Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[Bogtrotter07]

You guys are way off on some points.

There are nowhere near as many people killed by drunk drivers as by handguns. In fact the handgun death toll is set to exceed that falling highway death count this next year at around 33,000.

It is absolutely imperative that we look at use of firearms exactly like we look at driving motor vehicles.

Motor vehicles can kill and maim, by acclaim, not as easily as weapons. But what do you have to do to drive say a Western Star pulling as a fuel tanker? In Ohio you need you drivers license, your Class A CDL, your tandem/tanker endorsement, and your Hasmat endorsement.

This shows the wisdom of authorities seeing that all vehicles not alike. In fact, if you do not demonstrate competence, you will not continue to maintain that endorsement. And try to get that endorsement with hypertension, epilepsy, or any other condition or disease that could affect the driver.

Now even if I am an idiot while using my S&W .357 Magnum, it could hardly affect anyone beyond my next door neighbors. Give me my old M16, and I could, these days with more luck than not, take a life at 500 meters. That is between a third and half a mile. There is a difference with how weapons need to be treated. Someone goes crazy with a revolver, versus a fifteen clip semi-automatic, versus a drum type magazine, it makes a huge difference, not for hunting, not for personal defense, not for war, only for mass shooting.

Show me where the military has ever issued magazines of over 30 (28) rounds for anything smaller than a squad automatic weapon.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Correct, and in most cases they are used to kill the criminal, not the victim.


You can try to dismiss the correlation between gun related deaths and drunk driving deaths all you want, throw obesity or whatever else you want in there too. You're proving my point for me. Guns are designed to kill and cars are not, yet they both claim lives at nearly the same rate because of irresponsible people.

You see guns as a way to take innocent life, I see them as a way to preserve innocent life.

Apparently, it's just perspective.

That is blatantly not true.

 

[chicago51]

[/B]

Correct, and in most cases they are used to kill the criminal, not the victim.


You can try to dismiss the correlation between gun related deaths and drunk driving deaths all you want, throw obesity or whatever else you want in there too. You're proving my point for me. Guns are designed to kill and cars are not, yet they both claim lives at nearly the same rate because of irresponsible people.

You see guns as a way to take innocent life, I see them as a way to preserve innocent life.

Apparently, it's just perspective.

Didn't work out well for these guys trying to kill the criminal.

Shopping mall shooting in Tacoma, Washington
As a rampage unfolded in 2005, a civilian with a concealed-carry permit named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with his handgun. The shooter pumped several bullets into McKown, wounding six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.

Courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas
In 2005, a civilian named Mark Wilson, who was a firearms instructor, fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47.

Such actions in chaotic situations don't just put the well-intentioned citizen at risk, of course. According to Robert McMenomy, an assistant special agent in charge in the San Francisco division of the FBI, they increase the danger for innocent bystanders. (Exhibit A: the gun-wielding guy who came really close to shooting an innocent person as the Tucson massacre unfolded.) They also make it more difficult for law enforcement officers to do their jobs. "In a scenario like that," McMenomy told me in a recent conversation, "they wouldn't know who was good or who was bad, and it would divert them from the real threat."

 

[no.1IrishFan]

In an earlier example in this thread, we talked about if my 16-year-old daughter taking my car and running over two kids playing in the street. If that happened, who do you suppose would be held responsible? Where do you suppose the kids at Columbine got their guns? How about the elementary kids a few years back in Tennessee (might be wrong about the state) who pulled the fire alarm and as their classmates filed outside, two kids opened fire on them. Where do you suppose they got those guns? Do you think that the parents who owned these guns was acting responsibly in allowing their children access to them? Shouldn't they receive some kind of penalty in the same way as I do when my 16-year-old daughter takes my car? Come on man, be reasonable.

I would not see a gun law being broken because I avoid being in places where guns are around. Those kids in Conn. didn't have that option, and neither would children who went to school where armed security guards are hired, or teachers are armed. Should movie theater ushers be required to carry guns as well after the Colorado shooting? -- there goes the movies for me. I don't want to live in a nation where there are always guns around me, it would make me uncomfortable and afraid. What some perceive as a "right" to own a gun, can infringe on my right to not be around them -- to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I too am a law-abiding citizen. Whose rights are more important, mine or theirs?

Has your argument really been reduced to kids illegally stealling guns from their parents?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

In an earlier example in this thread, we talked about if my 16-year-old daughter taking my car and running over two kids playing in the street. If that happened, who do you suppose would be held responsible? Where do you suppose the kids at Columbine got their guns? How about the elementary kids a few years back in Tennessee (might be wrong about the state) who pulled the fire alarm and as their classmates filed outside, two kids opened fire on them. Where do you suppose they got those guns? Do you think that the parents who owned these guns was acting responsibly in allowing their children access to them? Shouldn't they receive some kind of penalty in the same way as I do when my 16-year-old daughter takes my car? Come on man, be reasonable.

I would not see a gun law being broken because I avoid being in places where guns are around. Those kids in Conn. didn't have that option, and neither would children who went to school where armed security guards are hired, or teachers are armed. Should movie theater ushers be required to carry guns as well after the Colorado shooting? -- there goes the movies for me. I don't want to live in a nation where there are always guns around me, it would make me uncomfortable and afraid. What some perceive as a "right" to own a gun, can infringe on my right to not be around them -- to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I too am a law-abiding citizen. Whose rights are more important, mine or theirs?

This is what I meant above. There was a problem a few years ago with unqualified foreign nationals brought in to drive trucks, because they could be paid slave wages. A number of companies tried to skirt the law and take money out of peoples mouthes. (If you want to save money, ship by rail.) What stopped this idiotic plan? Financial gain. The money sucked out of the scheme so fast because insurance rates escalated so high. Force people to insure high capacity weapons. Watch what happens.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Didn't work out well for these guys trying to kill the criminal.

Shopping mall shooting in Tacoma, Washington
As a rampage unfolded in 2005, a civilian with a concealed-carry permit named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with his handgun. The shooter pumped several bullets into McKown, wounding six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.

Courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas
In 2005, a civilian named Mark Wilson, who was a firearms instructor, fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47.

Such actions in chaotic situations don't just put the well-intentioned citizen at risk, of course. According to Robert McMenomy, an assistant special agent in charge in the San Francisco division of the FBI, they increase the danger for innocent bystanders. (Exhibit A: the gun-wielding guy who came really close to shooting an innocent person as the Tucson massacre unfolded.) They also make it more difficult for law enforcement officers to do their jobs. "In a scenario like that," McMenomy told me in a recent conversation, "they wouldn't know who was good or who was bad, and it would divert them from the real threat."

WOW! You just gave 2 whole situations that prove me wrong. Do some research. Guns are used to protect way more lives than they take.

 

[brandonnash]

In an earlier example in this thread, we talked about if my 16-year-old daughter taking my car and running over two kids playing in the street. If that happened, who do you suppose would be held responsible? Where do you suppose the kids at Columbine got their guns? How about the elementary kids a few years back in Tennessee (might be wrong about the state) who pulled the fire alarm and as their classmates filed outside, two kids opened fire on them. Where do you suppose they got those guns? Do you think that the parents who owned these guns was acting responsibly in allowing their children access to them? Shouldn't they receive some kind of penalty in the same way as I do when my 16-year-old daughter takes my car? Come on man, be reasonable.

I would not see a gun law being broken because I avoid being in places where guns are around. Those kids in Conn. didn't have that option, and neither would children who went to school where armed security guards are hired, or teachers are armed. Should movie theater ushers be required to carry guns as well after the Colorado shooting? -- there goes the movies for me. I don't want to live in a nation where there are always guns around me, it would make me uncomfortable and afraid. What some perceive as a "right" to own a gun, can infringe on my right to not be around them -- to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I too am a law-abiding citizen. Whose rights are more important, mine or theirs?

First, legally, you would not get in trouble if your 16 year old did this. You wouldn't be arrested if she killed someone in a vehicle she had taken from you. Financially she/he is still your child and you are financially responsible for her so someone could sue you.

I am glad you are in the believe you are not around guns. If you truly believe that you are not around guns with 88 guns in this nation for every 100 people you are simply naive.

 

[Downinthebend]

Really? there were 11,000 murders in this country last year. If "the good guys" shot that many people, the problem is much, much broader than any of us thought.

You can tell yourself it is all about perspective if you want. I think it is about too many, too powerful guns in the hands of too many people who should not have access to them.

Thats all and fine, now go try to pass an amendment amending the 2nd amendment so that you can constitutionally modify the right to bear arms.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Guns only preserve lives in old reruns of The Rifleman with Chuck Connors.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Has your argument really been reduced to kids illegally stealling guns from their parents?

Yes, it is. That's all he's got.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

That is blatantly not true.

Actually, it is.

We can trade stats if you want, or you can just trust me.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Thats all and fine, now go try to pass an amendment amending the 2nd amendment so that you can constitutionally modify the right to bear arms.

But you you can tax it, and force insurance on it and otherwise make certain classes of weapons more expensive.

 

[Opus]

Anything can be a weapon, but guns are meant to be weapons. There is a huge difference between a car, which is designed for transportation, and a gun which is designed to kill. So, in my mind it is not the same principle at all. Again, I'm not calling for anyone's rights to be revoked. I'm simply suggesting that those rights carry with them responsibilities. Hell, I thought the GOP was the "party of personal responsibility." I guess that is just rhetoric.

Hell, I thought the Democrats were the "party of tolerance and inclusion" but I guess that is just rhetoric.

It's interesting how anyone is tolerated and included as long as they believe as the democrats/liberals believe. But if someone disagrees with them toleration is thrown out the window.

Didn't vote for Obama= Racist

Not in favor of gay marriage= Homophobic

Pro-death penalty= Racist

Pro-life= Against women's rights

Don't want any new Gun Control Laws= Nuts, Crazy, Child Killer

These are just a few of the topics in this country right now that the democrats/liberals have demonized anyone with a different opinion than theirs. But they are all about tolerance and inclusion......................

Not trying to hijack the thread but it upsets me when people make blanket statements like the one in bold. I'm a republican. I'm a gun owner. I own a big 4X4 truck as BobD mentioned in post 811. I'm in favor of personal responsibility. My son has been taught gun safety from the time he was old enough to understand. All my guns are stored in a locked gun safe. All ammunition is stored in a separate gun safe in another room. I have one loaded weapon in my house, my service weapon, also in a gun safe. And BobD, my big 4X4 truck has been off road many, many times. Quite a few times when I'm taking my guns out into the desert to shoot them, responsibly.

 

[chicago51]

Thats all and fine, now go try to pass an amendment amending the 2nd amendment so that you can constitutionally modify the right to bear arms.

Actually we could also just get the supreme court to change it's interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Some of these conservative judges are getting pretty old. At least one may retire in the next 4 years and then Obama can appoint someone new; and if not there is always Hillary in 2016. Within 8-10 years it is almost certain at least 2 of the more conservative justices are likely to retire.

 

[GoIrish41]

Has your argument really been reduced to kids illegally stealling guns from their parents?

Has your argument really been reduced to kids illegally stealling guns from their parents?

Certainly not, but it is not exclusive of kids illegally stealing guns from their parents either. I have stated in this thread multiple times that if a person has a gun stolen by anyone and does not report that gun stolen, he should be prosecuted.

Sorry, I thought we were using really narrow points that only supported our arguments.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

In an earlier example in this thread, we talked about if my 16-year-old daughter taking my car and running over two kids playing in the street. If that happened, who do you suppose would be held responsible? Where do you suppose the kids at Columbine got their guns? How about the elementary kids a few years back in Tennessee (might be wrong about the state) who pulled the fire alarm and as their classmates filed outside, two kids opened fire on them. Where do you suppose they got those guns? Do you think that the parents who owned these guns was acting responsibly in allowing their children access to them? Shouldn't they receive some kind of penalty in the same way as I do when my 16-year-old daughter takes my car? Come on man, be reasonable.

I would not see a gun law being broken because I avoid being in places where guns are around. Those kids in Conn. didn't have that option, and neither would children who went to school where armed security guards are hired, or teachers are armed. Should movie theater ushers be required to carry guns as well after the Colorado shooting? -- there goes the movies for me. I don't want to live in a nation where there are always guns around me, it would make me uncomfortable and afraid. What some perceive as a "right" to own a gun, can infringe on my right to not be around them -- to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I too am a law-abiding citizen. Whose rights are more important, mine or theirs?

1) I'm no tough guy, but you're a wuss. No one is forcing you to own a gun or spend your weekends at the range in target practice. All of us have to deal with living with things we don't "like", but we enjoy our freedom, respect others' freedom, and deal with it. Everyone else can go pound sand.

2) No one is infringing on your rights by owning a gun legally. Are you serious with this?

3) Morally and legally...my rights are no important than yours. But you have no right (nor does anyone else) in telling us law-abiding gun owners how to handle our property, where to put it, etc.

 

[GoIrish41]

Actually, it is.

We can trade stats if you want, or you can just trust me.

I'd trade stats, but that is just me being someone who has trouble trusting ...

 

[no.1IrishFan]

I'd trade stats, but that is just me being someone who has trouble trusting ...

The point of my post was to say that depending on where you get your information, stats will say whatever you want them to say. But, if you must, I'll give you first crack at it.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

And I'm not saying that they are wrong. I am not advocating taking anyone's guns away. I'm simply suggesting applying common sense gun laws that could keep people from walking into a kindergarten class and opening fire on 6-year-olds with an automatic weapon. I'm suggesting that those who are mentally unstable should not be given access to firearms, and if they are, those who gave them access should be held accountable for their actions when said guns are used in the commission of a crime...

What I'm saying is that using the phrase "nut" in connection with guns (a la this thread) misunderstands the fundamentality of the right. Nobody says he's a "voting nut" or a "free speech nut" or an "Establishment Clause nut" or an "unreasonable search and siezure nut", because everyone understands that some people are just really, really into protecting those rights. And that's fine. Some people are just really, really into guns, and our Constitution likes them too. They're not "nuts" -- they just like different stuff.

I personally think voting and gun ownership should each require registration and gov't ID. And this is when one party calls me a "voter suppressor" and the other an "enemy of liberty", because neither side realizes that they're both saying the same thing, just with a different subject matter.

 

[GoIrish41]

[/B]

1) I'm no tough guy, but you're a wuss. No one is forcing you to own a gun or spend your weekends at the range in target practice. All of us have to deal with living with things we don't "like", but we enjoy our freedom, respect others' freedom, and deal with it. Everyone else can go pound sand.

2) No one is infringing on your rights by owning a gun legally. Are you serious with this?

3) Morally and legally...my rights are no important than yours. But you have no right (nor does anyone else) in telling us law-abiding gun owners how to handle our property, where to put it, etc.

Living with things I don't like is putting up with my boss' droan on about her weekend, or listening to my daughter's radio station on a long car ride. Forcing everyone to have a gun who works in a public place because of the threat that a gunman might come in and kill everyone is madness. What happens when the person who is issued the gun is the one who is unstable. About 10 years ago in San Francisco, in the building next to my uncle's a gunman opened fire killed six people. He was the security guard. You think that would never happen again? Maybe this is just me being a wuss, but I don't really want to get shot.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Living with things I don't like is putting up with my boss' droan on about her weekend, or listening to my daughter's radio station on a long car ride. Forcing everyone to have a gun who works in a public place because of the threat that a gunman might come in and kill everyone is madness. What happens when the person who is issued the gun is the one who is unstable. About 10 years ago in San Francisco, in the building next to my uncle's a gunman opened fire killed six people. He was the security guard. You think that would never happen again? Maybe this is just me being a wuss, but I don't really want to get shot.

I could see a particular job requiring it, but I agree that forcing everyone in the USA to actually buy their own gun -- just because they work outside their home -- is madness. (Although I guess the Commerce Clause would allow for such a national law, as of this year...)

 

[GoIrish41]

The point of my post was to say that depending on where you get your information, stats will say whatever you want them to say. But, if you must, I'll give you first crack at it.

You want me to give you a stat that says more "bad guys" are killed by "good guys" than "innocents" by "bad guys?" lol. I'm not asking to trade stats, I'm just saying that your sentence about who gets shot more by whom is just nonsensical.

 

[brandonnash]

Living with things I don't like is putting up with my boss' droan on about her weekend, or listening to my daughter's radio station on a long car ride. Forcing everyone to have a gun who works in a public place because of the threat that a gunman might come in and kill everyone is madness. What happens when the person who is issued the gun is the one who is unstable. About 10 years ago in San Francisco, in the building next to my uncle's a gunman opened fire killed six people. He was the security guard. You think that would never happen again? Maybe this is just me being a wuss, but I don't really want to get shot.

So you're telling me that you would feel safer going in a bank that had no armed guards than one that had them? I know your answer, I just want to see how quickly you can tell a lie.

And let's not let facts get in the way of a good story that helps your argument. You make it sound like an on duty security guard just pulled his gun and starting randomly popping people where he worked. Not the case kids.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Sacramento-rampage-5-shot-dead-Slayer-kills-2881164.php

 

[GoIrish41]

What I'm saying is that using the phrase "nut" in connection with guns (a la this thread) misunderstands the fundamentality of the right. Nobody says he's a "voting nut" or a "free speech nut" or an "Establishment Clause nut" or an "unreasonable search and siezure nut", because everyone understands that some people are just really, really into protecting those rights. And that's fine. Some people are just really, really into guns, and our Constitution likes them too. They're not "nuts" -- they just like different stuff.

I personally think voting and gun ownership should each require registration and gov't ID. And this is when one party calls me a "voter suppressor" and the other an "enemy of liberty", because neither side realizes that they're both saying the same thing, just with a different subject matter.

I didn't call anyone a gun nut and I'm not advocating taking anyone's guns away, amending the bill of rights, or any other such nonsense as some are suggesting on here. I don't disagree with your point at all, and true to my word (if you will recall we argued about his is the presidential politics thread), I will publically agree with you about the voter ID law as long as it does not come months before an election thereby compromising peoples' right to vote.

I think simply registering guns is not even close to enough though.

 

[ND NYC]

Go Irish41:

as they say:
"Never wrestle with a pig.....you both get dirty, but the pig likes it."

you are doing yoemans work making your points but some can/will never be swayed on this issue.

they will take you in every direction, false comparison imaginable to divert the attention from the real problem.

 

[GoIrish41]

So you're telling me that you would feel safer going in a bank that had no armed guards than one that had them? I know your answer, I just want to see how quickly you can tell a lie.

And let's not let facts get in the way of a good story that helps your argument. You make it sound like an on duty security guard just pulled his gun and starting randomly popping people where he worked. Not the case kids.

Sacramento rampage -- 5 shot dead / Slayer kills himself during gunbattle with police - SFGate

Not sure if you realize it, but Sacramento and San Francisco are not the same cities.

And the answer to your question is kinda moot. I can't even remember the last time I went into a bank that had an armed security guard. If they did/do still exist, I am always more comfortable where there is not a gun than when their is. So, yes. I don't know that security guard from Adam, so why should I feel comfortable if he has a gun?

 

[In Lou I Trust]

The line at the gun show this past weekend was around the building. Going to another one in about a week. Prices for AR's are skyrocketing. Gonna be looking for an everyday carry there. Enjoy being unarmed, y'all.

 

[GoIrish41]

Go Irish41:

as they say:
"Never wrestle with a pig.....you both get dirty, but the pig likes it."

you are doing yoemans work making your points but some can/will never be swayed on this issue.

they will take you in every direction, false comparison imaginable to divert the attention from the real problem.

Thanks ND NYC. I know, I'm used to it from the political threads on here. You'd think I would have learned my lesson by now. lol

 

[brandonnash]

Go Irish41:



they will take you in every direction, false comparison imaginable to divert the attention from the real problem.

Or just completely discredit what they're saying.


You're right. Some people can never have their minds changed. I understand that. But I was one who did have their mind changed. I was raised in my family full on in your face democrat. I followed along because it seemed right. What they were saying made sense. This was before I looked into things for myself. Things that made sense to me no longer did once a little research was done. I am now one of 2 conservatives in my family, my father being the 2nd after I showed him some things. The rest will live with their ill regard for common sense, facts, and disbelief of what this nation was founded upon.

I am one that would feel safer having a gun with me if confronted by some criminal trying to rob me with a gun. If the rest of you want to spew numbers about gun crimes to him and try to lull him into submission by all means go ahead. If that doesn't work you can always try to hug him to death.

 

[chicago51]

Lost in shuffle about good guys killing bad guys and armed security. The point I have yet hear addressed is how doing background checks and not allowing guns to be purchased at gun shows without background checks will not help save lives.

If we make guns harder for the bad guys to get how is that not going to save lives. Most folks against harder checks say it will make it harder for the lawful citizens to get them. Cops will have guns, the armed security that is out there (we can argue if it is good or not forever) is still going to have them. It will however be a pain your a$$. So you are against trying to save lives all because it is an inconvience to you. I'm not talking it being impossible for you to own a gun. I'm talking about it being harder, having to wait longer.

Wow! This just going to completely ruin your life. Don't you think some of you folks might be being just a little bit selfish?

Sorry for my rant.