Gun control/being safe out there....

Status
Not open for further replies.
I feel pretty safe here in a town full of criminals without the need to arm myself. Last week I came home to find my street blocked by cop cars and stuff. My neighbours were out on the road watching - ''Oh, some fulla was seen walking around the park with a gun.'' I just went inside and didn't worry about it. All sorted with no drama, it wasn't even reported in the local paaper.
 
Quote:
2. Development of comprehensive country-wide database which would not only allow criminal entries but access for health professionals to put "disturbed" people on the "not allowed to buy list" (ACLU would throw a hissy fit).
Sounds good except the antigunners already say all citizen gun owners are disturbed. Along with anyone right of Stalin who disagrees with the government. In other words, go on with that nonsense. Too easy to abuse certain groups.
 
Last edited:
I ll say it again, I feel safer in a place full guns than in a place with no guns allowed. I used to belong to a Rod & Gun club and they had a shooting range outside and would not allow guns of any sort in the lodge. I refused to belong to that club. about a month later I heard someone broke into all the cars and trucks in the parking lot and stold all their guns. Never heard if they changed their policy after. Beware criminals pay attention to laws and they use them to their advantage.
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Trav,

I think you scared him away with logic.
crackmeup2.gif


Nope - nothing to be scared of, I am not "away". I already admitted that some of my suggestions may not be practically feasible, and that they were "solutions" that I WISH would be practical.

No need for childish posts like yours. You're the type of poster who posts inflammatory, non-contributing stuff and attack other posters, which gets threads deleted and locked. Thankfully, there's an Ignore Button.
smile.gif


Most of the mass/school shootings in recent history were not done by felons or "gangbangers" (as Trav put it), but by single individuals who legally owned guns (in some cases more than 10 or more guns!). So if the price to pay is applying whatever control methods to responsible gun owners too, then that's what it should take, if the potential to reduce mass shootings can be reduced by doing so.

No point in discussing this further, really. We all know what kind of bias exists in this board when it comes to discussions like this. So, just because someone stops responding to a post, or doesn't choose to answer, do NOT think/assume that he/she has been "scared away".


I agree with an above post.

You have a lot of research to do.
 
Folks, keep in mind there were and are many 'things' in the media that are over reported or ignored. There never has been a particularly 'neutral' press, and much of what we read/see/hear is anything but 'just the facts' as Joe Friday would say. Today, anybody can use our present technology to communicate to the whole world. Don't be fooled by well written 'garbage' or discount poorly written truths. We are in the midst of polarization these days and we are faced with the difficulty of 'sorting out' reality. Most folks would like 'gun laws' a bit different than they are today, but the NRA has taken the position that any 'retreat' from what is today, will lead to eventual confiscation. The 'gun control' folks don't generally say that anymore, but there is plenty of past evidence that law such as the Brits have is their ultimate goal.
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
What I am trying to say (sorry for the inappropriate initial use of words) by NEED is not the amount/proof/authenticity of need, but the specific type of USE when purchasing - as in, Hunting, home defense/self defense, as examples of various uses, where a certain type of firearm is deemed appropriate and has MEANINGFUL use.

Sorry - I didn't mean that one should be questioned on actual NEED to own a gun. I should have said specific type of use it's needed FOR, rather.

Can we apply the same logic to car ownership? Would a car owner have to justify the need to own something wasteful like a BMW when a Cruze would be sufficient transportation?
To the graph you posted, how many of those murders were performed with illegal guns? Would more restrictions help?
 
Roughly 30,00 gun deaths in the U.S.
20,000 are suicide.

So mass murders occur in .1% of gun homicides
And I would guess that 90% of gun death homicides (not suicides) are done by criminals using illegal guns that the politicians and media ignore. But yea....lets worry about the 10 mass murders that occur and lets instead ignore the other 10,000
 
Last edited:
Lets not ignore the fact that over 100,000,000 people were murdered by their .gov in the last hundred years. I'll take my chances with random violence and keep my guns.
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Car is a not a weapon that is used INTENTIONALLY to kill.
This car = gun thing is THE most ridiculous idea EVER.


Completely agree.

The car does not allow for the exercise of a Constitutionally-protected right. The gun does.

Self-defense is the SCOTUS-articulated purpose of the 2nd Amendment. To be able to exercise that right, a citizen must have the means: a firearm.

Firearms aren't just for deer hunting, or skeet shooting, or whatever the anti-gun crowd deems "legitimate" purposes.

Firearms exist to allow an individual to exercise their right to self defense.

I don't have to "demonstrate my need" for that right, nor do I have to "demonstrate a need" for a particular firearm. If I choose to employ a Glock 9mm, 12 gauge, or a semi-automatic rifle, that is my business. It is a matter of personal circumstance and appropriate weapon for my situation, comfort level and training.

To review and curtail that purchase, ownership, and exercise is to infringe on that right. Think how vehemently we defend the other rights articulated in the Constitution...and how often this right is attacked...under the specious claim of "public safety"...as if the 20,000 gun laws already in existence are not enough. Sadly, those laws go unenforced, and criminals are not know to be deterred by laws in general, or unenforced ones in particular...so we somehow think that more laws, perhaps 20,001?, would work better?

Now, the fact that cars kill more people every year in this country than guns, or that drowning kills more children than guns, means that we, as a society in general, and anti-gun folks in particular, assess risk poorly because we follow the sensationalism of the media...but that's matter of intellectual weakness, a lack of critical thinking...and a subject all unto itself.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Car is a not a weapon that is used INTENTIONALLY to kill.
This car = gun thing is THE most ridiculous idea EVER.

I never said a car was equal to a gun. I was just wondering what other purchases you'd be willing to subject to government approval.
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Car is a not a weapon that is used INTENTIONALLY to kill.
This car = gun thing is THE most ridiculous idea EVER.


Once again, research dude. Maybe a bit of common sense thinking too?

Speaking of having a bias, I can see where you stand on the matter.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Great post astro


It was a great post. Imagine what it would be like if the anti-gun people got their way and the government tried to collect all of the guns possessed by civilians in the USA. There are 325 million people in the country and millions upon millions of guns.

So would they have the national guard in every state search every home? Guns would be concealed by some people and guns could still be manufactured in secret facilities. And the criminals would certainly conceal many, many guns and secret manufacturing facilities would certainly come into existence.

We need to go after the CRIMINAL and not law abiding citizens. Enforce the laws already in existence and make it a severe penalty to use a handgun in the commission of a crime. Allow concealed carry by law abiding citizens. These mass shooters are deliberately targeting 'gun free zones.' They target schools, theaters, etc. Where they know there will be many people who are unarmed.

And something eventually will have to be done about the mental health issues in this country.

They need to go after the violent criminal gangs in the inner cities who typically use illegal guns.

Target the CRIMINAL. Don't target the LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. In fact many law abiding citizens who legally conceal carry could be a deterrent to the mass shooters.
 
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
I hope people have learned one lesson. Never take your family to a gun free zone. It's far too dangerous. Don't send your children to a university that bans guns. And if there is a shooting the police are there to do the paper work and make sure your loved ones are sent to the nearest hospital or morgue. Remember, gun control is a code name for population control.


Check this.



Please stop lying. The school was not a "gun free zone", regardless of how it's described. 1) Oregon law prevents it 2) plenty of people there had guns.


My comment was about needed behavior to protect one's self and family in the future. I guess you suspect that people lie to you. Do they give you strange looks, too?
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Car is a not a weapon that is used INTENTIONALLY to kill.
This car = gun thing is THE most ridiculous idea EVER.


It doesn't matter whether cars are used intentionally or not, the point is you don't blame the cars for the 33,000 motor vehicle deaths per year, you blame the driver. Likewise blaming the guns instead of the crazy shooters is ridiculous.

As for intentional, I would bet the relatives of the 10,000 people killed each year by drunk drivers would disagree that the deaths were unintentional.

Our Declaration of Independence clearly articulates our unalienable right to life. In a country with over 300,000,000 irretrievable guns in circulation and more than our share of crazies and criminals, we certainly have the right to defend and protect the lives of our families. This is why our Constitution restricts the government from infringing on our right to be as well armed as our adversaries.

Tom NJ
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Car is a not a weapon that is used INTENTIONALLY to kill.


You are right ... typically a car is not uses as a weapon, but sometimes it has been. There have been a few cases where some maniac intentionally mows through a crowd of people killing many of them.

Who knows, if guns were not available the car might be the next best mass murder weapon a maniac might use. And as said above, it's the maniac using the "weapon" that's the real problem.

Keeping guns out of the hands of maniacs is definitely a very complicated problem. Identifying people who are potential time bombs to commit mass shootings is going to be very hard if not impossible to do - but I believe it's possible to do better than they are doing currently if the right measured are put into place. Banning all guns isn't going to work either.
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
It is MAINLY a gun issue. Not a mental health issue. THAT is used as an argument every time, IMO. If the mentally ill didn't have such easy access to guns the possibility of them taking so many innocents with them will go down.
Sure there are other means, but not as easy as this.

Disarming people in this country is not going to happen. CONTROL is what is needed:

-Types of guns CIVILIANS are allowed to own. (based on PROVEN type of need / use - yearly checks if special need still exists)
-NUMBER of guns, say you own 1 gun for 5 yrs and if you're still being a responsible gun owner and everything seems ok still, THEN you get to apply to own ONE MORE gun.
-AMOUNT of ammunition that CIVILIANS can buy at ONE time.
-YEARLY MANDATORY checks of background, mental health, criminal activity etc. If you don't show up, your permit and gun(s) are GONE.

These countries don't have mentally ill people or what?




They have accessible healthcare. The chart conveniently shows countries that generally all have the same type (or similar) of health care system to Canada's.

Also, that list is ridiculous. Our gun laws are nowhere near that insane and our gun homicide rate is massively lower than yours.

What we have:

-Mandatory licensing to own any firearm which includes an extensive background check
-Mandatory additional licencing to own any "restricted" firearm which includes even more exhaustive background checks
-Mandatory storage requirements
-Mandatory even stricter storage requirements for "restricted" firearms

We also have magazine size limits for centre-fire semi-automatic rifles (though this is heavily contested by many people) of 5 rounds. My bolt .308 holds 10 rounds in my AI mag. Rimfire is unlimited, so you can have a Ruger 10-22 with a 150rd barrel mag without issue.

The VAST majority of Canada's gun homicides are committed using hand guns (restricted) which are smuggled in illegally from the USA. This happens primarily in the GTA and is generally gang-bangers offing each other. No amount of additional firearms laws levied on the Canadian public would have ANY impact on this.
 
Thing with a firearm is that someone can kill in a second without thinking. Physically it's easy to shoot someone. This is the main reason why guns are restricted. People do thing in affect. So if there's no gun by someone hand there's a good chance that someone would cool down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top