Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[NYMIKE6]

Grahambo I liked the last article about what we can learn from Australia, but the only question that i have to ask it?
The United States has a population of about 314,000,000 while Australia is about 22,000,000... with the death by guns being 39,000 by United States and 16,000 in Australia... Now, i am no mathematician, but something just doesn't add up????

 

[NYMIKE6]

I don't care what your thoughts are on this. Most of the stuff you have written isn't even legible nonetheless intelligent dialogue. This will be my last response to you. Feel free to have some witty "last word", because I simply have no interest in debating with you.

Oh..so clever... you're the type of guy i'd like to meet one day... we'd be debating in a different manner.... Don't talk to me like i'm beneath you either... You're just an over opinionated fool...

 

[NYMIKE6]

I love you guys! You are my favorites. But:

How many houses are being attacked shock troop assault style?

I didn't tell any of you this, but remember when those guys, offshoots of the Michigan Militia, what did they call themselves? The Whotu? Well I had a girlfriend that lived within a mile of there and she showed me tapes of the black choppers flying overhead all night long. Those guys guns did them no good. Sooner or later, we may as well come back from fantasy land and get down to bi'ness take care of mental health issues and see what that does to limit the deaths.

Thank you for your patience.

Great minds think alike... that's why your great Brother Bogs!!!!

 

[Grahambo]

Grahambo I liked the last article about what we can learn from Australia, but the only question that i have to ask it?
The United States has a population of about 314,000,000 while Australia is about 22,000,000... with the death by guns being 39,000 by United States and 16,000 in Australia... Now, i am no mathematician, but something just doesn't add up????

I respond by giving you a giant shrug. Not my math and certainly not my writing. I honestly try to let facts do the thinking and influence my thinking instead of going off my personal opinion...which I suppose would still by my personal opinion.....yeah, politics..not my life.

 

[NYMIKE6]

I respond by giving you a giant shrug. Not my math and certainly not my writing. I honestly try to let facts do the thinking and influence my thinking instead of going off my personal opinion...which I suppose would still by my personal opinion.....yeah, politics..not my life.

I hear you, opinion is one thing... but in order to find answers debate is necessary... it is a sad situation in our country, what is worse is our societies ability to push blame on everything else instead of the initial problem... We are truly regressing as a Country...

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Wait, I still want to know what a giant shrug is! Is it some kind of furry mamal with sharp claws that hangs in trees eating insects from under the bark? Is it a canoe or small boat? What the fukk is a giant shrug?

 

[ND NYC]

i still can't fathom why this monster's mother knowing he had what is being reported as some sort of severe mental condition (aspbergers etc) would ever be taking this kid to a shooting range; and having all her guns all over the place in the house. incredible.

 

[woolybug25]

Wait, I still want to know what a giant shrug is! Is it some kind of furry mamal with sharp claws that hangs in trees eating insects from under the bark? Is it a canoe or small boat? What the fukk is a giant shrug?

I think he was offering a Shrug, i.e. a giant Shawl. It's becoming a very popular piece of luxury wear for those uptown ladies that prefer more warm with their neck/shoulder wear. Quite to the offering, if you ask me. They are not cheap. They look like this:

A shrug is a type of extremely short, open-fronted jacket with long sleeves. Most commonly, it is knitted, although other assembly techniques can be used to manufacture one. Since a shrug is relatively easy to make at home, some knitters prefer to custom design jackets, using distinctive patterns and wools. For the less craft-inclined, they are usually available in boutiques and department stores. A shrug is designed to fit snugly, so wearers should check for fit and make sure that it will not shrink when washed.

I hope I cleared that up for everyone.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

The guys advocating for tougher laws on full auto weapons do realize you need a special license for a full auto right? At least as a law abiding citizen. That the only difference between a bushmaster .223 which is what is being reported as being used and my .223 sitting in my house are not that great. In fact the only real difference is the action.

 

[woolybug25]

The guys advocating for tougher laws on full auto weapons do realize you need a special license for a full auto right? At least as a law abiding citizen. That the only difference between a bushmaster .223 which is and my .223 sitting in my house are not that great. In fact the only real difference is the action.

A special licence is different than laws on what happens with their use. Most on here are advocating stricter penalties, education and responsibility of that right.

 

[Grahambo]

I think he was offering a Shrug, i.e. a giant Shawl. It's becoming a very popular piece of luxury wear for those uptown ladies that prefer more warm with their neck/shoulder wear. Quite to the offering, if you ask me. They are not cheap. They look like this:

I hope I cleared that up for everyone.

No. They are not cheap! hahaha

I embrace the debate just as I embrace the hate! Sometimes you just gotta interject a little humor to allow cooler heads to prevail.

 

[Downinthebend]

Thanks for the conversational response, despite my argumentative tone, I am really trying to have reasonable discussion on the matter.

I'm with many others on here when I say that it needs to be a multi-pronged approach. I feel that assault rifles and automatic weapons need to come with a great deal of responsibility if owned in this country. If we continue to allow these types of weapons to be owned, then they need to come with strict responsibilities. I like the laws in NY in this respect, but they have no bite because most people don't realize they exist and they can simply buy their guns out of state. I believe that if a firearm in this category is owned, then it must be registered. If, for any reason it is found on a person with no registration, that person is liable for large fines and/or jail time. If a felony is committed with it, then you have a mandatory jail/prison term. Even if it was stolen or used by someone else, it is your responsibility to protect the general public from your decision to own a killing device designed to kill on a large scale. It's a right, not a privilege. These laws need to be consistent, regardless of what state line you are in.

Second. I feel that it is a disgrace that our country has no easy access to mental health care. Anybody that is capable of killing children in a school is obviously mentally ill. If this is addressed early and often, then maybe we can stop some of these people before they commit these horrible crimes. I think part of the Healthcare Bill should include easy access to mental healthcare.

Finally, I think that we need to get more serious in this country about family. We are currently cutting funding to programs like Big Brothers, Big Sisters, After School Programs and free family counseling. Instead of families becoming closer, today's children are busy playing shooter games and watching killing movies. Add poor family structure and the destruction of the family unit, and why are we surprised that today's youth is more destructive than ever?

Thanks again for the rational dialogue.




I don't care what your thoughts are on this. Most of the stuff you have written isn't even legible nonetheless intelligent dialogue. This will be my last response to you. Feel free to have some witty "last word", because I simply have no interest in debating with you.

I'll respond by paragraph.

The only problem I have with your first paragraph is that it wouldn't make sense to punish victims for crimes. And I also think that making penalties more harsh for breaking certain laws wouldn't lead to those laws to be followed more by the subset of people that would break them. (What is 20 years on 20 life sentences?)

I don't have problems with your second paragraph except I don't think the ACA is the best method for it.

I don't really disagree with anything in your third paragraph,

What would you think of passing a law that required 2-3 people in a building per 100 to have concealed weapons?

 

[NYMIKE6]

The guys advocating for tougher laws on full auto weapons do realize you need a special license for a full auto right? At least as a law abiding citizen. That the only difference between a bushmaster .223 which is what is being reported as being used and my .223 sitting in my house are not that great. In fact the only real difference is the action.

It wouldn't matter... Statistically in the United States 50% of gun crimes is a result of legally owned firearms 30% is a direct result in FFL's selling firearms illegally, The rest is a result of "Straw Purchases" which is basically Street dealers selling illegal or stolen guns.

And in all honesty, suppose they do ban semi-automatic assault rifles... they can not ban the internet... It is very easy to buy gun parts, and with a little online instructions assemble a assault rifle yourself.

 

[Grahambo]

Interesting read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/n...ge-to-political-power.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

 

[NYMIKE6]

Interesting read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/n...ge-to-political-power.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Great read!!! Damn, all that money spent on politics...

If those political parties would spend just a little bit more of that money on our schools budgets to employ more security...

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

A special licence is different than laws on what happens with their use. Most on here are advocating stricter penalties, education and responsibility of that right.

Wooly I saw you post the other day that if someone gets robbed and his gun is used the robbery victim should go to prison. That's going overboard imo punishing someone for being a victim.
I
I understand tougher penalties for crimes committed with a gun I even agree as stated in an earlier post of mine, but the penalties on murder are already high enough. These people at that point don't care about any of that.

Italicize right all you want it doesn't change the fact that it's laid out in the bill of rights. Your life liberty and pursuit of happiness doesn't trump mine. Just like mine doesn't trump yours. If you choose to trust the police to always be there to protect yours and your families that's your choice. My firearms are doing nothing to hinder yours. So why should how I choose to help me achieve those goals be hindered.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

No. They are not cheap! hahaha

I embrace the debate just as I embrace the hate! Sometimes you just gotta interject a little humor to allow cooler heads to prevail.

Yeah, that and a hug. C'mon give Bogs a little hug, in your shrug. Come on both you guys, now the threes of yous guys, a group hug . . . do you have your toe shoes on Wooly, Mike, Grahambo?



(I am on fire tonight. Three guys that always, and I mean always get me and I own them! I mean can you see them in their little jackets and shoes? Whata thay got, them little tutus. I mean what?)

 

[woolybug25]

I'll respond by paragraph.

The only problem I have with your first paragraph is that it wouldn't make sense to punish victims for crimes. And I also think that making penalties more harsh for breaking certain laws wouldn't lead to those laws to be followed more by the subset of people that would break them. (What is 20 years on 20 life sentences?)

When you say, "punishing the victim", are you referring to the gun owner that had their gun used? If so, I would respond that owning a gun of that type is a great responsibility. Properly locking it away and locking the trigger are both a responsibility. If someone didn't register said firearm, properly stored it, or reported a theft, then I deem them liable for the actions of the people that used it.

I also think that if people signed a document at the purchase of the firearm that clearly stated the responsibilities and possible punishments related to it's misuse, then we would have people taking more responsibility with what is a dangerous weapon. As people find out the hard way that not being responsible with their guns causes extreme consequences, I think we would see people properly protecting the public from their purchase. Keep in mind, this last school shooting was done with firearms taken from his mother's home.

Please correct me if I misunderstood you.

I don't have problems with your second paragraph except I don't think the ACA is the best method for it.

Fair enough.

I don't really disagree with anything in your third paragraph,

What would you think of passing a law that required 2-3 people in a building per 100 to have concealed weapons?

I think forcing people to associate with firearms is as bad as forcing people to give them up. I agree with the premise that large areas (i.e. hospitals, schools, etc) would benefit from armed guards, I don't think that forcing business' and events to put their patrons in a situation with unknown firearms is either fair nor appropriate. From the armed guard perspective, I don't feel like it is realistic considering every state is cutting spending on things like schools. I also think that those dollars would be better spent on programs that prevent incidents (ie family counseling, after school programs, firearm education) than responsive measures like arming unknown people within in buildings. Finally, I would be concerned that these people carrying concealed weapons would be qualified to effectively manage situations. This is effective with well trained professionals like Air Marshalls, but it seems doubtful that the amount of training necessary for that level of competency would be near impossible to replicate if we were putting them in every building with more than 100 people in the country.

 

[woolybug25]

Yeah, that and a hug. C'mon give Bogs a little hug, in your shrug. Come on both you guys, do you have your toe shoes on Wooly, Mike, Grahambo?



(I am on fire tonight. Three guys that always, and I mean always get me and I own them! I mean can you see them in their little jackets and shoes? Whata thay got, them little tutus. I mean what?)

My toed shoes are daywear. It's late in the evening and I am a gentleman.

Velvet robe and asian ballet flats are for evenings.

 

[pkt77242]

My whole point is he won't give two shits about the law and will obtain whatever round clip he can.

Are you kidding? What is he going to go to the black market? The whole idea of these people going to the black market is crazy. Now organized crime will still get their assault rifles from the black market but the average crazy person who wants to kill people would struggle A. to find someone who could sell it to him B. have the money to afford it as if the cost of buying from the black market is signficantly higher than buying from the local gun shop.

So yes the crazy person could buy a handgun and still commit the crime but there would be significantly less casualties.

 

[pkt77242]

I'll respond by paragraph.

The only problem I have with your first paragraph is that it wouldn't make sense to punish victims for crimes. And I also think that making penalties more harsh for breaking certain laws wouldn't lead to those laws to be followed more by the subset of people that would break them. (What is 20 years on 20 life sentences?)

I don't have problems with your second paragraph except I don't think the ACA is the best method for it.

I don't really disagree with anything in your third paragraph,

What would you think of passing a law that required 2-3 people in a building per 100 to have concealed weapons?

If you want that put armed police officers in the school don't arm the teachers. Lets look at this scenario, do you really want a teacher to leave his classroom in the case of a lockdown thus leaving his kids alone while he is hunting the guy with the gun? The idea of arming teachers opens up just as many problems as it solves. If you want to arm schools then hire more cops and put them in the schools.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

Are you kidding? What is he going to go to the black market? The whole idea of these people going to the black market is crazy. Now organized crime will still get their assault rifles from the black market but the average crazy person who wants to kill people would struggle A. to find someone who could sell it to him B. have the money to afford it as if the cost of buying from the black market is signficantly higher than buying from the local gun shop.

So yes the crazy person could buy a handgun and still commit the crime but there would be significantly less casualties.

A glock 21 comes in .45 with a 10 or 13 rd mag. And ir's semi auto. The mags are smaller so more can be carried. In a weak spot like a school or hospital I'm having a hard time seeing how the 2 extra mag changes will cause a noticeable difference.

 

[pkt77242]

A glock 21 comes in .45 with a 10 or 13 rd mag. And ir's semi auto. The mags are smaller so more can be carried. In a weak spot like a school or hospital I'm having a hard time seeing how the 2 extra mag changes will cause a noticeable difference.

This is where we differ. First off the only time the killer is vulnerable is when changing the magazine, and 2 he fired hundreds of shots, I am guessing it would have been more than 2 extra mag changes.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

This is where we differ. First off the only time the killer is vulnerable is when changing the magazine, and 2 he fired hundreds of shots, I am guessing it would have been more than 2 extra mag changes.

It would be 2 to get to 30.
With a larger caliber.
He had complete control of that school for I believe 6 minutes. He also killed the first 2 adults to charge him. Even if vulnerable for a few seconds assuming he would not know how to change mags and all reports have said he had gone shooting with his mom, no teacher could get across the room in time to stop him and that's assuming he's not double wielding we know he took 2 pistols in.
Now he's got 10 less rounds than the bushmaster would have.
Every difference is negligible

 

[IrishinSyria]

Who would you attack: Home A that has no guns, or Home B that has guns?


My point, the more gun control laws there are, the more it affects the lawful gun owner just trying to defend himself than it does any criminal.


We do not have a gun problem, we have a society problem and a mental health problem. Our culture is fascinated by violence (how many crime shows do we have on television?)

If I was robbing a house and I suspected the owner had a gun, I would be exponentially more likely to resort to preemptive deadly force (i.e. kill everyone in the house.)

If I believed the owner didn't own guns, I'd be extremely reluctant to use deadly force.

Why? Simple pros and cons analysis. If the owner of a house has a gun, than my most imminent danger is being shot. The logical response to that threat is to shoot first because then you're taking care of your most immediate and dangerous problem.

If the owner doesn't have a gun, the equation changes. Then, your biggest danger is going to prison. Shooting someone makes it much more likely this will happen- the gun shot will alert neighbors and murders tend to be investigated a lot more carefully than burglaries- AND the consequences of going to prison are exponentially increased if I shoot. Therefore, I will be much less likely to shoot if I'm robbing a house that does not have guns.

So let's take a third, and more realistic scenario: I'm going to rob a house but I don't know which homes have guns and which homes don't, but I do know that I'm in an area where guns are common. I will be forced to assume that whoever owns the house is armed and I will act accordingly, because getting shot is the most immediate and overwhelming danger.

Thus, a criminal with even the slightest desire for self-preservation will be more likely to act violently if he believes he may encounter a gun-owner. This extends outside of the house when you take concealed carry into consideration. In areas with large numbers of concealed weapons (legal or illegal) small incidents become much more dangerous- if you're a robber, you have to assume your target has a gun. If you're in a bar fight, same thing. The immediate danger of getting shot is greater than the delayed risk of going to prison, thus people have a greater incentive to respond to any potentially violent situation with lethal force.

The net effect of all of this is that even if one chooses to not carry, wide spread gun ownership (and especially concealed carry) makes life more dangerous for us all. If you were willing to do some serious mental gymnastics and explain away European crime rates vs American, you could argue that guns make non-violent crime less likely, but you can't deny that guns make any given crime (or even confrontation) exponentially more likely to turn deadly. As far as I'm concerned, concealed carry is as much a violation of my rights as it would be if the government tried to take away everyone's firearms.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

If I was robbing a house and I suspected the owner had a gun, I would be exponentially more likely to resort to preemptive deadly force (i.e. kill everyone in the house.)

If I believed the owner didn't own guns, I'd be extremely reluctant to use deadly force.

Why? Simple pros and cons analysis. If the owner of a house has a gun, than my most imminent danger is being shot. The logical response to that threat is to shoot first because then you're taking care of your most immediate and dangerous problem.

If the owner doesn't have a gun, the equation changes. Then, you're biggest danger is going to prison. Shooting someone makes it much more likely this will happen- the gun shot will alert neighbors and murders tend to be investigated a lot more carefully than burglaries- AND the consequences of going to prison are exponentially increased if I shoot. Therefore, I will be much less likely to shoot if I'm robbing a house that does not have guns.

So let's take a third, and more realistic scenario: I'm going to rob a house but I don't know which homes have guns and which homes don't, but I do know that I'm in an area where guns are common. I will be forced to assume that whoever owns the house is armed and I will act accordingly, because getting shot is the most immediate and overwhelming danger.

Thus, a criminal with even the slightest desire for self-preservation will be more likely to act violently if he believes he may encounter a gun-owner. This extends outside of the house when you take concealed carry into consideration. In areas with large numbers of concealed weapons (legal or illegal) small incidents become much more dangerous- if you're a robber, you have to assume your target has a gun. If you're in a bar fight, same thing. The immediate danger of getting shot is greater than the delayed risk of going to prison, thus people have a greater incentive to respond to any potentially violent situation with lethal force.

The net effect of all of this is that even if one chooses to not carry, wide spread gun ownership (and especially concealed carry) makes life more dangerous for us all. If you were willing to do some serious mental gymnastics and explain away European crime rates vs American, you could argue that guns make non-violent crime less likely, but you can't deny that guns make any given crime (or even confrontation) exponentially more likely to turn deadly. As far as I'm concerned, concealed carry is as much a violation of my rights as it would be if the government tried to take away everyone's firearms.

As a criminal if I'm in an area where there is a good chance I could run into a gun owner I'm not going in
Case in point the town I live in has a high percentage of gun ownership. It was also at 1 point the most heavily infested town in PA for heroin with 60 minutes even doing a profile on it Something like the easiest town in PA to get heroin. Oddly enough while car break ins have risen B&E has not.

 

[IrishinSyria]

As a criminal if I'm in an area where there is a good chance I could run into a gun owner I'm not going in
Case in point the town I live in has a high percentage of gun ownership. It was also at 1 point the most heavily infested town in PA for heroin with 60 minutes even doing a profile on it Something like the easiest town in PA to get heroin. Oddly enough while car break ins have risen B&E has not.

And to tell you the truth, I don't really have a problem with guns for target practice, home defense and hunting. I'm fine with private ownership of ARs and AKs- I even think they should allow them to be sold with full-auto modes because that just would burn a potential psycho's ammo faster. It's concealed carry I have the biggest issue with because it increases the potential consequences of literally any conflict.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

And to tell you the truth, I don't really have a problem with guns for target practice, home defense and hunting. I'm fine with private ownership of ARs and AKs- I even think they should allow them to be sold with full-auto modes because that just would burn a potential psycho's ammo faster. It's concealed carry I have the biggest issue with because it increases the potential consequences of literally any conflict.

In my experience gun owners who understand what a gun can do are some of the most level headed people. Because they realize the ramifications of any conflict.
It seems to be the ones who think a gun makes them tough that escalate situations.

 

[Bluto]

So based on my limitied knowledge of the world I'm of the opinion that if you need an assault rifle for "home defense" you are involved in some serious business and might want to rethink what you're doing. Seriously, if a group of thugs is showing up at your place with those types of guns you either a. robbed someone you should not have b. sold someone something you should not have c. are holding way too much of something you shouldn't be. If you want to ward off a crackhead burglar a shot gun is all you really need. If you need to fire one of those more than a couple times you're a crappy shot and you might want to rethink gun ownership completely.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

And to tell you the truth, I don't really have a problem with guns for target practice, home defense and hunting. I'm fine with private ownership of ARs and AKs- I even think they should allow them to be sold with full-auto modes because that just would burn a potential psycho's ammo faster. It's concealed carry I have the biggest issue with because it increases the potential consequences of literally any conflict.

I was surprised (pleasantly) I completed cc training in Ohio a year or two and they put an individual through a pretty rigorous background check before issuing, that is after training. I know people with pretty minor things that couldn't get approved, and some who lost it with current offenses. I don't know one single "hot-head" who was issued a permit. And the police force have taken the program under their wing. They know who has cc before entering the scene and they treat law abiding cco pretty well, once identified.