check without a problem?

 

You're still going to get your gun to go shoot-shoot-bang.

I kinda agree with this, but I mostly don't. The "what've you got to hide" thing is the same argument for government spying. If you aren't doing anything wrong, why should you care that they're spying on your computer? It's the privacy issue that brings me up short there. I think the gun advocates feel similarly about their guns.

 

 

I get that. I don't want the government spying on me and I've got nothing to hide at all.

 

But *I*--and I want to emphasize I because this is just my opinion--think that gun control vs government espionage are on two different levels and probably shouldn't be equated. A more than likely stringent background check isn't going to be invasive at the level of government espionage.

 

Most jobs require background checks and we begrudgingly submit to those because we want the job.

[Saunders]

 

94-99% of all gun owners are responsible, I get that. So, if you're responsible, what's to hide? What is so bad about having to jump through a few extra hoops in the name of protecting others' lives from a senseless end if you know that you'll pass a more stringent background check without a problem?

 

You're still going to get your gun to go shoot-shoot-bang.

I kinda agree with this, but I mostly don't. The "what've you got to hide" thing is the same argument for government spying. If you aren't doing anything wrong, why should you care that they're spying on your computer? It's the privacy issue that brings me up short there. I think the gun advocates feel similarly about their guns.

 

Bingo.

[Saunders]

 

 

94-99% of all gun owners are responsible, I get that. So, if you're responsible, what's to hide? What is so bad about having to jump through a few extra hoops in the name of protecting others' lives from a senseless end if you know that you'll pass a more stringent background check without a problem?

 

You're still going to get your gun to go shoot-shoot-bang.

I kinda agree with this, but I mostly don't. The "what've you got to hide" thing is the same argument for government spying. If you aren't doing anything wrong, why should you care that they're spying on your computer? It's the privacy issue that brings me up short there. I think the gun advocates feel similarly about their guns.

 

 

I get that. I don't want the government spying on me and I've got nothing to hide at all.

 

But *I*--and I want to emphasize I because this is just my opinion--think that gun control vs government espionage are on two different levels and probably shouldn't be equated. A more than likely stringent background check isn't going to be invasive at the level of government espionage.

 

Most jobs require background checks and we begrudgingly submit to those because we want the job.

 

Most gun purchases require a background check. The only ones that don't as of today are private transactions done in person. I've said I've got no problem requiring those to go though an FFL, and if I ever sold one of my firearms, I'd do it through an FFL anyway, especially if the other guy doesn't have a CCW.

 

The point in comparing domestic spying and gun control is due to handing over personal freedoms in the name of security. We did that with the patriot act, and it bit us in the butt. Read the article I posted in post #550: http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/79520-gun-control/page-11&do=findComment&comment=1705637

 

He addresses this very issue, and why it's a dangerous precedent if we don't know exactly what we're trying to accomplish.

[knapplc]

 

 

 

94-99% of all gun owners are responsible, I get that. So, if you're responsible, what's to hide? What is so bad about having to jump through a few extra hoops in the name of protecting others' lives from a senseless end if you know that you'll pass a more stringent background check without a problem?

 

You're still going to get your gun to go shoot-shoot-bang.

I kinda agree with this, but I mostly don't. The "what've you got to hide" thing is the same argument for government spying. If you aren't doing anything wrong, why should you care that they're spying on your computer? It's the privacy issue that brings me up short there. I think the gun advocates feel similarly about their guns.

 

I get that. I don't want the government spying on me and I've got nothing to hide at all.

 

But *I*--and I want to emphasize I because this is just my opinion--think that gun control vs government espionage are on two different levels and probably shouldn't be equated. A more than likely stringent background check isn't going to be invasive at the level of government espionage.

 

Most jobs require background checks and we begrudgingly submit to those because we want the job.

 

Most gun purchases require a background check. The only ones that don't as of today are private transactions done in person. I've said I've got no problem requiring those to go though an FFL, and if I ever sold one of my firearms, I'd do it through an FFL anyway, especially if the other guy doesn't have a CCW.

 

The point in comparing domestic spying and gun control is due to handing over personal freedoms in the name of security. We did that with the patriot act, and it bit us in the butt. Read the article I posted in post #550: http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/79520-gun-control/page-11&do=findComment&comment=1705637

 

He addresses this very issue, and why it's a dangerous precedent if we don't know exactly what we're trying to accomplish.

 

So the solution to any measure would be to know exactly what we're trying to accomplish. Then shooting all the lawyers and lobbyists politicians who try to pervert well-meaning (and hopefully well-designed) legislation.

 

This accomplishes two things: 1) it allows gun owners to keep most of their guns, and 2) it allows gun owners to shoot lawyers, lobbyists and politicians.

 

I say it's a win/win.

[Saunders]

 

 

 

 

94-99% of all gun owners are responsible, I get that. So, if you're responsible, what's to hide? What is so bad about having to jump through a few extra hoops in the name of protecting others' lives from a senseless end if you know that you'll pass a more stringent background check without a problem?

 

You're still going to get your gun to go shoot-shoot-bang.

I kinda agree with this, but I mostly don't. The "what've you got to hide" thing is the same argument for government spying. If you aren't doing anything wrong, why should you care that they're spying on your computer? It's the privacy issue that brings me up short there. I think the gun advocates feel similarly about their guns.

 

I get that. I don't want the government spying on me and I've got nothing to hide at all.

 

But *I*--and I want to emphasize I because this is just my opinion--think that gun control vs government espionage are on two different levels and probably shouldn't be equated. A more than likely stringent background check isn't going to be invasive at the level of government espionage.

 

Most jobs require background checks and we begrudgingly submit to those because we want the job.

 

Most gun purchases require a background check. The only ones that don't as of today are private transactions done in person. I've said I've got no problem requiring those to go though an FFL, and if I ever sold one of my firearms, I'd do it through an FFL anyway, especially if the other guy doesn't have a CCW.

 

The point in comparing domestic spying and gun control is due to handing over personal freedoms in the name of security. We did that with the patriot act, and it bit us in the butt. Read the article I posted in post #550: http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/79520-gun-control/page-11&do=findComment&comment=1705637

 

He addresses this very issue, and why it's a dangerous precedent if we don't know exactly what we're trying to accomplish.

 

So the solution to any measure would be to know exactly what we're trying to accomplish. Then shooting all the lawyers and lobbyists politicians who try to pervert well-meaning (and hopefully well-designed) legislation.

 

This accomplishes two things: 1) it allows gun owners to keep most of their guns, and 2) it allows gun owners to shoot lawyers, lobbyists and politicians.

 

I say it's a win/win.

 

Hehe.

[huskerfan2000]

 

lol, yeah I would try to make sure that type of mass killing isn't brought up either..

 

It's irrelevant to this discussion.

 

They're not related. Stopping abortions isn't going to stop gun violence from occurring. Stopping gun violence isn't going to stop abortions from happening, and yes, someone can be in favor of more gun control and fewer abortions. So please, take that narrow-mindedness elsewhere. It has no place in this thread.

 

 

 

If you only care about gun deaths then you are being a hypocrite. of course I know a number of people think it is cool to kill unborn babies. Anyway, no more about that.

 

You may think it isn't related but I say it is.. lack or morality, lack of caring about human life... it all ties together. Yeah, I know one posters did paper and said "casual" link was not there.. whatever that means, but I showed studies have been done and violence begets violence.

[cm husker]

No his argument is we have no "proof" that it will work, therfore we shouldn't bother.

 

Because that makes sense somehow.

In some ways that does make sense when we are talking about spending a lot of money trying to do what may not be done.

 

General question: if we could spend $200 billion per year and eliminate all mass shootings and 75% of other shootings, should we spend that as a nation? What about $500 billion? Or $500 million?

[Redux]

 

 

and a large portion of you are hypocrites if you are not just as loud for getting rid of abortions. Hundreds of thousands of babies a year are killed in the name of choice.. Perfect example of sanctioned mass murder!

 

No love for human life at all!

 

This is not the place for that discussion.

Yeah, it's just gonna derail the thread.

Hey at least when I derail a thread I try to stay on topic! I'm an MVP like that.

[Redux]

 

No his argument is we have no "proof" that it will work, therfore we shouldn't bother.

Because that makes sense somehow.

In some ways that does make sense when we are talking about spending a lot of money trying to do what may not be done.

General question: if we could spend $200 billion per year and eliminate all mass shootings and 75% of other shootings, should we spend that as a nation? What about $500 billion? Or $500 million?

It's a tad more complex than that. What is the money going towards to help stop gun violence? Pretty important detail.

 

And as far as what he is implyin, he says there is no proof, as in hard data, that suggests background checks/more limitations/psyche evaluations would work. While there is no hard data suggesting it would, theres no real reason those things wouldn't potentially work.

[cm husker]

I don't see how your first question is relevant. I'm posing a hypothetical. What if we could guarantee those reductions, regardless of means. How much, as a nation, should we spend to save X number of people each year?

 

If it's $500 billion, does that $500 billion spent on gun control enforcement save the most (and best) people that it could? I don't know. Does it achieve the most for societal stability, thus increasing productivity and "paying for itself"?

 

These are uncomfortable questions, but when we are talking about pulling funding from other things, they need to be asked.

 

I don't really want to guess at what he intends, but my position is simple: although I want a reduction in gun violence and I have no desire to hold the 2nd amendment sacrosanct, I also don't want to throw good money after bad.

 

To me, before you ask me to pay taxes to fund a program requiring enforcement, I'd like to see some evidence that the program will achieve its stated goal.