Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[FLDomer]

I just posted the link here intead of starting a new thread. Sorry, I saw there already was a thread for it. Also I was not comparing it in anyway to the aweful event at Sandy Hook.

 

[greyhammer90]

When you got nothing to say, resort to slippery slope.

I suppose. Just struggling to see the logic.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I don't think there's anything wrong with eliminating the "gun show loophole" and have background checks for those gun purchases.

 

[JadeBrecks]

I struggle to see why a guns-rights activist would think that such incidents bolster their claims.

Sure, bad things are always going to happen with or without guns... That's an argument you could make. Wouldn't recommend it though.

Psycho with a knife? 14 injured, 2 critical.

Psycho with a gun? 28 killed.

I'd say that's more of an indictment on guns than an indictment on reactionary liberals.

The 14 injured was with one person and a blade that sticks out no more that an inch. If some wacko uses a fillet knife im sure you don't have the same endding. Also it hurts your argument that with a knife a large assualt can't take place because the attacker will be able to be over run. If you change the situation or the tools used the phycos will evolve and adapt.

 

[greyhammer90]

If you change the situation or the tools used the phycos will evolve and adapt.

That's a hell of a leap and it's really flawed logic. I'm not going to argue it all night though. At the end of the day, you want to put your social liberties and feelings of safety above other societal benefits. That's fine and it's a valid viewpoint. I just wish everyone would be honest about what they really want and not make completely asinine comparisons to completely different situations. It is a disservice for both sides of the argument. I was merely providing an alternative view, for those so eager to make "lets ban KNIVES NOW lolz" joke to mull over.

 

[JadeBrecks]

That's a hell of a leap and it's really flawed logic. I'm not going to argue it all night though. At the end of the day, you want to put your social liberties and feelings of safety above other societal benefits. That's fine and it's a valid viewpoint. I just wish everyone would be honest about what they really want and not make completely asinine comparisons to completely different situations. It is a disservice for both sides of the argument. I was merely providing an alternative view, for those so eager to make "lets ban KNIVES NOW lolz" joke to mull over.

Why is that such a leap? If one person can't get a gun to preform whatever it is a knife could replace it. You want to kill your bully, want to prove a point, or just want your 15 min of fame. I just don't see why this is a streach? Heck the movie theater shooter even made improvised explosive devicess to booby trap his appartment and set up a lure to draw people to it. Just because you are crazy enough to do something this stupid does mean you can't figure out a way to inflict as much damage as possible.

To us the "lets ban guns" is just as crazy sounding as "lets ban knives" is to you. The current legislation trying to be passed is the backround checks. But when the people proposing this law are asked how it would stop shootings like sandy hook they won't answer. Obama's own administration admitted "universal backround checks" are usless without mandatory gun registration. What the law is trying to do is prevent criminals and the mentally ill from buying a gun. It is already a crime to sell a firearm to such individuals even when a background check isn't required. The current laws don't prevent it so what will one more that is designed to stop the same thing do? This is what we see when we see "lets ban guns" it makes sense to us and we can see the flaws in it. It is like most people when the see "lets ban knives". You can see the ineffectiveness of it and how impractical it is.

 

[ACamp1900]

Why is that such a leap? If one person can't get a gun to preform whatever it is a knife could replace it. You want to kill your bully, want to prove a point, or just want your 15 min of fame. I just don't see why this is a streach? Heck the movie theater shooter even made improvised explosive devicess to booby trap his appartment and set up a lure to draw people to it. Just because you are crazy enough to do something this stupid does mean you can't figure out a way to inflict as much damage as possible.

To us the "lets ban guns" is just as crazy sounding as "lets ban knives" is to you. The current legislation trying to be passed is the backround checks. But when the people proposing this law are asked how it would stop shootings like sandy hook they won't answer. Obama's own administration admitted "universal backround checks" are usless without mandatory gun registration. What the law is trying to do is prevent criminals and the mentally ill from buying a gun. It is already a crime to sell a firearm to such individuals even when a background check isn't required. The current laws don't prevent it so what will one more that is designed to stop the same thing do? This is what we see when we see "lets ban guns" it makes sense to us and we can see the flaws in it. It is like most people when the see "lets ban knives". You can see the ineffectiveness of it and how impractical it is.

Reid himself admitted today that nothing will stop criminals from getting guns... To me, end argument right there... Anyone willing to shoot someone just because is a criminal.

If we could uninvent the gun I'd listen... Until ill choose to protect myself... And defend the right to do so adequately.

 

[GoIrish41]

Hand guns are made for killin'
They ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you like to drink your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some ol' fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me

 

[Whiskeyjack]

From the Economist:

The NRA is quite right about the dubious relevance of background checks to these shootings. However it's not at all clear that a better "mental health system", whatever that means, would have done anything to prevent them, either. Closing the gun-show loophole probably would make it "a little harder for our kids to get gunned down", as would greater efforts to prevent and/or contain violent derangement. Both proposals have benefits, and also costs. Will attending more carefully to the potential violence of the mentally ill keep some people who need help from seeking it, due to the fear that they might be labeled a danger to public safety and deprived their liberty? Probably, yes. Will expanding background checks keep some people who urgently need a gun for self-defence from acquiring it? Of course it will. Taking everything into account, is either proposal worth it? It's hard to say, even if we agreed on the relative importance of competing values. Still, if we cared, we'd look into it.

If we cared, we'd look into a lot of things. What Americans have agreed not to look into is telling.

It's worth a read. Both sides in this debate are mostly ignorant of the types of policies that might actually decrease gun violence, and neither seems to care. It's simply another front in the culture wars.

 

[BGIF]

From the Economist:



It's worth a read. Both sides in this debate are mostly ignorant of the types of policies that might actually decrease gun violence, and neither seems to care. It's simply another front in the culture wars.

Ala Citizen Ruth. Different subject, similar theme.

 

[chicago51]

Reid himself admitted today that nothing will stop criminals from getting guns... To me, end argument right there... Anyone willing to shoot someone just because is a criminal.

If we could uninvent the gun I'd listen... Until ill choose to protect myself... And defend the right to do so adequately.

Reid said something along the lines of nothing will stop all or every criminal from getting a gun.

PDF file of examples of how background checks have would have caught criminals.

http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/9/c3/b/1723/Background_Checks_Save_Lives_and_Catch_Criminals.pdf

 

[chicago51]

There are certainly arguements to be made from the gun rights side of things.

I have to say though the arguement that we should make laws because the criminals will break the law is the dumbest arguement ever. By that logic we should just legalize stealing and murder because only the criminals do those things.

 

[ACamp1900]

Murder or stealing being illegal doesnt put those trying to defend themselves from it behind the eight ball... Not hard to figure out the difference hoss.

 

[NankerPhelge]

Thank God for the NRA. Now, let's get ready for the next round of nonsense. . . just like the last round.

 

[FLDomer]

Thank God for the NRA. Now, let's get ready for the next round of nonsense. . . just like the last round.

Let me clear my throat....TROOOOOLLLLL...there we go, all better

 

[pkt77242]

Murder or stealing being illegal doesnt put those trying to defend themselves from it behind the eight ball... Not hard to figure out the difference hoss.

How would this law put anyone behind the eight ball?

Can anyone reasonably argue why we shouldn't do background checks at gun shows? Seriously. This kills me. What was so objectionable about the gun control law? There was no Assault Weapons ban or Clip maximum in it, so what was the problem?

 

[ACamp1900]

The post you quoted was in reference to the idea of guns being made illegal... And it was also a week ago... When the words "banning guns" were being used.

 

[pkt77242]

The post you quoted was in reference to the idea of guns being made illegal... And it was also a week ago... When the words "banning guns" were being used.

Ok, that I can see. I am not in favor of banning guns, but I am huge proponent of closing the Gun Show loophole.

 

[ACamp1900]

I am too honestly... Like I have said many times here... I was a gun control guy, until gun control became 'ban all guns'

 

[pkt77242]

I am too honestly... Like I have said many times here... I was a gun control guy, until gun control became 'ban all guns'

I think most people (not felons or mentally insane) should be allowed to own handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns. I think for Assault Rifles, there should be a special permit issued for ownership, in which there should be some kind of rules for ownership (I am open to discussion on the rules, but they aren't meant for everyone). The real problem is what constitues an assault rifle, and even I recognize that.

 

[brandonnash]

That gets back to the same as limits on HP on cars. An "assault rifle" is nothing more than a semi auto rifle. I guess a ruger 10/22 is an assault rifle also?

 

[pkt77242]

That gets back to the same as limits on HP on cars. An "assault rifle" is nothing more than a semi auto rifle. I guess a ruger 10/22 is an assault rifle also?

We don't limit HP but we do limit how you can use the HP (speed limit). Maybe you can own an assault rifle but we limit clips?

 

[phgreek]

That gets back to the same as limits on HP on cars. An "assault rifle" is nothing more than a semi auto rifle. I guess a ruger 10/22 is an assault rifle also?

...only if it has a muzzle break on it...and is scary looking...Sheesh

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I am too honestly... Like I have said many times here... I was a gun control guy, until gun control became 'ban all guns'

Can you actually provide me a place where a legislator has proposed banning all guns? I legitimately haven't heard anyone say that.

It seems to me that there is no left wing in this discussion. Everyone loves guns...even the hard core democrats. The argument is just whether we love guns enough to allow ALL guns or just MOST guns.

 

[phgreek]

Can you actually provide me a place where a legislator has proposed banning all guns? I legitimately haven't heard anyone say that.

It seems to me that there is no left wing in this discussion. Everyone loves guns...even the hard core democrats. The argument is just whether we love guns enough to allow ALL guns or just MOST guns.

Chuck Shumer has been quoted long ago when gun bans were all the rage, as has Ms. Feinstein. I don't think they've changed their goals. I think they've changed their tactics. Any quote you will see from anyone who'd dare openly discuss banning all guns except for law enforcement will live in the 1990--2000 time frame...but they are there, and that thought process lives in very senior members of leadership...

I don't like big volume clips...I don't like folks selling guns w/o background checks...but I also know I won't support any legislation written wherein I cannot see it limit itself to the specific issues at hand w/o ambiguity whatsoever.

 

[ACamp1900]

Feinstein said it a month ago... I'm not going to look for it, but she said it on the floor very recently... And it's just beyond silly to say everyone in this loves guns in my opinion...

 

[BGIF]

Feinstein said it a month ago... I'm not going to look for it, but she said it on the floor very recently... And it's just beyond silly to say everyone in this loves guns in my opinion...

I didn't find it via google (which doesn't prove she didn't say it).

I did find a 12/12 video that claims she wants a complete ban but upon watching the clip, it's clear to me she was talking about assault weapons.

For the record I'm a lifelong Independent, a gun owner since I was 5, and a veteran who took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.


<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EaKG0PKSBos?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Andy in Sactown]

I have a buddy who sends me stuff like this all the time. Seemed like a good place for a lol.

 

[brandonnash]

We don't limit HP but we do limit how you can use the HP (speed limit). Maybe you can own an assault rifle but we limit clips?

A limit such as its illegal to shoot people? I think we already have that on the books.

And "clips" haven't been used since WWII in guns like the mosin nagant with stripper clips. And they typically held 5 rounds.

 

[Andy in Sactown]

A limit such as its illegal to shoot people? I think we already have that on the books.

And "clips" haven't been used since WWII in guns like the mosin nagant with stripper clips. And they typically held 5 rounds.

Hey hey, my 1956 SKS' have 10 round clips!

That gets back to the same as limits on HP on cars. An "assault rifle" is nothing more than a semi auto rifle. I guess a ruger 10/22 is an assault rifle also?

Incorrect. Here in California, as in most states, the law clearly defines what is and is not an "Assault Rifle". That definition explicitly states that Rimfire Rifles (as is the case with your Ruger 10/22) are exempt from the definition.

The Calguns Foundation has made up a nice flow chart applicable to California law. Keep in mind, federal law must also be adhered to (as is the case when modifying imported rifles, to keep them 922(r) compliant).