Well then at least try not to insult everyone's intelligence and call them what they are.
Well if the current approach isnt working then what is wrong with it? You seem to think its broken so if thats the case how would you go about fixing it?
By shift in core values you mean subjugating the 2A?
If you can explain to me why a private citizen needs to give information and control about a piece of property he owns to the gov't then I'll perhaps consider it to be a problem. Regardless, they do not have any idea where the 300+ firearms are so what difference does it make?
You're welcome, resort to condescending remarks all you want, only proves you have no clue what you are talking about. But by all means, still insist your position that the big bad NRA would still give firearms away if they could.
Americans poorly perceived gun culture has nothing to do with the gun itself and everything to do with the individual. Blaming a mass of people and punishing them for the crimes of a individual does not mean others forfeit their rights.
The number of mass shootings in the US is OBVIOUSLY linked to the high number of guns available? Obviously?
Are you trying to imply the firearm itself is responsible for the crime, or that there is a absolute direct correlation between firearms ownership and mass shooting deaths?
Or passing off your opinion as fact by qualifying it with "obviously?".
Either way it's completely false and if you would like to back it up with statistics, then by all means have at er.
Not once did I mention the answer was "even more guns" be available, but people with the trained ability to defend themselves should at least have that option and not be a handcuffed victim waiting for their bullet. But continue trying to put words in peoples mouths if you think it helps you defend your position.
Ahh yes. The fear driven guilt trip. If people do not agree with your point of view then they are unsympathetic towards victims of criminal acts.
Those same families you love to use in the gravedancing to try and prove a misguided point are more and more becoming resentful of their tragedy being used as a grandstand for the anti gun agenda.
This backhanded crap won't work on me. I was in my school when three of my friends were shot at. One died, one nearly bled to death in the hallway, and thankfully the third was not hit. I walked through that same hallway not 30 seconds before gun fire rang out and a crazed individual murdered one of my friends. Don't sit there and pretend victims of gun crime are all hands on deck when it comes to repealing a law abiding citizen of their rights.
Illegal guns aren't the problem, it's the legal ones that a mentally unstable person can buy and walk out of the store with no background check that are usually involved in a mass shooting
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
The number of mass shootings in the US is OBVIOUSLY linked to the high number of guns available? Obviously?
Are you trying to imply the firearm itself is responsible for the crime, or that there is a absolute direct correlation between firearms ownership and mass shooting deaths?
The gun is a tool with one purpose. The responsibility falls on a populace that combines arrogance, fear and stupidity to flood its territory with that tool and allows those same three traits to lead them into using it.
Quote:
Or passing off your opinion as fact by qualifying it with "obviously?".
Either way it's completely false and if you would like to back it up with statistics, then by all means have at er.
...or do you actually think that fewer guns would lead to more shootings?
I think we both know where the US ranks in terms of availability of guns and incidence of shootings. People who possess a tool are more likely to use it. Or maybe it's actually a localized hole in the ozone lair frying people's brains and turning them stupid.
Quote:
Not once did I mention the answer was "even more guns" be available, but people with the trained ability to defend themselves should at least have that option and not be a handcuffed victim waiting for their bullet. But continue trying to put words in peoples mouths if you think it helps you defend your position.
Pot, meet kettle. Your response to ernie was a bid to put words in his mouth. Don't whine about people doing to you what you do to others.
Quote:
Ahh yes. The fear driven guilt trip. If people do not agree with your point of view then they are unsympathetic towards victims of criminal acts.
Given you advocate a position that ensures a continued high rate of such criminal acts, then yes, I have to believe you are unsympathetic.
Quote:
Those same families you love to use in the gravedancing to try and prove a misguided point are more and more becoming resentful of their tragedy being used as a grandstand for the anti gun agenda.
Pot meet kettle, redux. Didn't you just chastise me for allegedly passing my opinion off as fact?
Quote:
This backhanded crap won't work on me. I was in my school when three of my friends were shot at. One died, one nearly bled to death in the hallway, and thankfully the third was not hit. I walked through that same hallway not 30 seconds before gun fire rang out and a crazed individual murdered one of my friends. Don't sit there and pretend victims of gun crime are all hands on deck when it comes to repealing a law abiding citizen of their rights.
Pot meet kettle, the third. Now you're attempting to put words in my mouth. I've never pretended that "victims of gun crime are all hands on deck". I am, in fact, well aware that such crimes tend to lead to an increase in gun sales. Like I said, fear and stupidity. You've built a society where you live in constant fear of being gunned down, and the response has become to try and arm everybody. The end result is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You are free to believe what you believe, and given your zealotry I realize there is zero possibility of changing your mind. But I do find it incredibly sad that you've become an enabler for others who cause the very same tragedies that you yourself have endured.
Illegal guns are still a problem, just waiving your hand and saying they aren't to support your argument is in your own words wrong.
I think I read somewhere that 85% of gun crimes in the U.S. are done using illegal guns. Its the ones that are getting the most media attention that have been committed using legal guns.
Both are significant problems and both need to be dealt with
Edit: this was pointed at Duffman who in one of his statement said that the problem is with people legally being able to buy guns. One of the real interesting side effects of legal purchasing are people who make a lot of money as Straw buyers.
Last edited by CaptainCrunch; 01-23-2014 at 08:59 AM.
Well then at least try not to insult everyone's intelligence and call them what they are.
I would suggest it is you that are insulting "everyone's intellegence" by assuming they can not understand that when the term weapon is used in a thread about mass shooting, that term is used to describe a handgun/rifle.
Quote:
Well if the current approach isnt working then what is wrong with it? You seem to think its broken so if thats the case how would you go about fixing it?
What is wrong with it? You saying that being able to walk into a store and purchase a semi-automatic rifle without a detailed background check is good? Once that rifle leaves the store the owner can sell it privately and there is no requirement to report the sale or keep records.
Quote:
By shift in core values you mean subjugating the 2A?
YES
Quote:
If you can explain to me why a private citizen needs to give information and control about a piece of property he owns to the gov't then I'll perhaps consider it to be a problem. Regardless, they do not have any idea where the 300+ firearms are so what difference does it make?
I am guessing you don't register your motor vehicles?
"they" don't have any idea where the 300 + firearms (your number) because the gun control in the states is broken.
Quote:
You're welcome, resort to condescending remarks all you want, only proves you have no clue what you are talking about. But by all means, still insist your position that the big bad NRA would still give firearms away if they could.
I never insisted that the NRA would give firearms away.....nice try...
Quote:
Americans poorly perceived gun culture has nothing to do with the gun itself and everything to do with the individual. Blaming a mass of people and punishing them for the crimes of a individual does not mean others forfeit their rights.
I agree it is not the guns' fault. However, if there was only some way to keep guns out of people's hands......if only....
BTW, I am a fan of shooting. I enjoy it and I would suggest I have probably put more rounds down range via more firearms than a large number of society. I want gun contol because I have seen first that damage a bullet does to the human body.
Illegal guns are still a problem, just waiving your hand and saying they aren't to support your argument is in your own words wrong.
I think I read somewhere that 85% of gun crimes in the U.S. are done using illegal guns. Its the ones that are getting the most media attention that have been committed using legal guns.
Both are significant problems and both need to be dealt with
Edit: this was pointed at Duffman who in one of his statement said that the problem is with people legally being able to buy guns. One of the real interesting side effects of legal purchasing are people who make a lot of money as Straw buyers.
Well then at least try not to insult everyone's intelligence and call them what they are.
Well if the current approach isnt working then what is wrong with it? You seem to think its broken so if thats the case how would you go about fixing it?
By shift in core values you mean subjugating the 2A?
If you can explain to me why a private citizen needs to give information and control about a piece of property he owns to the gov't then I'll perhaps consider it to be a problem. Regardless, they do not have any idea where the 300+ firearms are so what difference does it make?
You're welcome, resort to condescending remarks all you want, only proves you have no clue what you are talking about. But by all means, still insist your position that the big bad NRA would still give firearms away if they could.
Americans poorly perceived gun culture has nothing to do with the gun itself and everything to do with the individual. Blaming a mass of people and punishing them for the crimes of a individual does not mean others forfeit their rights.
Missed the back and forth between you guys, so can't really comment on that, though that's probably a good thing. But gotta take issue with a point or two here and your ultimate conclusion.
The first bolded part. It's a ridiculous argument because there are already a ton of restrictions on other property. The most obvious example being a car. You HAVE to register it. You HAVE to insure it. You HAVE to pass tests to use it. And there are pages of rules on how you can use it, where, etc. There are other rules and restrictions for all sorts of property like computers, phones, and all sorts of things. Not to mention rules for consumables like alcohol, legal and illegal drugs. For some reason though, it's guns that don't have to have rules. It's an argument that carries zero weight. All people are asking for is a small portion of what you might have to do to drive a car, and yet the NRA and 'rights boosters' (who really only champion that one right) trot out that nonsensical argument.
And the conclusion. Flawed for two reasons. One, there is enough statistical evidence that while yes, these are crimes committed by individuals there is enough of a problem to state that there is something wrong with the culture and policy too. Other countries simply don't approach the numbers in the States. That's not individuals. That's how a society looks at guns, values guns, and uses guns. Also, how one of the most powerful lobbies in the world, defends it's product, despite statistical evidence.
Two, part of being in a society is making decisions that benefit the entire society. Sometimes it does infringe on the right of an individual, but that's the price you pay in existing in a society. It's about striking a balance. There are rules for everything. Why should guns be an exception? When it comes to guns, there is no balance, which is highly strange and hypocritical considering the rules, restrictions, and bans on other things, in this supposedly free country.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Daradon For This Useful Post:
The gun is a tool with one purpose. The responsibility falls on a populace that combines arrogance, fear and stupidity to flood its territory with that tool and allows those same three traits to lead them into using it.
Firearms have many lawful purposes and are used in such a way by law abiding people every day. The people who own firearms do not use arrogance, fear, and stupidity to ensure that guns are available to the public. The fear driven rhetoric tactic is one used by the Bloombergs, Feinsteins, Carolyn McCarthys and Peirs Morgans of the world.
I'm sure none of the following is considered arrogant, fear driven or stupid?
Quote:
...or do you actually think that fewer guns would lead to more shootings?
Chicago seems to think so.
Quote:
I think we both know where the US ranks in terms of availability of guns and incidence of shootings. People who possess a tool are more likely to use it. Or maybe it's actually a localized hole in the ozone lair frying people's brains and turning them stupid.
Yes I think we do. But once again you are somehow trying to equate the possession of a tool to having influence to change ones morals. Its 100% false.
Switzerland has one of the highest firearm ownership rates in the world and enjoys some of the lowest gun crime/violent crime in the world. Adults are given a *gasp* "military style assault weapon" trained how to use it and whaddya know? A educated person makes educated decision. Once a year the gov't in Switzerland hosts a range day for the entire family where they supply ammo, give training, and generally have a good time. Plus its a national holiday.
I keep hearing this argument of how where more guns are present it equals more crime and its simply not true. I mean, its amazing that any right wing gun nut ever makes it out of a gun show alive. Just look at all those guns!
Quote:
Pot, meet kettle. Your response to ernie was a bid to put words in his mouth. Don't whine about people doing to you what you do to others.
Deflect, deflect deflect...
Quote:
Given you advocate a position that ensures a continued high rate of such criminal acts, then yes, I have to believe you are unsympathetic.
Hahaha just can't help yourself can you? Blame lawful gun owners for the acts of criminals, classic.
Quote:
Pot meet kettle, redux. Didn't you just chastise me for allegedly passing my opinion off as fact?
Still waiting to hear how "number of mass shootings is directly linked to the number of guns available."
Quote:
Pot meet kettle, the third. Now you're attempting to put words in my mouth. I've never pretended that "victims of gun crime are all hands on deck". I am, in fact, well aware that such crimes tend to lead to an increase in gun sales.
What has helped the gun industry more than anything has been the Obama administration. Like one rep at the recent shot show in Vegas said "I wish Obama could stay in office forever."
Nothing boosts the sales of a product than the postus coming out and saying those tools are a executive order away from being banned.
Quote:
Like I said, fear and stupidity. You've built a society where you live in constant fear of being gunned down, and the response has become to try and arm everybody. The end result is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I asked the question earlier in this thread "Whats to be scared of?" So no. I'm not in fear of being gunned down and no, I didn't build this society of fear. That lies solely on the shoulders of the media and anti gun agenda. Everytime there is a shooting in the US, Peirs Morgan goes on the tube, and pulls the same stunt you did. That gun ownership breeds thinking that is causing all these murders and that it is insulting towards victims of crime. It doesn't pass the sniff test, and like I said earlier more and more families are sick of their tragedy being used for political leverage. The self fulfilling prophecy is condemning firearms and lawful ownership, and then when a shooting occurs everyone wigs out and goes on a "OMG AR-15!" rampage. Such as evident during the Washington navel yard shooting, where the New York Times among others couldn't wait to exclaim that a ar-15 was once again responsible for the crime. And of course it wasn't a ar-15 but that doesn't stop the media from jumping on it anyways and spreading misinformation, lies and fear.
Quote:
You are free to believe what you believe
What gives myself the freedom to believe what I want?
What gives Americans the freedom to own firearms?
Picking up what I'm laying down?
Quote:
and given your zealotry I realize there is zero possibility of changing your mind. But I do find it incredibly sad that you've become an enabler for others who cause the very same tragedies that you yourself have endured.
What the hell was that guy in the video talking about?
Ghost gun? What the hell is that?
30 clip magazine???
Can empty a 30 round magazine in half a second?
C'mon....if your going to try to educate the public about firearms, shouldn't you know what you're talking about? Nothing that guy said in the video was accurate or made sense.
Last edited by GoinAllTheWay; 01-23-2014 at 10:08 AM.
What the hell was that guy in the video talking about?
Ghost gun? What the hell is that?
30 clip magazine???
Can empty a 30 round magazine in half a second?
C'mon....if your going to try to educate the public about firearms, shouldn't you know what you're talking about? Nothing that guy said in the video was accurate or made sense.
I agree that individual comes across as a fool. Sadly, his important message is lost in the stupidity of his knowledge
I would suggest it is you that are insulting "everyone's intellegence" by assuming they can not understand that when the term weapon is used in a thread about mass shooting, that term is used to describe a handgun/rifle.
That term "weapon" is, once again, a misnomer. So why one would ever use a term used to describe intent to describe a tool is beyond me.
Quote:
What is wrong with it? You saying that being able to walk into a store and purchase a semi-automatic rifle without a detailed background check is good? Once that rifle leaves the store the owner can sell it privately and there is no requirement to report the sale or keep records.
Like in Canada? No, I don't see anything wrong with it.
And why just semi-autos? Are four other types of actions not dangerous in a criminals hands as well?
Quote:
YES
Well, good luck with that one. States are now using their power to overrule unconstitutional laws put forth by federal gov't.
As well as numerous state sheriff dep'ts that say they will not enforce federal gun control.
Quote:
I am guessing you don't register your motor vehicles?
Yes I do, but, in Canada especially, you may want to dig deeper into who actually owns your vehicle.
Quote:
"they" don't have any idea where the 300 + firearms (your number) because the gun control in the states is broken.
There was never supposed to be any gun control anyways.
Quote:
I never insisted that the NRA would give firearms away.....nice try...
Quote:
I am aware the NRA is not giving out firearms, although if they could figure out a way to do that I am sure they would
Alright then.
Quote:
I agree it is not the guns' fault. However, if there was only some way to keep guns out of people's hands......if only....
If its not the guns fault, then why specifically target semi auto rifles? Especially considering they make up but a fraction of the gun crime committed in the US?
Quote:
BTW, I am a fan of shooting. I enjoy it and I would suggest I have probably put more rounds down range via more firearms than a large number of society. I want gun contol because I have seen first that damage a bullet does to the human body.
And I DONT want gun control because I have seen first hand what a bullet does to the human body.
Missed the back and forth between you guys, so can't really comment on that, though that's probably a good thing. But gotta take issue with a point or two here and your ultimate conclusion.
The first bolded part. It's a ridiculous argument because there are already a ton of restrictions on other property. The most obvious example being a car. You HAVE to register it. You HAVE to insure it. You HAVE to pass tests to use it. And there are pages of rules on how you can use it, where, etc. There are other rules and restrictions for all sorts of property like computers, phones, and all sorts of things. Not to mention rules for consumables like alcohol, legal and illegal drugs. For some reason though, it's guns that don't have to have rules. It's an argument that carries zero weight. All people are asking for is a small portion of what you might have to do to drive a car, and yet the NRA and 'rights boosters' (who really only champion that one right) trot out that nonsensical argument.
And the conclusion. Flawed for two reasons. One, there is enough statistical evidence that while yes, these are crimes committed by individuals there is enough of a problem to state that there is something wrong with the culture and policy too. Other countries simply don't approach the numbers in the States. That's not individuals. That's how a society looks at guns, values guns, and uses guns. Also, how one of the most powerful lobbies in the world, defends it's product, despite statistical evidence.
Two, part of being in a society is making decisions that benefit the entire society. Sometimes it does infringe on the right of an individual, but that's the price you pay in existing in a society. It's about striking a balance. There are rules for everything. Why should guns be an exception? When it comes to guns, there is no balance, which is highly strange and hypocritical considering the rules, restrictions, and bans on other things, in this supposedly free country.
This is about the first reasonable post I've seen, thank you. But to say there are NO restrictions on firearms is false. There are already numerous laws in the US restricting what they may or may not own. Don't get me started on Canada.
In response to the car example, they are apples and oranges but I would like to ask a couple questions and see if you can draw a parallel.
Do you have to have a drivers licence to purchase a car?
Do you need a licence/registration/insurance do drive your vehicle on private land?
What the hell was that guy in the video talking about?
Ghost gun? What the hell is that?
30 clip magazine???
Can empty a 30 round magazine in half a second?
C'mon....if your going to try to educate the public about firearms, shouldn't you know what you're talking about? Nothing that guy said in the video was accurate or made sense.
He claims that "ghost gun" (must be the new term to go alongside assault rifle) has a rate of fire of 3600 rounds per second. The actual ROF for the improved m4 carbine with select fire is 700-950...
Good thing hes a lawmaker though!
Last edited by Shnabdabber; 01-23-2014 at 10:39 AM.
The Swiss comparison is a little silly in my mind, since they issue these guns to reservists who at least gone through extended time in actual infantry training.
You would have a point if in the States you wanted to buy a gun you would have to join the armed forces, the national guard or the navy (I think Undercover would appreciate that).
When we talk about people getting fire arm training right now, there is a vast difference between teaching people how to aim and pull the trigger and clean their gun and how to operate a safety compared to someone that goes through an infantry training school who learns how to do the above, but also learns how to deal with firing a weapon in a chaotic and panic filled situation while keeping their head and learns target identification and other key things.
If you want to teach someone true gun safety and skill for use in self defense. Take a target and put it 15 yards down field and then take your wife and kids and a random person and put then around the target. then turn off the lights and chuck fireworks at the trainee all while having people running around him screaming. then give him two seconds to make a decision and fire.
If he doesn't kill a family member or random stranger, actually hits the target and doesn't pee his pants and passes an iron clad background check. And then agrees to pay $2000.00 a year minimum for fire arms insurance that goes up 10x if he ever either shoots and kills or injuries a person or his gun shows up in the hands of a criminal. Then issue away.
But saying that the Swiss just issue assault rifles to people is kind of misleading.
On another thought, I get that the 2nd ammendmant gives every one the right to bear arms, but nowhere in there is there a suggested retail price. If you want to get rid of the gun issue as a government then apply a $500,000 first time owner registration fee on gun purchase.
Last edited by CaptainCrunch; 01-23-2014 at 10:34 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Yes I do, but, in Canada especially, you may want to dig deeper into who actually owns your vehicle.
If its not the guns fault, then why specifically target semi auto rifles? Especially considering they make up but a fraction of the gun crime committed in the US?
And I DONT want gun control because I have seen first hand what a bullet does to the human body.
Fox News........enough said
Please expand on this, I am interested to know who own's my vehicle.
Sorry, I am not specifically targeting semi-automatic rifles. I want it across the board.
Lastly, I am sorry to hear that you have seen what a bullet can do to a human body. It is a nasty business and a sight that doesn't leave the mind. Sadly, I can not reconcile you having seen the damage a bullet does, with not wanting gun control.
Illegal guns aren't the problem, it's the legal ones that a mentally unstable person can buy and walk out of the store with no background check that are usually involved in a mass shooting
Help me understand something:
How would a background check prevent the purchase of a legal gun at a store by a mentally stable person who, some time after the purchase, becomes mentally unstable and who then uses the gun?
I have yet to see or hear of a background check, or a background check process, that can accurately and reasonably determine who will become mentally unstable before that person actually does, but maybe you know of one.
How would a background check prevent the purchase of a legal gun at a store by a mentally stable person who, some time after the purchase, becomes mentally unstable and who then uses the gun?
I have yet to see or hear of a background check, or a background check process, that can accurately and reasonably determine who will become mentally unstable before that person actually does, but maybe you know of one.
It's an impossible solution, and that's why the gun nuts like to use it.
Why are we blaming guns, when we should be looking at the mental health problems in America. It's impossible to regulate guns by mental health checks and standards, and that's why they love that argument.
