Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
randall146

USA Shootings

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

what argument would you use for freedom of speech or right to vote? 

Rights granted by the Constitution - they're kinda important 

I'm generally a fan of the Constitution, but I also constantly ask myself how I would design the laws if I were starting from scratch.  Just because something was once a good idea doesn't mean it remains so forever.  Also, sometimes we just get it wrong from the start.

For example, it's fairly impossible to argue that every amendment was a great idea.  You know, what with one of them directly erasing a previous one.

Note that I'm not arguing that the second amendment is a bad idea or wrong.  Whether it is or not is irrelevant to my point.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

my point is clear - you would architect a means to stop drunk driving that would be effective towards those drinking and driving without impacting 99.9 % of the car drivers and alcohol buyers that do NOT drive under influence

you wouldn't pass laws to impact the 99.9 % in an effort to stop the 0.1 % would you ?

would you pass anti-muslims to stop terrorist attacks by muslims? I mean 99.9 % of muslims are not terrorist, but lets focus on them to stop the 0.1 % right ?

 

that's what gun laws are - they focus on legal law abiding citizens, not the criminals

I don't understand what you are saying here.  There are laws against drunk driving and I am certain that they lower the incidence of drunk drivers.  They do not affect my ability to buy alcohol.

I think everyone understands that putting in better gun restrictions will not stop gun crime, but will help reduce the incidences of gun crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I'm generally a fan of the Constitution, but I also constantly ask myself how I would design the laws if I were starting from scratch.  Just because something was once a good idea doesn't mean it remains so forever.  Also, sometimes we just get it wrong from the start.

For example, it's fairly impossible to argue that every amendment was a great idea.  You know, what with one of them directly erasing a previous one.

Note that I'm not arguing that the second amendment is a bad idea or wrong.  Whether it is or not is irrelevant to my point.

there is truth to that but a fundamental right to protect yourself was very important to them as was religion and freedoms to live their lives free etc ......... and they're what makes the USA what it is today

the problem isn't guns or knives or automobiles or drugs ............. the problem is people abusing them and using them in evil ways. Attack that core problem .......... fighting to remove a choice of weapon is a guaranteed losing battle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:

I don't understand what you are saying here.  There are laws against drunk driving and I am certain that they lower the incidence of drunk drivers.  They do not affect my ability to buy alcohol.

I think everyone understands that putting in better gun restrictions will not stop gun crime, but will help reduce the incidences of gun crime.

ok I'll do it again

what laws would you pass right now to stop those 10,000 people dying every year in drunk driving wrecks? 

you need to forge laws to stop them, so you would what? put blow to go devices on all cars? The 99.9 % of people every day who don't DUI would have to do that, sound good? And like gun purchases and ammo purchases, you'd need background checks every time you buy a beer or wine. 99.9 % that don't DUI would have to do that. No person to person sales - you might be selling to a DUI person and 99.9 % of those who don't DUI would be affected, right ?

no - none of that .... its all silly right ? I mean it might have a small impact but the negatives to all the people NOT DUI which is to say, 99.9% of the people or something, that's simply not worth it is it? 

I mean its crazy to pass as that target the vast majority law abiding vs targeting the criminals isn't it ? 

We have common sense laws -  without affecting the 99% who are law abiding and doing this gun ownership right. We have DUI laws too that don't affect the 99% who don't DUI

 

do you see what I'm saying ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

ok I'll do it again

what laws would you pass right now to stop those 10,000 people dying every year in drunk driving wrecks? 

you need to forge laws to stop them, so you would what? put blow to go devices on all cars? The 99.9 % of people every day who don't DUI would have to do that, sound good? And like gun purchases and ammo purchases, you'd need background checks every time you buy a beer or wine. 99.9 % that don't DUI would have to do that. No person to person sales - you might be selling to a DUI person and 99.9 % of those who don't DUI would be affected, right ?

no - none of that .... its all silly right ? I mean it might have a small impact but the negatives to all the people NOT DUI which is to say, 99.9% of the people or something, that's simply not worth it is it? 

I mean its crazy to pass as that target the vast majority law abiding vs targeting the criminals isn't it ? 

We have common sense laws -  without affecting the 99% who are law abiding and doing this gun ownership right. We have DUI laws too that don't affect the 99% who don't DUI

 

do you see what I'm saying ?

Not a bad point and I get it but a death from a drunk driving is not the same as a death from a gun. It’s just not. 

How many drunk drivers are driving through a school and killing kids?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Not a bad point and I get it but a death from a drunk driving is not the same as a death from a gun. It’s just not. 

How many drunk drivers are driving through a school and killing kids?

no certainly not the same thing .... but where is the total outrage of drunk driving deaths and injuries every year vs gun deaths? 

we can agree deaths are important and they could be reduced by a great deal in automobiles as the sacrifice of everyone else ... I mean as I have posted before, automobiles are capable of GPS devices, all connected, that doesn't allow any one car to get closer to another without a safe stopping distance gap. Yes, it would create much longer driving / delays .......... but we're saving lives and isn't that the bottom line ?

the violence .... that's the problem at its core as is the abuse of drugs/alcohol is the core problem with DUI

why would a 15 year old kid want to kill students/faculty? solve that .......... bombs, guns, shotguns, knives, the weapon isn't the core problem

studies have been done on mass shootings / killings / violence links to prescription drugs - i would be shocked if the KY shooter/kid wasn't on drugs. Its not a solve all, but its important I think, more important than a muzzle break ban, bump stock ban or scary looking gun ban 

the violence in inner cities/drugs/gangs is another level - and that too cannot be solved by laws that affect law abiding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stealthycat is correct that 10,000 people die from drunk driving every year. But suppose there were no laws against drunk driving? How many people would die then? 50,000? 100,000? 

We don’t have laws against adults drinking alcohol- we know, by experience, that those laws don’t work. But we do have laws against drinking and driving, and those laws DO work. Because our society deems them reasonable and they serve as a deterrent. Gun control is exactly the same way. We don’t need to ban all guns, but we do need reasonable regulations. Despite his intentions, Stealthycat’s arguments only bolster this point. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it an either or anyway?

well...not addressing problem A...so we can’t even discuss problem B?

But there have been multiple things done to try and curtail problem A and limit it.  And they don’t stop there.  Why do so for problem B?  Why stop and not try more?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, BigSteelThrill said:

Wisconsins Republican Governor Scott Walker Signs Bill Making It Legal For Toddlers To Hunt With Guns

 

Brilliant. :wall:

Whatever. If you out hunting with your daddy and your daddy wants you to shoot a gun, you will shoot a gun. Don't mater if you are 10 or 15 or 20. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Stealthycat is correct that 10,000 people die from drunk driving every year. But suppose there were no laws against drunk driving? How many people would die then? 50,000? 100,000? 

We don’t have laws against adults drinking alcohol- we know, by experience, that those laws don’t work. But we do have laws against drinking and driving, and those laws DO work. Because our society deems them reasonable and they serve as a deterrent. Gun control is exactly the same way. We don’t need to ban all guns, but we do need reasonable regulations. Despite his intentions, Stealthycat’s arguments only bolster this point. 

You sure they were all "drunk driving"? Maybe they were just buzzed driving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think stealthycats point is that it is already illegal to use a gun to kill someone.  Enacting gun free zones, while a good law in a vacuum has the unintended consequence of making those areas targets for sick people that want to cause the most damage possible, because they have a high probability of facing little opposition, at least until the good guys with guns come.  It's an example of a gun control law that doesn't work.  

My question is what are the laws that could be enacted that will actually curb these kinds of shootings.  I'm not even sure what gun registration would do really, although I'm not necessarily against it.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Stealthycat is correct that 10,000 people die from drunk driving every year. But suppose there were no laws against drunk driving? How many people would die then? 50,000? 100,000? 

We don’t have laws against adults drinking alcohol- we know, by experience, that those laws don’t work. But we do have laws against drinking and driving, and those laws DO work. Because our society deems them reasonable and they serve as a deterrent. Gun control is exactly the same way. We don’t need to ban all guns, but we do need reasonable regulations. Despite his intentions, Stealthycat’s arguments only bolster this point. 

Very true. I got a DUI once 13 years ago and I haven’t driven drunk since.  The consequences have kept me from doing it and yet I can still continue to drink as much as I want. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Whatever. If you out hunting with your daddy and your daddy wants you to shoot a gun, you will shoot a gun. Don't mater if you are 10 or 15 or 20. 

Or 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BigSteelThrill said:

Or 4.

Exactly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Exactly 

Imagine coming through the brush to see a 5 year old holding a 30-06 and looking your way.  :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BigSteelThrill said:

Imagine coming through the brush to see a 5 year old holding a 30-06 and looking your way.  :no:

A person that gives a 5 year old a rifle won't care if it is legal or not. This isn't too important of a convo IMO. I have never fired a gun in my life. Just don't think this law change is too big of a deal in reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

Why is it an either or anyway?

well...not addressing problem A...so we can’t even discuss problem B?

But there have been multiple things done to try and curtail problem A and limit it.  And they don’t stop there.  Why do so for problem B?  Why stop and not try more?

 

We are 7 pages into discussing Problem B.  Feel free to catch up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Stealthycat is correct that 10,000 people die from drunk driving every year. But suppose there were no laws against drunk driving? How many people would die then? 50,000? 100,000? 

We don’t have laws against adults drinking alcohol- we know, by experience, that those laws don’t work. But we do have laws against drinking and driving, and those laws DO work. Because our society deems them reasonable and they serve as a deterrent. Gun control is exactly the same way. We don’t need to ban all guns, but we do need reasonable regulations. Despite his intentions, Stealthycat’s arguments only bolster this point. 

what if we allowed fully auto weapons, rocket launchers and land mines to civilians and allowed kids to buy guns anytime they want?

see ... we DO have common sense laws after all, just like drunk driving.

we don't have laws against adults owning guns - we DO have laws against adults murdering other people. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigSteelThrill said:

Wisconsins Republican Governor Scott Walker Signs Bill Making It Legal For Toddlers To Hunt With Guns

 

my son killed his first big game animal (wild turkey) when he was 8

first deer later that same fall - both time he held the gun and shot the gun with no help from me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigSteelThrill said:

Imagine coming through the brush to see a 5 year old holding a 30-06 and looking your way.  :no:

well #1 "coming through the brush" is ridiculous .... #2 a 5 year year old don't hunt alone, #3 everyone wears bright hunters orange, #4 ......... well i could keep going but truth is, you're in far more danger driving down the highway than someone shooting you in the woods

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Why do so for problem B?  Why stop and not try more?

I'm trying

Focus on the core problem, arm schools, get every legal person carrying concealed weapons so they can defend themselves and others ............. those things will help.

Banning a flash guard or muzzle break? won't help nothing,but hey the left can say they passed another law I guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

I have never fired a gun in my life

I cannot imagine ...... I have shot guns ever since I remember. We gave boxes of shotgun shells for our Christmas parties in school. We had guns on the racks in our trucks. This was 1987 ..... not too long ago and now those things would FREAK people out. 

Society has changed, the hearts of people have changed. The core problem is not a tool or weapon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Very true. I got a DUI once 13 years ago and I haven’t driven drunk since.  The consequences have kept me from doing it and yet I can still continue to drink as much as I want. 

and its much harder penalties now than 13 years ago I think - and harsh works

that kid in KY ? It'll be years in court before he's found guilty and since he's juvenile? Might be out at 18, dunno if they try 15 year old's as adults in KY as adults. I know whatever the penalties for murder, it cannot be high enough to stop people from doing it because well .... its happening, right ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I cannot imagine ...... I have shot guns ever since I remember. We gave boxes of shotgun shells for our Christmas parties in school. We had guns on the racks in our trucks. This was 1987 ..... not too long ago and now those things would FREAK people out. 

Society has changed, the hearts of people have changed. The core problem is not a tool or weapon.

Your lifestyle as it relates to guns isn't freaky to me. I grew up and still live in Michigan. We are a very gun friendly State. Hunting is huge here, tons of great people I know had and have guns. My dad didn't have guns or hunt so it was a little unfamiliar to me and I just never got interested in it. Same with golf. 

I agree with you that the core problem is not the weapon but I still believe we can better regulate the weapon and get improved results in terms of times when the weapon hurts an innocent person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

what argument would you use for freedom of speech or right to vote? 

Rights granted by the Constitution - they're kinda important 

You missed my point.  Freedom of speech and the right to vote are important because they help maintain a free democracy, and they are protected in the Constitution because they are important.

But, their being in the Constitution is not an argument for preserving them.

You see value in freer gun ownership and relaxed laws.  You think we should have the right to guns for self defense and perhaps to stop oppressive government. .  Those are arguments for the right to bear arms.

But "The Second Amendment exists" is not an argument 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Megaton said:

There are many rural areas where guns are an absolute necessity, even in this day and age.   

What are they necessary for?  Please don't say grizzly attacks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, randall146 said:

What are they necessary for?  Please don't say grizzly attacks

If you live fairly remote, what other protection do you have?  You are a sitting duck for drifters/criminals.  There are legitimate reasons there is a huge divide on the issue between city folk and country folk.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Megaton said:

If you live fairly remote, what other protection do you have?  You are a sitting duck for drifters/criminals.  There are legitimate reasons there is a huge divide on the issue between city folk and country folk.  

I mean, I guess it depends on how well armed the drifter/criminal is, right? 

But I do generally agree with your premise here.  I’ve never shot a gun, the appeal of them is totally lost on me.  Definitely there’s some people for whom guns are part of their way of life and others like me who have never seen any need for one at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Not a bad point and I get it but a death from a drunk driving is not the same as a death from a gun. It’s just not. 

How many drunk drivers are driving through a school and killing kids?

This is a really weird statement.  Have you never seen an actual death from a car crash? Kids are randomly and brutally killed in dui car crashes all the time.  The only difference is the intent of the person responsible? Would you feel better if your child died because of reckless disregard of their life instead of someone intentional killing them.  That is so bizarre to me.  If one of my kids is killed by bleeding to death from a gun shot wound or bleeds to death in a car crash because someone drank to much and drove I would want the same level of justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

I agree with you that the core problem is not the weapon but I still believe we can better regulate the weapon and get improved results in terms of times when the weapon hurts an innocent person. 

how do you propose to do that and it have an impact on criminals but not negatively impact legal gun owners?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, randall146 said:

Freedom of speech and the right to vote are important because they help maintain a free democracy, and they are protected in the Constitution because they are important.

some people would argue they're not important at all and in fact freedom of speech (being a white supremacist or a nazi or hating muslims) shouldn't be allowed at all

perspective randall146 - you obviously are anti-gun but I bet you are 100% in favor of people saving your life and protecting you and your family and your property with guns if something bad happens right? 

guns are good - they deter crime, they stop crime, they are a tool police and military and citizens use almost every second of the day to stop the bad guys. Don't forget that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

how do you propose to do that and it have an impact on criminals but not negatively impact legal gun owners?

 

Like many things in politics, it’s a trade-off. Most of society is OK with negatively impacting lawful gun owners to a certain degree if they believe it will reduce gun violence. Polls show this.

Edited by Juxtatarot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

 I’ve never shot a gun, the appeal of them is totally lost on me.

so you don't hunt obviously

just a few quick numbers ..... not including car jackings, simple beatings like the Knock Out Game, etc etc.

I guess you could be exceptionally good at self defense but against someone with a weapon you still are very disadvantaged. 

A concealed weapon is your equalizer, it gives you the ability to right now protect yourself and/or your family and property from criminals. Why would you NOT want to protect yourself is totally lost to me !

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/latest-crime-statistics-released

  • The estimated number of murders in the nation was 15,696.
  • During the year, there were an estimated 90,185 rapes. (This figure currently reflects UCR’s legacy definition. Learn more about the revised rape definition.)
  • There were an estimated 327,374 robberies nationwide, which accounted for an estimated $390 million in losses (average dollar value of stolen property per reported robbery was $1,190).
  • Firearms were used in 71.5 percent of the nation’s murders, 40.8 percent of robberies, and 24.2 percent of aggravated assaults.
  • Property crimes resulted in losses estimated at $14.3 billion. The total value of reported stolen property (i.e., currency, jewelry, motor vehicles, electronics, firearms) was $12,420,364,454.

 

I know its a pro-fun site but the references are there, this isn't tweeting .....  guns are good far far more often that they're bad. Just like automobiles and drinking its rare people abuse them 

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Juxtatarot said:

Like many things in politics, it’s a trade-off. Most of society is OK with negatively impacting lawful gun owners to a certain degree if it will reduce gun violence. Polls show this.

at least you are truthful

but I disagree, we have pro-gun laws popping up every day. GOP is pro-gun, President is. Concealed weapons laws are more and more common as are open carry - if these things wasn't positive they'd not be happening and the people in each state are demanding it.

Gun ownership might be higher than ever, record gun sales under Obama and yet with all this - with the few exceptions there isn't wild wild west shooting going on.

I very much like to see the President, White House and media right now NOT glamorize shooting and give the shooters the attentions they want ......... I think that is a good thing.

 

So no - outside the shell of liberal news and media, the US is very much pro-gun right now.

I'll tell you this - if that hotel in Vegas had had more armed security guards they might have stopped that shooter faster than they did. THAT is a solution. The KY School, it needed security trained and armed and that might never have happened at all. Yes, nobody knows for sure - but guns deter criminals and they stop them. In fact they're about the only things that can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I mean, I guess it depends on how well armed the drifter/criminal is, right? 

But I do generally agree with your premise here.  I’ve never shot a gun, the appeal of them is totally lost on me.  Definitely there’s some people for whom guns are part of their way of life and others like me who have never seen any need for one at all.

If you lived in an area where your nearest neighbor is a mile away and you can go months without seeing a police officer drive by, I believe you would soon realize having a weapon would make it easier to sleep.  Not to mention wild animals like coyotes running around preying on your pets and livestock.  It is more than just a mindset, there are practical differences.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Hot Diggity Dog said:

This is a really weird statement.  Have you never seen an actual death from a car crash? Kids are randomly and brutally killed in dui car crashes all the time.  The only difference is the intent of the person responsible? Would you feel better if your child died because of reckless disregard of their life instead of someone intentional killing them.  That is so bizarre to me.  If one of my kids is killed by bleeding to death from a gun shot wound or bleeds to death in a car crash because someone drank to much and drove I would want the same level of justice.

It doesn’t make sense to you?  Intent is what makes them different. The result of death may be the same but the intent is different and therefore they should be handled differently.

Are you saying that any action done that results in a death should be handled the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quick google says ..... Dallas officials this year reported average response times of 22 minutes for non-emergency calls, and under 9 minutes for emergencies. For police departments around the country, meanwhile, the average response time is of 11 minutes, according to the Detroit report.Dec 9, 2015

http://www.self-defense-mind-body-spirit.com/average-police-response-time.html

According to American Police Beat, the average response time for an emergency call is 10 minutes. Atlanta has the worst response time with 11 to 12 minutes and Nashville comes in at a lightning speed of 9 minutes.

The Department of Justice, with their statistical prowess, reports that the best response time is 4 minutes and the worst over 1 hour. Interpretation? If you live in an upper income area you probably are privy to the 4 minute response time, while middle to rural areas will see a much longer response time.

Now here is where things get interesting. Even though the Department of Justice determined that the average police response time to a 911 call is 4 minutes, the average interaction time between a criminal and his victim is 90 seconds.

That translates to you being robbed/injured/maimed/raped/murdered and waiting for an additional 2 and a half minutes for the police to arrive. The truth of the matter is that the police will almost always arrive AFTER the crime has happened and the criminal has gone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/

drop down to you state, look at all the pages of people who have shared their stories of self defense - GUNS ARE GOOD

Now I am for instant background checks, they do not hinder legal gun owners or law abiding people. Military grade weapons do not need to be sold to the public, I think everyone can agree on that. Felons and mentally unstable - I think those are reasonable laws we have in place.

I think every home should be required to have a gun in it. That would give criminals a second thought I think. More and more people are concealed carrying - that's going to help. Arming schools will stop school shootings, almost every one of them. For gangs/thugs and people like that, I think doubling the penalties for murder/attempted murder and such is important. I actually have zero use for a bump stock, or a device to very rapidly shoot a gun. However only once has one ever been used in a mass murder, so unless it becomes a problem I see no reason to knee jerk ban them. I think there is a strong link in prescription medications and mass shootings - that needs to be looked at. Drugs are evil things if used wrong and they're used wrong often, way too often IMO leading to many suicides and IMO murders too.

I encourage everyone to get a handgun and a concealed weapons license. Go to your class, go the gun range, enable yourself for your protection and protection of your family and home. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Megaton said:

If you lived in an area where your nearest neighbor is a mile away and you can go months without seeing a police officer drive by, I believe you would soon realize having a weapon would make it easier to sleep.  Not to mention wild animals like coyotes running around preying on your pets and livestock.  It is more than just a mindset, there are practical differences.  

Other countries have a way of dealing with those situations that is more restrictive than current legislation in various states. See Australia, for instance, 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 Why would you NOT want to protect yourself is totally lost to me !

Our mindsets are just completely different.  I know there are some nutjobs out there that break into people’s homes for the purpose of committing violence against them, but those incidents are rare and it isn’t obvious that having a gun in the house will always be to your benefit in that situation anyway.  If someone breaks into my house to steal stuff I will just run away and let them steal it.  It’s not worth it to me to engage in a confrontation that has the potential to be violent.

I also think gun owners routinely underestimate the likelihood that their guns will kill someone either accidentally or by suicide.  Those considerations need to be taken into account when deciding to bring a gun into your home.  For me the benefits of gun ownership are greatly outweighed by the drawbacks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

how do you propose to do that and it have an impact on criminals but not negatively impact legal gun owners?

 

Depends how you define negatively impacting gun owners. You consider even having to register a gun as being a negative impact so we have no grounds to continue discussing this. We are miles apart. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Megaton said:

If you lived in an area where your nearest neighbor is a mile away and you can go months without seeing a police officer drive by, I believe you would soon realize having a weapon would make it easier to sleep.  Not to mention wild animals like coyotes running around preying on your pets and livestock.  It is more than just a mindset, there are practical differences.  

FWIW,  this is me. Living pretty dang remote in Colorado. Mountain Lions, Bears, and Coyotes,are common and are present right out the font door. Gun ownership is assumed here.  I have zero problems registering guns just like I have zero problems registering cars. I may live in the middle of nowhere but I recognize my role as a part of larger society. I respect that this is a complex topic but I don't understand the myopic and knee jerk resistance of some to any kind of reasonable restrictions or oversight applied to gun safety or ownership. We don't let just anyone operate or own a semi, a crane, or a well rig because improper use makes them inherently dangerous to everyone. Nearly everyone accepts the rules and oversight that govern these as necessary and expects that there will be continuous monitoring and updates to applicable safety measures. When it comes to these potentially dangerous but necessary tools there is a universal understanding that their safe and effective use only happens when there is a sense of shared responsibility applied by all parties. Why the different approach and attitude with guns? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Our mindsets are just completely different.  I know there are some nutjobs out there that break into people’s homes for the purpose of committing violence against them, but those incidents are rare and it isn’t obvious that having a gun in the house will always be to your benefit in that situation anyway.  If someone breaks into my house to steal stuff I will just run away and let them steal it.  It’s not worth it to me to engage in a confrontation that has the potential to be violent.

I also think gun owners routinely underestimate the likelihood that their guns will kill someone either accidentally or by suicide.  Those considerations need to be taken into account when deciding to bring a gun into your home.  For me the benefits of gun ownership are greatly outweighed by the drawbacks.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

its not just home invasion that's you're protecting yourself from

nobody knows how many homes have guns in them - 40%? that would be what, 170 million homes?  and how many accidents or suicide? You said "rare" so I would think you're figuring statistics and numbers ...... do that with those as well.

its very very rare a kid takes a gun from a home and does something with it - it truly is

have you see this ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sEYGcXSmpQ

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, msommer said:

Other countries have a way of dealing with those situations that is more restrictive than current legislation in various states. See Australia, for instance, 

 

The funny thing is, after the big Port Arthur massacre, Australia did pass some tougher gun laws and hundreds of thousands of people turned in their guns, however there are more guns in Australia today than there ever were before.  So what does that really prove?  Yes, the percentage of households in Australia has declined significantly, but a similar decline has occurred in the US.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kwille said:

FWIW,  this is me. Living pretty dang remote in Colorado. Mountain Lions, Bears, and Coyotes,are common and are present right out the font door. Gun ownership is assumed here.  I have zero problems registering guns just like I have zero problems registering cars. I may live in the middle of nowhere but I recognize my role as a part of larger society. I respect that this is a complex topic but I don't understand the myopic and knee jerk resistance of some to any kind of reasonable restrictions or oversight applied to gun safety or ownership. We don't let just anyone operate or own a semi, a crane, or a well rig because improper use makes them inherently dangerous to everyone. Nearly everyone accepts the rules and oversight that govern these as necessary and expects that there will be continuous monitoring and updates to applicable safety measures. When it comes to these potentially dangerous but necessary tools there is a universal understanding that their safe and effective use only happens when there is a sense of shared responsibility applied by all parties. Why the different approach and attitude with guns? 

I lived in Grand Junction, Glenwood Springs, Colorado Springs, Montrose, Arvada .... I know Colorado well, hunted the Weminuche many times

You do not have a Constitutional Right to drive or own a car or crane or semi. The state of Colorado at any moment can tell you your license is revoked and you cannot drive legally. They can do that, their choice and for whatever reason. 

What would be the meaning of me registering my guns?  Sure, the Govt now knows I have a .22, a .410, a .375 H&H, a .454 Cassul ...... what would they need that info for? How is that in any WAY going to stop crime? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

its not just home invasion that's you're protecting yourself from

nobody knows how many homes have guns in them - 40%? that would be what, 170 million homes?  and how many accidents or suicide? You said "rare" so I would think you're figuring statistics and numbers ...... do that with those as well.

its very very rare a kid takes a gun from a home and does something with it - it truly is

have you see this ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sEYGcXSmpQ

 

I just googled and it said 21,000 firearm suicides per year.  Seems like a significant number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 

What would be the meaning of me registering my guns?  Sure, the Govt now knows I have a .22, a .410, a .375 H&H, a .454 Cassul ...... what would they need that info for? How is that in any WAY going to stop crime? 

Seriously? You don’t think that if law enforcement knew the owner of every gun in America, it wouldn’t help them fight crime? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

You do not have a Constitutional Right to drive or own a car or crane or semi.  

I think we may be on to something. I would argue that I have a Constitutional (dare I say unalienable) right to all of those if I choose to as part of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't believe guns are as special as you think they are.

Edited by kwille

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read this whole article, but I wonder if anything said could make people that are adamant about guns change their minds.

In Australia the homicide rate has fallen 20% since tougher restrictions were put in place.  And as more guns are weeded out, that percentage seems to be getting closer to 25%.

My questions for all the advocates would be, "if you banned some semi-automatic, self-loading rifles and shotguns, and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements (similar to what was done in Australia), and this led to a 20%-25% reduction in homicides, do you think this is worth it".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.