***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (5 Viewers)

[Rohn Jambo]

I really enjoy playing my guitar. And if one day, I learned that a guitar was actually a secret killing machine, and was being used to slaughter children, and the president therefore decided to outlaw guitars, I'd be the first one to pack them in my trunk and drive them down to the local police station. This debate boggles the mind.

Packed up your booze yet gb???

I don't see Otis doing that with obesity.

 

[ATC1]

Perhaps we need to create another gun control debate thread so that those interested in serious discussion and those that just want to make fun of each other have their own places.

Try having a serious conversation with a bunch of people who think it's a good idea to arm the public with military grade rifles with grenade launchers on them one of these days and see how easy it is to avoid making fun of them

One of the features of "serious discussion" would probably include reading the opposing arguments rather than intentionally mischaracterizing them.

I read the arguments. Some of them went like this, and I'm not characterizing:- it's fun and entertaining to practice eye-hand coordination and shoot guns in our yard, and my family enjoys that, so why should we give that up?- it's important that the populous has guns so we can fight the government and keep them honest/afraid of us- the principal in Newtown should have had an M4.- what would the people with all these guns do with them if we outlawed them?- people are going to try and get guns illegally anyway, and therefore since it will be hard to police, we shouldn't bother policing itNot once has anyone addressed the principle argument I and others are making. Despite the benefits of fun, entertainment, collecting, and hobbyist stuff, if it could potentially stop or curtail these sorts of mass murders even incrementally, how is that not worth the trade off of you losing your hobby? What kind of person are you that you wouldn't jump to your feet this very second, surrender all your guns, and support strict gun control/bans of the most dangerous guns, if there were a chance it could have resulted in saving the life of even one of those six year olds?

What if one of the teachers in the school was a responsible gun owner was allowed to carry on school campus and took action to stop this psyco before he killed the children?

1. How many times has that happened?2. Do you think parents want armed teachers in their schools? As a parent, let me answer that one for you: absolutely not.3. We've already seen the argument that the principal should have had an M4. And then what? She'd have dodged the bullets, ducked and rolled, ran to her office, got the key, unlocked the gun cabinet, pulled the gun out, loaded it, and then killed the shooter? 4. What happens when certain of these teachers who have guns either (1) misplace them so a kid gets his hands on them, (2) have an accident, or (3) worst of all, lose it themselves? I can't imagine a worse approach to this problem than introducing MORE guns into the equation.People, you're not Bruce Willis, this isn't the Wild West. That's not the real world.

1. 0, it is illegal to carry on school grounds. There are instances were armed citizens stop people in stores, resturants all the time. Movies and Schools are no gun zones. Where do you think most mass shootingsw occur?2. Why not? because guns are dangerous or you don't trust the person that is teaching your child everyday?3. That guy is an idiot. But if she had a gun on her hip and taken a self defense class and practice, I would say the odds would be in her favor to take this guy out.4. Misplace them on their hip? I have never heard of someone say I misplaced the gun that was on my hip a second ago. It just disappeared and ended on my desk for someone to pick up. The gun does not go off if you don't pull the trigger. More restrictions to those not familiar and irresponsible. Less restrictions to those properly trained and responsible.

Otis, don't bother engaging.

That's right, because it's all or nothing right? For the record, I think assult weapons are pointless, thus not necessary outside the military. However, people enjoy shooting them. IMO they are less dangerous then handguns. Private citizens should not be able to sell their weapons to anyone. It should be harder to own a gun (proper training and saftey courses should be required).

People enjoy shooting them is not a valid reason.

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is. Semi-auto assult weapons are less dangerous then handguns. But there will be laws trying to pass through congress to ban them when handguns were the weapons used in this shooting. Stop trying to ban guns and try to regulate them better.

 

[sporthenry]

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is. Semi-auto assult weapons are less dangerous then handguns. But there will be laws trying to pass through congress to ban them when handguns were the weapons used in this shooting. Stop trying to ban guns and try to regulate them better.

How are semi-auto assault weapons less dangerous? What measure are we using here?

 

[ATC1]

But if she had a gun on her hip and taken a self defense class and practice, I would say the odds would be in her favor to take this guy out.

I'm sorry but this is just Aren't these the same teachers that many of the pro-gun party consider worthless parasites sucking the lifeblood from the taxpayers? Now they are supposed to be security guards and sharpshooters too?

Sharpshooters? Gaurds? no. Anyone that wants to learn how to handle a weapon properly can. Some people are affraid of them and certainly some people feel safer without them. That's fine, but if a teacher was armed and saved those kids, we would be praising the teacher and be greatful he/she was someone that choose to learn how to handle a situation like this.

 

[ATC1]

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is. Semi-auto assult weapons are less dangerous then handguns. But there will be laws trying to pass through congress to ban them when handguns were the weapons used in this shooting. Stop trying to ban guns and try to regulate them better.

How are semi-auto assault weapons less dangerous? What measure are we using here?

They are not concealable, jam a lot easier and are not as efficent short range as a handgun. The mall shooter in Oregon may have got more shots off if his AR-15 did not jam. Anyone in a crowd could have picked him out as he was the guy with the big gun.

 

[BassNBrew]

Two cops shot tonight in Topeka, Kansas. I bet this wouldn't have happened if we armed our police officers.

Bad http://www.pantagraph.com/news/bloomington-man-charged-with-videotaping-rape-of-sleeping-woman/article_366d1902-5e42-5285-a137-0ae3818b23cd.htmlStuff http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/wisconsin/police-hypothermia-alcohol-caused-death

Happens http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/news/archive/cancernews/2012-05-30-Cutting-alcohol-intake-would-prevent-2600-cancer-deaths-a-year

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Two cops shot tonight in Topeka, Kansas. I bet this wouldn't have happened if we armed our police officers.

 

[ATC1]

What mature solutions have we developed so far? 30 pages, we've got to have something....

At a minimum:1. Ban assault weapons. The gun hobby guys want to fight about what this means, but I say any rifles or weapons that are automatic or semi-automatic and capable of mowing down innocents the way it happened last week. I'm sure the gun folks can come up with the right definition.

Beyond that:

2. I think you really need to look at banning handguns. They're always involved in these sorts of things. It's too easy to hide them and take them anywhere. Yes, some people will be bummed they can't have their target practice hobby anymore, but they can find another hobby, and if less people are killed, that's an OK trade off. The handgun ban in England is a good model, and gun homicides are breathtakingly low.

I can see some exceptions, because an outright ban would drive the far right bonkers. Hunting rifles seem relatively unproblematic. Leave them legal but regulated.

Try it out for 5 or 10 years. Let's see what happens.

Now we are getting somewhere. Agree with the list. No private sales, license and/or registration, mandatory traning and saftery classes.

 

[ATC1]

Two cops shot tonight in Topeka, Kansas. I bet this wouldn't have happened if we armed our police officers.

Bad http://www.pantagrap...e3818b23cd.htmlStuff http://www.fox11onli...ol-caused-death

Happens http://www.cancerres...r-deaths-a-year

Totally get it. I'm just trying to point out the absurdity of saying that if only the 20 something year old girl with no training had had a handgun everything would have been all better.

 

[ATC1]

What mature solutions have we developed so far? 30 pages, we've got to have something....

Here are a few that maybe should be on the table:No private salesLicensing and periodic renewalMandated gun safes / trigger locks with severe penalties for violationThere are others but all these have been floated

These sound like a reasonable starting point. 1and 3seem fair. 2 would need to be tested to see if licensing would be worth all the added red tape.

How would you enforce gun safes?

Good question. It would be tough to make a law that required periodic inspection of a gun safe but that's one way of doing it.

All you will really be able to do is teach people how to be safer. Maybe a lessened license price to own the gun if you own a safe? I can not see anyone not on the far left allowing home inspections. Most wouldn't want un scheduled home inspections without probable cause on other issues.

 

[tommyboy]

Dont recall the gun banning crowd crying out when our govt ran guns into mexico resulting in thousands of deaths. I dont see the uproar over obamas "kill list". Nor do i see similar outrage over the growth of drone usage in this country or overseas. So when we start taking those things seriously, then ill start taking your gun control more seriously.

By the way, the guy that killed two people at the mall here last week was deterred by a concealed carry citizen, which probably saved many lives. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/daniel-zimmerman/clackamas-shooter-confronted-by-ccw-holder/

 

[ATC1]

Two cops shot tonight in Topeka, Kansas. I bet this wouldn't have happened if we armed our police officers.

Bad http://www.pantagrap...e3818b23cd.htmlStuff http://www.fox11onli...ol-caused-death

Happens http://www.cancerres...r-deaths-a-year

Totally get it. I'm just trying to point out the absurdity of saying that if only the 20 something year old girl with no training had had a handgun everything would have been all better.

So the argument is now that we should turn all of our teacher into highly trained killing machines?

I'm hardly a trained killer, but want to be perpared and responisble if I choose to act. You would expect schools to now have protocols for these types of situations? What to do, how to do it. When not to do X, Y, Z. There are classes on self protection on the basics to handle these type of situations with handguns. Women take self defense classes against an aggressor. That practice is highly recomended and liked. Do we classify them as Steve Segul or Chuck Norris wannabes?

 

[ATC1]

Dont recall the gun banning crowd crying out when our govt ran guns into mexico resulting in thousands of deaths. I dont see the uproar over obamas "kill list". Nor do i see similar outrage over the growth of drone usage in this country or overseas. So when we start taking those things seriously, then ill start taking your gun control more seriously.

By the way, the guy that killed two people at the mall here last week was deterred by a concealed carry citizen, which probably saved many lives. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/daniel-zimmerman/clackamas-shooter-confronted-by-ccw-holder/

Thanks for the link. If this is true, he did not have to shoot to do some good.

Have you wondered why, in such a target rich environment as a suburban shopping mall two weeks before Christmas, the shooter at the Clackamas Town Center only managed to kill two people before dousing his own lights? Part of the reason was a dodgy gun. But as is being reported by kgw.com, part was also due to the fact that, gun-free zone or not, Jacob Roberts was confronted by Nick Meli who was armed and has a concealed carry permit. No, he didn’t fire because he feared hitting an innocent person behind Roberts if he missed. But Roberts knew Meli was there: “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.” David Frum was unavailable for comment.

 

[BassNBrew]

Dont recall the gun banning crowd crying out when our govt ran guns into mexico resulting in thousands of deaths. I dont see the uproar over obamas "kill list". Nor do i see similar outrage over the growth of drone usage in this country or overseas. So when we start taking those things seriously, then ill start taking your gun control more seriously.

By the way, the guy that killed two people at the mall here last week was deterred by a concealed carry citizen, which probably saved many lives. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/daniel-zimmerman/clackamas-shooter-confronted-by-ccw-holder/

Tommy...you're needed in the "another school shooting" thread. cos and gm are looking for you.Got keep things balanced.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Dont recall the gun banning crowd crying out when our govt ran guns into mexico resulting in thousands of deaths. I dont see the uproar over obamas "kill list". Nor do i see similar outrage over the growth of drone usage in this country or overseas. So when we start taking those things seriously, then ill start taking your gun control more seriously.

By the way, the guy that killed two people at the mall here last week was deterred by a concealed carry citizen, which probably saved many lives. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/daniel-zimmerman/clackamas-shooter-confronted-by-ccw-holder/

Nope.

 

[ATC1]

One question for the, "no private sale" crowd.

How do you dispose of a gun you no longer want to keep? Forced to resell to a licensed dealer? Unable to give away as gifts or sell to your neighbor?

And I think the, "more safety classes/more training" is smokescreen to not do anything and to say, "No, if someone is a responsible gun owner [like me!], then everything will be just fine.

Turn it in at a police station for a $100 tax credit voucher.

You can sell it for normal price to another person. It just needs to be transfered by a licensed gun seller that is allowed to do full background checks.

 

[ATC1]

make sure they go through safety classes and screenings.

+1

The mother who owned these guns was a gun enthusiast, purchased them legally, went all the proper procedures. She was maybe a much more responsible and educated gun owner than many. Where did that get us? I don't think classes and the like are even close to enough.

Yes. She was a responsible gun owner and a tragic event happened. However, you are acting we need to implement some outrageous ban, like your no handgun suggestion. I think we need to realize that #### like this is going to happen and unfortunately, you're not going to be able to stop every tragedy. We need to educate our kids and talk to them about guns (if they are in the household). From all reports so far, this ahole didn't exhibit many warning signs. He was an honors student and didn't have a criminal record. Unfortunately, I really don't think much could have been done to prevent this, aside from the mother being a better parent. A ban on guns isn't the answer, Otis. It really isn't.

Responsible gun owner? Are you ####### kidding me??? Fact - she had an emotionally ill child with a history of anti social behavior, and perhaps even violent tendencies. And she keeps within his reach a Bushmaster which by design is not for home protection, but for mass murder. Responsible??? Give me a ####### break. This is exactly why we need more gun control. This was preventable. If he just brings the handguns to school maybe he only kills 10 kids instead of 10.The only good thing to come out of this horrible tragedy is that we have one less "gun enthusiast" to worry about.

She was not a responsible gun owner. Had the right to own them, but not responsible. Should have been in a safe. How many of the bullets fired was from the rifle? Curious, I don't know.Your last comment was just bad taste. She was a victim.

 

[ATC1]

Are you ####### kidding me? Are you really that dense? You think someone can be a responsible gun owner keeping a Bushmaster around a mentally ill child with anti social behavior and Aspurger's syndrome? I can't believe what I'm hearing in here.

I would have to say that the woman who bought the guns that were just used in a mass slaughter of elementary school students is probably about the least responsible gun owner in the whole damn nation. And currently it isn't close.

Pro -- interesting to see you in here and also in the gun buyer thread talking about the new guns you are buying. Not a knock, but it would be interesting to learn that a guy who is interested in guns as a hobby still has the sense to understand and better yet support the other side in this.

I like shooting every so often, it's a good time, and my wife's family is really into it. I've got a few guns, but I don't keep ammo for them in the house anymore. I will buy ammo on my way to the range, shoot them at the range, and bring them home. I enjoy guns, but I also rent rooms out in my house, and with other people living here I decided a little bit ago that I don't want loaded weapons around. Way more bad that can happen than good.I don't see any reason for assault weapons, large magazines, guns that can hold grenade launchers, or any of this other crap. While I enjoy going to the range and shooting, that doesn't really have anything to do with my opinion on gun control. If something can be done to prevent tragedies like what happened in CT and the only bad thing that happens to me is that I have to get rid of my handgun, I think that's kind of a no brainer.

Right now it's legal, I enjoy it, and I take great care to be responsible with my guns. So I own them. I don't find that to be inconsistent with my position that we need more regulation.

Amen. And I'm 100% with this view on the bolded part. I just don't understand how other gun owners don't feel the same way.

I also agree 100%. Just don't see it happening.

 

[General Malaise]

Dont recall the gun banning crowd crying out when our govt ran guns into mexico resulting in thousands of deaths. I dont see the uproar over obamas "kill list". Nor do i see similar outrage over the growth of drone usage in this country or overseas. So when we start taking those things seriously, then ill start taking your gun control more seriously.

By the way, the guy that killed two people at the mall here last week was deterred by a concealed carry citizen, which probably saved many lives. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/daniel-zimmerman/clackamas-shooter-confronted-by-ccw-holder/

Tommy...you're needed in the "another school shooting" thread. cos and gm are looking for you.Got keep things balanced.

 

[Donsmith753]

Your country is too far gone I'm afraid, it's irreversible now.

Guns are so embedded in your culture that it'll take generations to make even the smallest change.

Coming from a country with strict gun laws that have been in place for a long time they're not something I think about very often. Sure you can get a shotgun or something similar for sport but it comes with a licence, regular visits from the police and a fee to pay to keep up that licence.

The ideas of guns for home protection just baffles me, I lock my door and go to bed at night, guns aren't something I have to worry about and I like that.

The police here don't even carry guns.

 

[Glass Joe]

Your country is too far gone I'm afraid, it's irreversible now.

Guns are so embedded in your culture that it'll take generations to make even the smallest change.

Coming from a country with strict gun laws that have been in place for a long time they're not something I think about very often. Sure you can get a shotgun or something similar for sport but it comes with a licence, regular visits from the police and a fee to pay to keep up that licence.

The ideas of guns for home protection just baffles me, I lock my door and go to bed at night, guns aren't something I have to worry about and I like that.

The police here don't even carry guns.

Me too. I'd venture to say that the vast majority of the people who are loudest about gun rights live in areas that don't need them for protection.

 

[Otis]

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is. Semi-auto assult weapons are less dangerous then handguns. But there will be laws trying to pass through congress to ban them when handguns were the weapons used in this shooting. Stop trying to ban guns and try to regulate them better.

How are semi-auto assault weapons less dangerous? What measure are we using here?

He just refuses to give then up. "Tell you what guys, let's make people fill out some more forms and wait a few extra weeks to get their Uzis and call it a day."

 

[Otis]

What mature solutions have we developed so far? 30 pages, we've got to have something....

Here are a few that maybe should be on the table:No private salesLicensing and periodic renewalMandated gun safes / trigger locks with severe penalties for violationThere are others but all these have been floated

These sound like a reasonable starting point. 1and 3seem fair. 2 would need to be tested to see if licensing would be worth all the added red tape.

How would you enforce gun safes?

Good question. It would be tough to make a law that required periodic inspection of a gun safe but that's one way of doing it.

All you will really be able to do is teach people how to be safer. Maybe a lessened license price to own the gun if you own a safe? I can not see anyone not on the far left allowing home inspections. Most wouldn't want un scheduled home inspections without probable cause on other issues.

Home inspections are ridiculous. Will not ever happen and should not. "Teach people to be safer" is fine only if its in conjunction with banning ARs and handguns. Otherwise it's meaningless.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Of course they can find something else to enjoy, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying shooting. You play video games, right? So you should understand that the challenge of having your hand-eye coordination tested can be entertaining. Recreational target or trap shooting is no different. There are lots of well-education, well-off people who enjoy shooting and/or hunting as a hobby in the same way that another person might enjoy golf.

Yeah, this is a terrible analogy. 20 kids don't get killed because someone wields a Nike driver. I think this, as much as anything, illustrates how naive people are on this issue. Having a lethal weapon as a hobby is insane. Get a pellet gun or play a video game if you want to test your eye hand coordination. Hell, play golf.

I'm just trying to help Otis and others understand why some people enjoy shooting as a recreational activity. Many of Otis' posts have an element of "People whose interests differ from mine must be stupid" element about them.

 

[Otis]

Of course they can find something else to enjoy, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying shooting. You play video games, right? So you should understand that the challenge of having your hand-eye coordination tested can be entertaining. Recreational target or trap shooting is no different. There are lots of well-education, well-off people who enjoy shooting and/or hunting as a hobby in the same way that another person might enjoy golf.

Yeah, this is a terrible analogy. 20 kids don't get killed because someone wields a Nike driver. I think this, as much as anything, illustrates how naive people are on this issue. Having a lethal weapon as a hobby is insane. Get a pellet gun or play a video game if you want to test your eye hand coordination. Hell, play golf.

I'm just trying to help Otis and others understand why some people enjoy shooting as a recreational activity. Many of Otis' posts have an element of "People whose interests differ from mine must be stupid" element about them.

You're missing the point. Whether I think your recreational activity is stupid or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that we're asking people to give up their recreational activity to hopefully save lives. If this woman didn't have her gun hobby, her son wouldn't have had easy access to these weapons. It was reported somewhere that he tried to buy another gun to add to the arsenal but couldn't. Would that have stopped this massacre? Sounds like it very likely would have stopped it from happening on this particular day with the particular weapons involved. And who knows what happens later. Maybe he never gets guns and doesn't try this at all. Maybe he gets treatment. Maybe he gets to a better place in life. But nobody can deny that the fact that these guns were so accessible is an important fact here.That's what we're getting at. Go ahead and blow up logs in your yard. Have a sweet ### time. I could give a crap about that. It's the part where women and children get killed as a result of your recreational activity that I lose patience.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Of course they can find something else to enjoy, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying shooting. You play video games, right? So you should understand that the challenge of having your hand-eye coordination tested can be entertaining. Recreational target or trap shooting is no different. There are lots of well-education, well-off people who enjoy shooting and/or hunting as a hobby in the same way that another person might enjoy golf.

Yeah, this is a terrible analogy. 20 kids don't get killed because someone wields a Nike driver. I think this, as much as anything, illustrates how naive people are on this issue. Having a lethal weapon as a hobby is insane. Get a pellet gun or play a video game if you want to test your eye hand coordination. Hell, play golf.

I'm just trying to help Otis and others understand why some people enjoy shooting as a recreational activity. Many of Otis' posts have an element of "People whose interests differ from mine must be stupid" element about them.

You're missing the point. Whether I think your recreational activity is stupid or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that we're asking people to give up their recreational activity to hopefully save lives.

No, I understand that completely. Your posts are intermingling the two issues, and they ought to be kept separate. When you call people names because they like to shoot, you're weakening your own argument by brining in your own idiosyncratic leisure preferences that really have no bearing on what we're discussing.

 

[Otis]

Of course they can find something else to enjoy, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying shooting. You play video games, right? So you should understand that the challenge of having your hand-eye coordination tested can be entertaining. Recreational target or trap shooting is no different. There are lots of well-education, well-off people who enjoy shooting and/or hunting as a hobby in the same way that another person might enjoy golf.

Yeah, this is a terrible analogy. 20 kids don't get killed because someone wields a Nike driver. I think this, as much as anything, illustrates how naive people are on this issue. Having a lethal weapon as a hobby is insane. Get a pellet gun or play a video game if you want to test your eye hand coordination. Hell, play golf.

I'm just trying to help Otis and others understand why some people enjoy shooting as a recreational activity. Many of Otis' posts have an element of "People whose interests differ from mine must be stupid" element about them.

You're missing the point. Whether I think your recreational activity is stupid or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that we're asking people to give up their recreational activity to hopefully save lives.

No, I understand that completely. Your posts are intermingling the two issues, and they ought to be kept separate. When you call people names because they like to shoot, you're weakening your own argument by brining in your own idiosyncratic leisure preferences that really have no bearing on what we're discussing.

I can't help but have distaste for it given what happened on Friday. I'm sorry.

 

[shader]

I enjoy putting hula hoops out in the yard and chunking grenades into the hula hoops. I enjoy it! It's my right to enjoy it! Don't make fun of me!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I enjoy putting hula hoops out in the yard and chunking grenades into the hula hoops. I enjoy it! It's my right to enjoy it! Don't make fun of me!

The reason why we prevent people from playing the grenades-through-hula-hoops game is because the social benefit from doing so (fewer grenades laying around) exceeds the cost (less utility for people who enjoy this particular passtime). That and the fact that there's no constitutional or natural right to own a grenade. What makes the gun control debate different is that there are millions of people who enjoy some sort of activity deriving from gun ownership, whether its hunting or target shooting or whatever. And there's also a personal freedom issue involved as well.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I enjoy putting hula hoops out in the yard and chunking grenades into the hula hoops. I enjoy it! It's my right to enjoy it! Don't make fun of me!

The reason why we prevent people from playing the grenades-through-hula-hoops game is because the social benefit from doing so (fewer grenades laying around) exceeds the cost (less utility for people who enjoy this particular passtime). That and the fact that there's no constitutional or natural right to own a grenade. What makes the gun control debate different is that there are millions of people who enjoy some sort of activity deriving from gun ownership, whether its hunting or target shooting or whatever. And there's also a personal freedom issue involved as well.

What if we kept selling guns, but every time you shot one it smelled like a really bad fart that lasted for hours? I don't think that would infringe on anybody's rights but it might make gun-related recreation less popular.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I enjoy putting hula hoops out in the yard and chunking grenades into the hula hoops. I enjoy it! It's my right to enjoy it! Don't make fun of me!

The reason why we prevent people from playing the grenades-through-hula-hoops game is because the social benefit from doing so (fewer grenades laying around) exceeds the cost (less utility for people who enjoy this particular passtime). That and the fact that there's no constitutional or natural right to own a grenade. What makes the gun control debate different is that there are millions of people who enjoy some sort of activity deriving from gun ownership, whether its hunting or target shooting or whatever. And there's also a personal freedom issue involved as well.

Grenades also lack the added benefit that hunting adds to society. I could never do it and I hate that they have opened it up to our state parks here, but I see the benefit of it. The license fees go a long way and the populations are controlled preventing many auto accidents and other issues.

 

[Sammy3469]

I enjoy putting hula hoops out in the yard and chunking grenades into the hula hoops. I enjoy it! It's my right to enjoy it! Don't make fun of me!

The reason why we prevent people from playing the grenades-through-hula-hoops game is because the social benefit from doing so (fewer grenades laying around) exceeds the cost (less utility for people who enjoy this particular passtime). That and the fact that there's no constitutional or natural right to own a grenade. What makes the gun control debate different is that there are millions of people who enjoy some sort of activity deriving from gun ownership, whether its hunting or target shooting or whatever. And there's also a personal freedom issue involved as well.

I'm pretty sure Scalia disagrees with that statement

 

[shader]

I enjoy putting hula hoops out in the yard and chunking grenades into the hula hoops. I enjoy it! It's my right to enjoy it! Don't make fun of me!

The reason why we prevent people from playing the grenades-through-hula-hoops game is because the social benefit from doing so (fewer grenades laying around) exceeds the cost (less utility for people who enjoy this particular passtime). That and the fact that there's no constitutional or natural right to own a grenade. What makes the gun control debate different is that there are millions of people who enjoy some sort of activity deriving from gun ownership, whether its hunting or target shooting or whatever. And there's also a personal freedom issue involved as well.

Whether people enjoy activity is irrelevant. I also don't have a problem with target practice for hunting. But many who shoot guns are doing it for fun and because they have a very strange fascination with guns. Thats just weird. And although we don't know the facts 100% yet, the murderer had a mother with a weird fascination with guns. A fascination that led to 28 murders.

 

[shader]

I enjoy putting hula hoops out in the yard and chunking grenades into the hula hoops. I enjoy it! It's my right to enjoy it! Don't make fun of me!

The reason why we prevent people from playing the grenades-through-hula-hoops game is because the social benefit from doing so (fewer grenades laying around) exceeds the cost (less utility for people who enjoy this particular passtime). That and the fact that there's no constitutional or natural right to own a grenade. What makes the gun control debate different is that there are millions of people who enjoy some sort of activity deriving from gun ownership, whether its hunting or target shooting or whatever. And there's also a personal freedom issue involved as well.

Grenades also lack the added benefit that hunting adds to society. I could never do it and I hate that they have opened it up to our state parks here, but I see the benefit of it. The license fees go a long way and the populations are controlled preventing many auto accidents and other issues.

Without question the deer population is controlled with hunting. I have no problem with hunting. Usually its not the hunters that have these sort of problems. However, hunters probably aren't going to be affected by a ban on handguns and killing machines like the bushmaster.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

I enjoy putting hula hoops out in the yard and chunking grenades into the hula hoops. I enjoy it! It's my right to enjoy it! Don't make fun of me!

The reason why we prevent people from playing the grenades-through-hula-hoops game is because the social benefit from doing so (fewer grenades laying around) exceeds the cost (less utility for people who enjoy this particular passtime). That and the fact that there's no constitutional or natural right to own a grenade. What makes the gun control debate different is that there are millions of people who enjoy some sort of activity deriving from gun ownership, whether its hunting or target shooting or whatever. And there's also a personal freedom issue involved as well.

I'm pretty sure Scalia disagrees with that statement

Grenades are indiscriminate weapons.

 

[Novice2]

Lets say a new "assault weapons" bans comes into law. Are we going to round up all thrones out there now because if we aren't how is this action going to make our streets safer this year?

But I guess passing this ban shows we aren't powerless so yaaaaay us.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Whether people enjoy activity is irrelevant.

I think it's very relevant.

 

[Novice2]

Whether people enjoy activity is irrelevant.

I think it's very relevant.

The numbers are the only thing that makes it relevant.

 

[shader]

I enjoy putting hula hoops out in the yard and chunking grenades into the hula hoops. I enjoy it! It's my right to enjoy it! Don't make fun of me!

The reason why we prevent people from playing the grenades-through-hula-hoops game is because the social benefit from doing so (fewer grenades laying around) exceeds the cost (less utility for people who enjoy this particular passtime). That and the fact that there's no constitutional or natural right to own a grenade. What makes the gun control debate different is that there are millions of people who enjoy some sort of activity deriving from gun ownership, whether its hunting or target shooting or whatever. And there's also a personal freedom issue involved as well.

I'm pretty sure Scalia disagrees with that statement

Whats the statement, "right to bear arms"? That's broad. Also, I think its outdated. In the late 1700's, this was a vast wilderness with Indians mad at the men who were stealing their land and with wild animals roaming the countryside. I don't see the point of a "right to bear arms" amendment in today's world.

 

[Novice2]

I enjoy putting hula hoops out in the yard and chunking grenades into the hula hoops. I enjoy it! It's my right to enjoy it! Don't make fun of me!

The reason why we prevent people from playing the grenades-through-hula-hoops game is because the social benefit from doing so (fewer grenades laying around) exceeds the cost (less utility for people who enjoy this particular passtime). That and the fact that there's no constitutional or natural right to own a grenade. What makes the gun control debate different is that there are millions of people who enjoy some sort of activity deriving from gun ownership, whether its hunting or target shooting or whatever. And there's also a personal freedom issue involved as well.

I'm pretty sure Scalia disagrees with that statement

Whats the statement, "right to bear arms"? That's broad. Also, I think its outdated. In the late 1700's, this was a vast wilderness with Indians mad at the men who were stealing their land and with wild animals roaming the countryside. I don't see the point of a "right to bear arms" amendment in today's world.

Amendments have been overturned before so help yourself.

 

[shader]

Whether people enjoy activity is irrelevant.

I think it's very relevant.

I hope all the target practice dorks can find a new hobby. I'll be so sad for them if they lose their weapons. It hurts to lose something you care about.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Whether people enjoy activity is irrelevant.

I think it's very relevant.

I hope all the target practice dorks can find a new hobby. I'll be so sad for them if they lose their weapons. It hurts to lose something you care about.

Well, as a recreational drug user, I'm just not that fond of the argument. Millions of people really like to get high. That's a real cost when we decide to make drugs illegal. But nobody ever really seems to make that argument when we're talking about the legality of drugs.I'm not a gun person, but I absolutely think that in weighing pros and cons we need to consider the fact that lots of people get enjoyment from firearms. We still might decide that they shouldn't be allowed to because other interests outweigh their enjoyment. But I just don't like dismissing it like it's nothing.

 

[ATC1]

Thought on the use of safes. If there is a penalty for stolen guns, more people will make sure to lock them up. If a stolen weapon is used during a crime or found during a weapon registration check and the gun was not reported stolen, there should be an even harsher penalty that may even include possible jail time.

 

[Donsmith753]

What does the constitution say about the other parts of the Bear?

 

[Gman]

The president shed many tears over the dead children in Newtown.

Where are his tears for all the dead children destroyed in the Middle East as a direct result of actions by his army?

 

[BigJohn]

That's what we're getting at. Go ahead and blow up logs in your yard. Have a sweet ### time. I could give a crap about that. It's the part where women and children get killed as a result of your recreational activity that I lose patience.

See, this is the crap that you add in the last part of a very tjhoughtful and appropriate post. You make great points, then add in this bull. You have chosen to focus all your anger towards a part of the equation that, in my opinion, is a much smaller part than say the mental state of the shooter. You can argue that it's a bigger part, and that's fine, but you have pinned the entire thing on the availability of guns, and closing down doesn't let you be receptive to other's arguments.

 

[ATC1]

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is. Semi-auto assult weapons are less dangerous then handguns. But there will be laws trying to pass through congress to ban them when handguns were the weapons used in this shooting. Stop trying to ban guns and try to regulate them better.

How are semi-auto assault weapons less dangerous? What measure are we using here?

He just refuses to give then up. "Tell you what guys, let's make people fill out some more forms and wait a few extra weeks to get their Uzis and call it a day."

So you don't think my response to his quote was correct?

They are not concealable, jam a lot easier and are not as efficent short range as a handgun. The mall shooter in Oregon may have got more shots off if his AR-15 did not jam. Anyone in a crowd could have picked him out as he was the guy with the big gun.

 

[The Flying Elvis]

Would individuals be against a nationwide waiting period of say 3 days before you can purchase a firearm?

 

[MAC_32]

Lets say a new "assault weapons" bans comes into law. Are we going to round up all thrones out there now because if we aren't how is this action going to make our streets safer this year?But I guess passing this ban shows we aren't powerless so yaaaaay us.

Make it a felony to own...maybe a year or two in jail...$10-20K fine for first offenders...cannot re-new license to own any guns for 10 years...can't ever own more than one at a time again...you don't HAVE to turn it in, but you know the risks if you get caught with it.

 

[ATC1]

Would individuals be against a nationwide waiting period of say 3 days before you can purchase a firearm?

Yes, but I don't think it will help much in the case of mass shootings. Don't some states have a waiting period?