Gun Issues page 31

2293 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

No thanks.

Yes!! Yes please.

 
Flag Post

Oh dear, you need punished. :O

 
Flag Post

Can we agree that while the Sandy Hook tragedy was sad, trying to force gun laws is a bit of an over knee-jerk reaction?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by DrOctaganapus2:

Can we agree that while the Sandy Hook tragedy was sad, trying to force gun laws is a bit of an over knee-jerk reaction?

Dr. O, ya’re looking at the issue from the wrong end.
All a law is is a “summary” of an official resolving of an issue that warranted some serious attention and some equally serious punishments for failure to heed the “advice” of that summary.
No one wants a bad law.

Laws aren’t made for no reason at all…
well, they shouldn’t be…
sometimes one wonders tho.
And, sometimes….there is good INTENT,,,
but the intent gets lost, compromised away, misinterpreted, etc.

For a “law” to be most effective, ALL SIDES/FACTIONS of the issue must be heard, be weighed, be respected (even if rejected outright), and end up as the best CURRENT representation of the “people’s will” as can possibly obtained.

For the NRA et.al. to abstain from attending ANY official debate is to snub its nose at this process,,,,
nay, it shows an arrogant lack of respect for their fellow Americans who would simply like a good discussion on what MIGHT BE POSSIBLE to be done to arrive at a point where such damages as ANY GUN VIOLENCE can be mitigated to as near zero as is humanly possible.

This crap jake-o does about “give-an-inch-they-take-a-mile” as a stonewall to preclude JUST FUCKING TALKING about the issue is totally bullshit. The best way to see to it that no inch NOR mile is taken is to BE THERE.

AND, in the process….by presenting some of the facts surrounding the issue, a lot of ppl might end up being “enlightened”….in many areas of it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by DrOctaganapus2:

Can we agree that while the Sandy Hook tragedy was sad, trying to force gun laws is a bit of an over knee-jerk reaction?

Yes, that is exactly how I feel about it. Btw, there is a bill in congress to eliminate the 1000’ no guns zone.

 
Flag Post

America is unique, in that taking away our guns will cause much more death and violence than letting us keep them. While it is very obvious that gun laws in other countries show significantly lower mortality rates from tragedies, were we to enact those same laws into the states, the rebellion would counter-act the good intent. Many more people will die from this rebellion than the lives saved from the law. It’s currently much easier to leave this policy at a stale-mate until the baby boomer generation has passed away.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by DrOctaganapus2:

Can we agree that while the Sandy Hook tragedy was sad, trying to force gun laws is a bit of an over knee-jerk reaction?

On the back of a single, however tragic, event… yes absolutely.

On the back of two? Yes… three?… Yes… half a dozen? 2 dozen? When do you consider it necessary to do something? (or at least try)

 
Flag Post

I understand what you are saying slasher, but we are teaching our kids. I myself have added several to the fraternity. What I heard yesterday that surprised me was the large amount of women who are coming forward in the pro-gun arena. Many more than men in fact. When you realize t he number of people joining pro-gun groups, you wonder where they are all coming from. This leaves me to believe the gun-owners of America are alive and well, and they are becoming active. What’s more, they are younger people, not just baby-boomers. If Obama, as he promises, does and executive order over congress, you will see kickback. The gun-owners I know, and this is a big chunk of owners, all say they will not give up their guns. A can of worms will be opened and there won’t be putting a lid back on it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by donseptico:
Originally posted by DrOctaganapus2:

Can we agree that while the Sandy Hook tragedy was sad, trying to force gun laws is a bit of an over knee-jerk reaction?

On the back of a single, however tragic, event… yes absolutely.

On the back of two? Yes… three?… Yes… half a dozen? 2 dozen? When do you consider it necessary to do something? (or at least try)

As I have been trying to explain to you, this had nothing to do with Sandy Hook or the other massacres. This is a political issue that Democrats have been pushing for many years. They used these shootings for an excuse to go for our guns yet again. This is entirely political.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by slasher:

America is unique, in that taking away our guns will cause much more death and violence than letting us keep them. While it is very obvious that gun laws in other countries show significantly lower mortality rates from tragedies, were we to enact those same laws into the states, the rebellion would counter-act the good intent. Many more people will die from this rebellion than the lives saved from the law. It’s currently much easier to leave this policy at a stale-mate until the baby boomer generation has passed away.

Enacting gun laws similar to the average European ones would not cause a rebellion. At least not on the scale the criminally insane like Jhco HOPE for.
Sure some of the owners will individually and in small groups ignore the laws that force them to register their guns. But the important effects are mostly on the level of commercial business that can´t ignore the laws. The police does not have to break down the doors of individuals in the search and seizure of guns.
Instead they can combine fines and the revoking of licenses to much greater effect. Breaking those who violate the laws financially and economically. Starting with the manufacturers, distributors and shops.

Any actual organized “rebellion” has the problem that they lack a attackable enemy that would not show them to be terrorists and turn the greater majority of public against the “rebels”(instead of just the majority, as it is now).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
This is a political issue that Democrats have been pushing for many years. They used these shootings for an excuse to go for our guns yet again. This is entirely political.

Yeah, silly democrats, using real life examples to illustrate how laws have problems. They should adapt the republican way of living in an imaginary world, where gays ruin everything and legitimate rapes can’t result in pregnancy. Politics always make more sense when you don’t have to have facts to back up your claims.

 
Flag Post

Can you give an actual advantage towards having guns that can’t be easily disproven or just comes down to “I have a large collection and I want to keep it” (or does starting a collection of human body parts act as a reason to allow mass murders).

 
Flag Post

The main reason is psychological safety. In the same way as some people feel naked without makeup on their faces, others feel unprotected without a gun in their holster. It’s a comfort blanket.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thijser:

Can you give an actual advantage towards having guns that can’t be easily disproven or just comes down to “I have a large collection and I want to keep it” (or does starting a collection of human body parts act as a reason to allow mass murders).

.
.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

The main reason is psychological safety. In the same way as some people feel naked without makeup on their faces, others feel unprotected without a gun in their holster. It’s a comfort blanket.

First, I want to make a point here that while I am a gun owner/carrier and don’t advocate a COMPLETE BAN (at this time, anyway), I want to present somewhat a devil’s advocate position in my responses to the two of ya’s posts.

thijser, vika’s response of MAIN reason is psychological safety is probably correct. I might change “safety” to “well-being or comfort”…mostly because of the association of “safety” w/ the actual PHYSICAL kind and that distinction should be made clear.

Besides, and I’m probably nit-picking here, but most “gunners” (jake-o excluded…LOL, just kidding ya ol’ boy, jk) aren’t really in need of having a gun to serve as a “safety net” to keep them from going bonkers. They merely make a "psychological (as in LOGICAL) connection between their safety and the powerful effect a gun can provide in aiding said safety.

Please notice that I said MOST.
This means that the number isn’t at all clear.
It means that my “bell curve” should be applied,,,
esp. since “most” is highly subjective,,,
subject to many factors that are usually assessed via many differing criteria.
This “gun issue” is—OBVIOUSLY—a real can-0-worms for American society,,,
esp. when the issue is held up for comparison to other nations/societies.

So, thijser…I hope ya can see why I think that one (or more?) ACTUAL ADVANTAGE of “having guns” (in most forms?…specific forms?) wouldn’t all that easily be disproven… or even the lesser position of being shown to be not as valid, necessary, etc. as those supporters of gun ownership believe.

Sorry, guys…but I need to apply my “bell-curve” to this “supporters of gun ownership” thing because (I hope it is obvious) not all of this group hold the same exact (even narrow?) viewpoint. It would appear that jake-o & I are realistic indications of the polarization of this group…and, hopefully, not the worst of either end.

vika,I like your (simple to grasp?) analogy of cosmetic makeup. While the motivations are quite different, the implication that the results are very similar is pretty much obvious (bell-curve applied here, also).

At the very least, YOUR comparison of owning guns to that of a comfort blanket is one that really, REALLY needs to be grasped by all—BOTH side of this issue—so we might better understand the depth & breadth of the “passion” held by “gunners”.

Please bear w/ me while I use something from my personal life to perhaps expound on vika’s “comfort blanket” analogy. I belong to several groups that go to the animal shelter (if ya consider a 3 day grace period before death as some form of “shelter”) to assess dogs for possible saving for adoption, service dogs, etc.

One of the methods of determination of positive attributes is to give them a bowl of food and then try to take it away from them. I hope all here can easily see that such a test is going to yield a panorama (bell-curve) of results….the negative end being the dog will ferociously guard its food, even to the point of attacking. We know of this possibility and gauge our test accordingly…via a sequence of “assessment steps” leading up to being w/ in the attack zone.

I think if those ppl who want to see various forms of gun CONTROLS//REGULATIONS would approach the issue in a frame of mind that little steps that determine where and the dept of “resistance” is likely to be,,,then, those who feel “threatened” that their “food” is going to be taken away just might NOT feel such actions are likely to be so severe as they “fear”.

After all, even the more rational gun owners (as most of us do in many situations) tend to HEAR (ONLY?) pretty much the (loudest?) more extreme "demands (aggressive—possibly PERMANENT—loss of food).

I try to remind my animal rescue groups to remember that a very worthwhile dog can “fail” the food-rescind test due to earlier severe shortage (starvation) situation. Ergo, we really need to NOT use a failure in one area totally negate some very positive results in other areas.

This form of assessment would work well in addressing, and hopefully finding some "solutions"to, the violence-wrought-by-guns issue. Cool, unbiased, earnest minds need to “sit down” and engage in some very serious discussions. It certainly would at least LOOK BETTER than what we have going on ATM….eh?

AND, while I use the quote below to demonstrate what some of the “lesser methods” of discussion are, I don’t want anyone to assign a “degree” to their points and to remember I said SOME OF, it is the more “extracurricular” issues of ideology brought into the discuss and the deeply strong emotionality of these points that heavily (taints?) affects meaningful exploration of some solid answers.
.

Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by jhco50:
This is a political issue that Democrats have been pushing for many years. They used these shootings for an excuse to go for our guns yet again. This is entirely political.

Yeah, silly democrats, using real life examples to illustrate how laws have problems. They should adapt the republican way of living in an imaginary world, where gays ruin everything and legitimate rapes can’t result in pregnancy. Politics always make more sense when you don’t have to have facts to back up your claims.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by donseptico:
Originally posted by DrOctaganapus2:

Can we agree that while the Sandy Hook tragedy was sad, trying to force gun laws is a bit of an over knee-jerk reaction?

On the back of a single, however tragic, event… yes absolutely.

On the back of two? Yes… three?… Yes… half a dozen? 2 dozen? When do you consider it necessary to do something? (or at least try)

As I have been trying to explain to you, this had nothing to do with Sandy Hook or the other massacres. This is a political issue that Democrats have been pushing for many years. They used these shootings for an excuse to go for our guns yet again. This is entirely political.

How about you try answering DrO’s question then… I gave my opinion (that one event was a bad basis for considering changing the law)… How many Sandy Hook’s (etc) do there have to be before you consider that it might be reasonable to consider changing the law?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by donseptico:
How many Sandy Hook’s (etc) do there have to be before you consider that it might be reasonable to consider changing the law?

He might not have answered it directly, but jhco’s answer is: none. Regardless of the incidents that occur, he does not see a need for alteration of gun laws. He does not believe there is a correlation.

 
Flag Post

Jhco did say at one point that the media had blown Sandy Hook entirely out of proportion. He sees it as a minor incident, the same as a multiple-car pileup is an unfortunate but expected occasional consequence of modern urban driving.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by DrOctaganapus2:

Can we agree that while the Sandy Hook tragedy was sad, trying to force gun laws is a bit of an over knee-jerk reaction?

Yes, that is exactly how I feel about it. Btw, there is a bill in congress to eliminate the 1000’ no guns zone.

S O ?
Many bills are “introduced” for a very wide host of reasons….DUH.
Introducing is extreeeeemly easy. Getting them presented to the Pres. ISN’T.
THEN, if the Pres vetoes the bill, it goes back to Congress where it then requires a whoooole lot more support to override that veto. BUT, ya already know this. SO, why even bother to present it as some kind of support for YOUR position on the issue?

Just below, donsepico has the more logical stance on this “knee-jerk” reaction rational.

Originally posted by donseptico:
Originally posted by DrOctaganapus2:

Can we agree that while the Sandy Hook tragedy was sad, trying to force gun laws is a bit of an over knee-jerk reaction?


On the back of a single, however tragic, event… yes absolutely.


On the back of two? Yes… three?… Yes… half a dozen? 2 dozen? When do you consider it necessary to do something? (or at least try)

Originally posted by jhco50:
If Obama, as he promises, does and executive order over congress, you will see kickback. A can of worms will be opened and there won’t be putting a lid back on it.

Okay, jake-o…let’s clear up this “misconception” ya have about Executive Orders
An Executive Order IS NOT “done OVER Congress”.
It is a part of the CONSTITUTIONAL mandate for the Administrative Branch to carry out the duties of its Office. The Congress DOES HAVE THE RIGHT to “override” an EO, but as the link shows….it can be very unlikely to happen.

A can of worms opened…eh?
Well, I guess if ya wanna “go fishing” for some ideas on how to avert such problems,,,ya just might need a “can of worms” to be a part of enterprise. Ever hear the expression: the squeaky wheel gets the grease?

I give a rat’s ass about how many ppl YOU know and consider to be a “big chunk”. What will matter “in the end” is what ALL those who vote (or have influence on those voters) think & apply to thoughts about what is “needed” to become law so that it may actually be (in some manner) the “will of the people” on this issue.

jake-o, I want to emend a statement ya made to (perhaps?) conform more to what is probably realistic…rather than YOUR “political insight” on this issue:

Originally posted by jhco50:

As I have been trying to explain to you, this had nothing to do with Sandy Hook or the other massacres. This is a political issue that Democrats have been pushing for many years. They used these shootings for an excuse {{A REASON}} to go for our guns yet again. This is entirely political.

YES….surprise, surprise….politicians (OUR REPRESENTATIVES FOR OUR WANTS//NEEDS) being “political”. Imagine that?

 
Flag Post

Vika, shooting people is not a minor incident and I wish you would quit making up things to be nasty. Small kids rate extremely high in my book and I consider the Sandy incident a tragedy of the highest order. Yes, the media blew it out of shape just like they do everything they report on anymore. It makes ratings….the bottom dollar. If you don’t know this, then I feel sorry for you. All you have done here, along with some others is repeat the same old arguments I have heard for many years. If you don’t like firearms fine, don’t own one. But don’t tread on my rights for your feel good scenario. I don’t like some of the things you think are acceptable for self-defense, but I am not telling you, you can’t have them.

Can you compare cars to a shooting? Yes. You can also compare stabbings, clubbings, and a myriad of other things that cause way more deaths each year than firearms. Yet you want to control a constitutional right, because you don’t like the document. No other reason can be as you have said several times you would like to see it changed to fit your ideals. I am so sick of goodie two shoes sobbing away about all of the bad in the world…caused by firearms of course. If you spent as much time trying to live a decent life instead of complaining about everything, you might be a happy person instead of being depressed all of the time.

 
Flag Post

Karma, I did find your link interesting, however, I have seen your president override the congress several times and push his wants without congressional approval. He is no stranger to leading by directive. You are old enough to know that what I said in the post you supposedly corrected is true. We have been fighting this war for decades. I don’t know about you, but I have been in the midst of it for many of those decades. I wasn’t around for the early inroads into gun-control, but I have been around for the later ones. When I tell you I have heard these same arguments before, I have. I’m pretty sure you have too.

When manufacturers are back ordered for months for a particular firearm, you know the people are arming. One of the manufactures of large capacity magazines is back ordered for over a million units. Ammunition in .223 is almost non-existent on store shelves. This is a statement in itself.

Look around and see the mess Obama is making, not just with the economy, but foreign and domestic affairs. He caused the current arming of America. Shooters (gun owners) know of his past voting record on gun-control measures and they have been watching him close. He never made a move on firearms in his first term, but we knew he was primed. His second term is his last and he doesn’t have to answer to anyone. Now look at his push for gun legislation. He was going to push before the shootings and they came along just in time for him to use them for his political purposes. Again, I have been through this often and I’m not a newbie to this fight.

Btw, I just heard on the news that there are more than enough votes in Congress to overturn any anti-gun legislation. Channel 13 late night news.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Vika, shooting people is not a minor incident and I wish you would quit making up things to be nasty.

Making things up?
As in forming an OPINION based on what is presented….imagine THAT?
OH, geeeee…isn’t THAT also what YOU do….even more so?

Small kids rate extremely high in my book and I consider the Sandy incident a tragedy of the highest order.

Well, then please explain what YOU aren’t WILLING to at least CONSIDER//entertain some of the concepts for means to decrease as much as possilbe such events?

I give a shit if YOU “think” ya’ve heard it all before.
Have ya “heard” the names of THOSE victims before?

Yes, the media blew it out of shape just like they do everything they report on anymore. It makes ratings….the bottom dollar.

Yes…what ya say is MOSTLY true.
What YOU don’t want to face is that the simple facts of the matter ARE STILL IN those reports….a bunch of kids DEAD at the hands of a nut w/ a gun.

All you have done here, along with some others is repeat the same old arguments I have heard for many years.

Errrrrrr…likewise about YOURS.

If you don’t like firearms fine, don’t own one. But don’t tread on my rights for your feel good scenario.

Yeah, NOT WANTING to be killed by a madman w/ a very powerful weapon is most def a “feel good scenario”.

Whether one wants to own a gun or NOT has nothing to do w/ wanting to do as much as is humanly & reasonably possible to keep innocent ppl ALIVE.

I don’t like some of the things you think are acceptable for self-defense, but I am not telling you, you can’t have them.

And THIS is germane to the issue….HOW?
It’s not really anyway near equitable.

Can you compare cars to a shooting? Yes. You can also compare stabbings, clubbings, and a myriad of other things that cause way more deaths each year than firearms.

Yes…one can and probably SHOULD COMPARE all means by which ppl lose their lives in ways that are unjust and preventable.
AND, much is done in most all areas where these deaths occur.
So, tell me…why should the ownership & usage of guns be an exception to scrutiny and regulations to reduce such deaths as much as is REASONABLY POSSIBLE?

Yet you want to control a constitutional right, because you don’t like the document.

Newsflash, oh vaunted Constitutional scholar….as we have REPEATEDLY tried to inform ya: Constitutional rights ARE SUBJECT to “control”.

AND, wouldn’t it be rather obvious that such interest in some level of “control” be because of an issue that IS NOT “liked”.

BUT, and this is where YOU get really HYPEBOLICALLY ZEALOUS, just because a particular CONSTITUTIONALLY legal law is sought to help keep ppl alive MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT MEAN that those seekers “don’t like the document”. Ratchet it down a notch, Bucky…NO ONE is AT ALL saying they don’t like the “document”.

No other reason can be as you have said several times you would like to see it changed to fit your ideals.

Well…fucking DUH.
Isn’t THAT what a democracy is all about?
That of ppl having a RIGHT to an opinion and also having the right to challenge that which seeks to oppose that opinion?
Our Constitution is set up to provide for this….eh?

I am so sick of goodie two shoes sobbing away about all of the bad in the world…caused by firearms of course. If you spent as much time trying to live a decent life instead of complaining about everything, you might be a happy person instead of being depressed all of the time.

NOW…ya’ve dived right into deep end of the shit-for-brains pool…..in hopes that ya can find something, ANYTHING, to use to tear down reasonable positions that don’t agree w/ yours.
 
Flag Post

I think that all guns should be banned

If nobody has guns, nobody can shoot anybody.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ExemplaryReturns:

I think that all guns should be banned

If nobody has guns, nobody can shoot anybody.

No, but they can stab, club, run over you, or beat you to death. Or you can take care of it for them by falling, eating bad food, drowning, car accident, or a whole lot of other things. Maybe we can put everyone in an enclosed capsule so nothing bad ever happens to anyone?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

No, but they can stab, club, run over you, or beat you to death. Or you can take care of it for them by falling, eating bad food, drowning, car accident, or a whole lot of other things. Maybe we can put everyone in an enclosed capsule so nothing bad ever happens to anyone?

We’ve already gone over this, banning guns in its entirety is not the answer, and that that reasoning is flawed.

Though, guns still are the most effective at killing someone.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ExemplaryReturns:

I think that all guns should be banned

If nobody has guns, nobody can shoot anybody.

Wow. So incredibly naive.

You seriously think it’s possible to ban every gun in the world? stoooooopid

Hold on, I’m gonna get me my Asssault Boulder.