I have both a pistol and the dreaded black rifle of death and I've been asked twice why I "needed" them. Simply put, I've never said I "needed" them. I simply wanted them. Quite a few of the purschases we make in our lives are based on want, not need. Much the same way why a guy buys a sports car that can greatly exceed posted speed limits. Yes, yes, I fully understand the difference.
Your want vs. safety of others.
Isn't that textbook entitlement talk?
I do sympathize btw. It sucks when you have to give up something that's harmless and you like to do because some other people can't control themselves or follow the rules.
I think it's an interest. Is there really a difference between a guy who goes to the gun range and shoots 100 rounds and a guy who goes to the driving range and hits 100 balls?
I would say not really, and would say the same could apply to a guy taking his sports car to a track.
In all those examples, the individual is using the device where it is meant to be responsibly used. And the potential harm to the public is mitigated to near zero...
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
At the end of the day half the guns don't need to be specifically owned, if you want to shoot a .50 cal, then you should be able to go to a range, take a safety course and get to shoot theirs, same for a bunch of other weapons.
To me, the concept of hand guns in the house makes little to no sense, I do agree that storage laws really need to be upped and enforced, but the whole argument then becomes, if someone does break into my house, then it takes forever to unlock it and load it, its just as good in the drawer beside my best.
I think that a lot of problems would be solved if they upped the qualification required for owning a gun legally, that means absolutely no previous mental health incidences, no criminal record of any kind at all, and a back ground check that shows that you have a clean background.
I'm also of the mind that if you buy a gun you should have to buy insurance against it being used in any kind of activity that harms or possibly harms others. I would think that if you put that in the hands of an insurance agency that it would become pretty expensive.
On top of that, if you get caught selling a gun illegally or use a gun in a crime, its automatic life in prison, no parole, preferably at one of those State run prison farms.
Its just stupid and pointless, and the mind set has to change.
Just out of curiosity, are you directing this towards Canadian Firearm owners or American?
I only ask as there are quite a few hoops to jump through to get your licence in Canada. On top of that, anyone with a licence in Canada has a background check done daily. Every. Single. Day. If they see we have been charged with any criminal activity, our licence goes under review. Depending on the crime, it could me immediate suspension of licence and confiscation of firearms.
I really don't know what the Americans have to go through but pretty sure they have a much easier time. And I agree, that has to change.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GoinAllTheWay For This Useful Post:
More on the American fire arms rules then anything else. I'm not saying things are perfect up here by any stretch, but I've become a pretty staunch anti firearms person lately, except for hunting rifles for example.
If you can't see the difference, there is no point in engaing in a conversation with you.
It's not that I can't see the difference, it's that I don't. Of course there are huge differences. But they all share one commonality that I won't look past; they are all made to kill. And as I said in a previous post, whether YOU want to use it for shooting at paper is irrelevant to me when there are people using that equipment for its actual purpose and killing off random innocent people. No these guns were not made for your enjoyment, even if that's how you personally choose to use it. I could personally choose to sit in my fighter jet simply to look at all the gauges and pretend to fly it like Calvin in a make-believe cardboard box. A hand gun, an RPG and a cruise missile are all aimed at your head. Which are you most afraid of? Anyone of them will kill you, the only difference is how many pieces you're in afterwards.
So why is anyone allowed to carry either one around the street?
I do sympathize btw. But I still think that's a pretty entitled attitude.
I can assure you, I don't feel any sense of "entitlement" I am fully aware of the responsibility of being a firearm owner and you can bet your bottom dollar I take that very seriously.
I don't consider firearm ownership a right in any way shape or form, it very much is a privilege. If I want to maintain that privilege, I have to play by the rules and I have zero problem with that.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GoinAllTheWay For This Useful Post:
I can assure you, I don't feel any sense of "entitlement" I am fully aware of the responsibility of being a firearm owner and you can bet your bottom dollar I take that very seriously.
I don't consider firearm ownership a right in any way shape or form, it very much is a privilege. If I want to maintain that privilege, I have to play by the rules and I have zero problem with that.
No one is concerned with the people who do it responsibly, but this equipment in the hands of people who don't has devastating concequences. And unfortunately, mitigating it would mean taking it away from responsible people as yourself. If you're unwilling to give that up for a much greater good that's an issue IMO. And as for other equipment with potentially devastating consequences:
Cars - we need to travel.
Knives - we need to cut things sometimes.
Guns - we need to kill each other?
People will find ways to off each other no doubt. It doesnt seem crazy to want to eliminate the most widely used tool to do so. To me it seems crazy not to.
Banning guns is the best way to deal with this problem. After all, we banned drugs, and they haven't been a problem since!
This is the anti gun control equivalent of the "banana design" argument from creationists. They think it's so damn clever and a check mate, while everyone else just shakes their head.
This is the anti gun control equivalent of the "banana design" argument from creationists. They think it's so damn clever and a check mate, while everyone else just shakes their head.
An uncomplicated knee-jerk reactionary solution deserves an uncomplicated knee-jerk reactionary rebuttal.
That's right! Good guys with more drugs will stop the bad guys with drugs! The answer then is more drugs! Put drugs in the schools!
Yes! This is the way to go about arguing your point! Assume that anyone not immediately with you must be one of the raving lunatics from the "other side"! This is how you win friends and influence on the Internet.
Yes! This is the way to go about arguing your point! Assume that anyone not immediately with you must be one of the raving lunatics from the "other side"! This is how you win friends and influence on the Internet.
Your mentioned knee jerk reactionary rebuttals. I'm just playing the game
I wish these events never occur.
I also don't wish people would use them as soapboxes.
As incredibly disturbing as it is, I wish people will go to a quiet spot for two hours and watch this video. Do so with as open mind as you can. If you have a better half, watch it together. Then talk to each other, then talk to your kids.
I respect Stefan Molyneax, the author of this video. Don't always agree with everything he says in all his videos, but he goes over this event (and manifesto) well.
Two warnings: one F-bomb in here, and it really is one of the most disturbing looks into a human mind I have ever even attempted to digest.
It's not that I can't see the difference, it's that I don't. Of course there are huge differences. But they all share one commonality that I won't look past; they are all made to kill. And as I said in a previous post, whether YOU want to use it for shooting at paper is irrelevant to me when there are people using that equipment for its actual purpose and killing off random innocent people. No these guns were not made for your enjoyment, even if that's how you personally choose to use it. I could personally choose to sit in my fighter jet simply to look at all the gauges and pretend to fly it like Calvin in a make-believe cardboard box. A hand gun, an RPG and a cruise missile are all aimed at your head. Which are you most afraid of? Anyone of them will kill you, the only difference is how many pieces you're in afterwards.
So why is anyone allowed to carry either one around the street?
To further your first point (I'm not necessarily for banning guns per se), but the right to have them as a hobby is a laughable counterpoint.
If some toy exploded killing people from time to time was someone's hobby it would be banned too. Sorry, but people lives>>>>>>>>>>hobby.
