Gun control is withering on the vine.

Post Reply New Topic

Doesn't matter, I still see some graphic things in here I guess she "forgot" to delete.

Isn't the first time I've heard the peewee joke in this forum anyhow.

There was a thread months ago on the topic of gun obsessions and aspies.
It pretty much got shot down in flames like this one and any to follow.
I'm an aspie and I have an obsession with guns. Get over it because it's not going to change.
Go back and find that thread if you want.

Anyway, here is something regarding children and guns which I think is an important issue to think about.

From http://www.adolescent-help.com/Children ... rearms.htm



Sounds like a parenting issue but let's blame the guns anyway.

So your admitting that you have no logical argument?
That’s a start.



Well, if you’ve been trained in their use you should know that they don’t act on their own and that they do not take control of people’s minds.



Guns aside, is your neighbor a meanie or a nutjob?
What has he done to make you all believe he’s dangerous?
Since you’ve stated nothing except he’s a gun owner It sounds more like paranoia to me.

I know lots and lots of gun owners and none of them would put a round though the door just because someone rang the doorbell or just walked up to it.

Aside from me, I don’t have a clue who all owns guns in my neighborhood and I don’t care to know. If anything I would consider gun owning neighbors an asset in the aftermath of a natural disaster (I live in hurricane country) when things tend to go awry. That or during a rash of home break-ins.

Well, that’s just me and I tend to look at things with a real world mindset.

When you get up close to somebody while they are trying to attack you, it only puts your life at greater risk. You can punch, kick, and bite all you want, but that does not minimize your risk of being murdered. As it takes longer to kill, or seriously maim, your attacker. Especially if THEY have a weapon.

Too bad open comment on the basic drive to go armed is not permitted. It is fear, and I find that reprehensible and think it should be openly acknowledged.

Pointed his gun at 2 am at another neighbor's house guest scaring the $($#*((*&^* out of everyone. Anyone waking up from a deep sleep and instantly grabbing their gun is going to be dangerous. He wasn't fully awake and, as a result, his judgment was impaired. Thankfully, the house guest was able to convince him he was legit.

As for my imperfect clean up job ... my apologies. I did this in a hurry after an alert from a member. Not to say a clean up is exactly what they were after, but it seemed the easiest way to deal with the issue they raised. Sometimes in order for things to continue making sense I have to remove a few in-offensive posts that many have relied on others I am sweeping.

As for the debate ... I'm not interested in it. I can debate well when I've got some fire, but I don't have any for this whole area at this moment. My head is way too deep in other things. I'm just here because I think you can all agree the name calling was out of control.

I had to pick a point where things here were going downhill, and that was where it seemed to start.

But, actually, I disagree that for most people it comes from fear. I think it's more complex than that. I've known gun advocates of quite a few different stripes. Generalizations pretty much never fit any group and that is true here, as well.

I agree that the discussion degraded into childish taunting and was not satisfactory but general distribution of weapons to an untrained and very possibly trigger fingered public is obviously (at least to me) a severe public danger from a totally unnecessary base. No doubt automobiles kill far more people than guns but the concept of eliminating automobiles is neither practical nor possible. Not the case with guns. Hobbies like playing around with dangerous poisons or drugs or keeping a tiger for a pet or experimenting with explosives are severely restricted or banned for good reasons. I cannot see guns not in that category. The general argument that the public should be equipped for an insurrection strikes me as basically treasonous and vaguely psychotic.

These things should be openly discussed.

A lot of militia right, NWO paranoid, far right activists also oppose drivers licenses, though.

I've got to break this down again, you're bringing up a number of issues and it's easier for me to address them point by point.

You may believe in general legality with some restrictions, but that is not a goal shared by the major organizations behind gun control in this country, recall Diane Feinstein's comments in 1994 that if she'd had the votes she would have pushed for a total ban. Never mind that she herself possessed a concealed handgun license and carried a handgun "for protection" . Gee, why would anyone want to hurt someone like that? Kucinich has a handgun ban in his presidential platform every year he runs, and the late Ted Kennedy tried to ban nearly all hunting ammunition as "armor piercing" because it would penetrate soft body armor that was only designed to stop low velocity pistol ammo. I can go on if you like, suffice it to say that there is a sizable contingent that would like nothing better than to completely ban civilian ownership of firearms, and they'll use people like you to do it. People like you are exactly who the gun control people are trying to scare with their sensationalizing of shootings, biased language and hysterical press releases, they want you terrified and not thinking things through. Each infringement makes the next a little easier, and as I keep harping on the experience of gun owners in other countries makes it very clear where it all leads.



So you want to infringe upon the freedom of other so that you can "feel better"? Gee, that doesn't make me feel very good at all. Does knowing that gun control is ineffective at stopping crime change how you feel?



No one is trying to bully you into buying a gun or trying to convince you that you'd be safer for owning one; in fact I'd rather you not buy one if you're not completely prepared for the responsibility. It's people that own guns without being willing to use them that give rise to the scare stories about guns being turned on their owners and so forth and no one wants that.



Maybe not you specifically, but you'd help do the job by making it easier for the people who want a ban to achieve it. You want registration despite the fact that it does not work and has been repeatedly used in other countries for later confiscations, look it up. You don't know anything about weapons, why do you get to judge what weapons are too destructive for me to own, especially when I'm an accredited expert on the topic? You and your friends live in a very liberal place; go to any rural area and people of your opinion are virtually nonexistent, and those rural folks live with guns day in and day out as part of their lifestyle, they have a much stronger basis for their opinions than you do.

Like I told the other fellow, if saving lives and reducing violence is really something you want to do, work for drug law reform. If on the other hand you want to waste time on feel good measures that do nothing but inconvenience criminals while being a hardship for the law abiding, and in doing so lose out politically when gun owners fight back and elect conservative politicians that will protect our rights, then go ahead and support gun control.

Sand wrote:

Not fear but precaution. I don't have a concealed carry permit out of fear any more than I buckle my seatbelt when I'm driving out of fear. Both devices are because in a real world things happen at unexpected times and having some safeguard is better than just hoping for the best or ignoring the possibilities.
All this has already been covered here and in previous threads on this topic and there have been quite a few, all of which have been lost by your side as they will continue to be.
Your issue with inanimate objects is more an expression of fear than anything.
'nuff said.

For the rest of you:
Yes, I know I'm feeding a troll but for this argument I thought it was best to shoot his rantings down once again for any onlookers who might think his drivel has any merit.

I'm done with this thread.

As much as I, personally, dislike guns, and have posted so many times (posts which people looovvvveee picking apart ), I actually disagree with you what you say here. Guns do have useful purposes in many situations which, hopefully, I won't have to ever be in. I've been in enough debates to concede that point. Most advocates don't believe that they are trying to equip the public for an insurrection; it's a lot more basic than that. The whole insurrection argument is, if I recall correctly, more constitutional than practical.

All that can be discussed openly, but you have to be careful with the assertions you make in doing so.

I'm not working right now for any of the above. I've got other core issues I'm much more in tune with, and that are stronger trigger points for me. Just, well, I can't read a thread without posting my opinion, lol. I don't want to debate it; the whole deal is nowhere near as close to my heart right now as it is to yours. So ... I'll let you and the others go at it. I'm off

The "non-pragmatic" constitutional argument seems a little daft as I always thought the right to bear arms as included to repel British invasion, not the internal government. Regardless, there are still many anti-government libertarians and militia sympathizers who use the "insurrection" argument as a justification of arming massive segments of the civillian population.

The much more "pragmatic" reason is that in the event some criminal or lunatic tries to shoot you or goes on a rampage, you'll be able to neutralize them. Of course, they almost never think that maybe armed citizens in a dangerous situation will act irrationally and end up killin everyone who looks at them the wrong way or that paranoid suburbanites walking through the inner city might take a few "wrong looks" as threats and needlessly kill people.

Curious, Dox, what you propose as a way to address the concerns of the non-gun population on safety, etc.? Knowing that rightly or wrongly people like me feel there should be some level of control, regulation, or registration, what do you think would be effective? Mandatory education? Licensing? Anything?

When people have to jump through a few hoops to secure a right, they take the responsibility a lot more seriously. And there definitely is responsibility attached to gun ownership. So, as someone who lives and breathes these issues, what would you propose to make people like me feel there is some balance? Something to insure gun owners are serious about the responsibility side?

I admit, I've never be up on the whole issue in the way you are, because guns do not interest me. So, you have to take it for granted that there are voters out there placing a vote with less than perfect information, and doing it possibly based on emotion. Certainly, where there is a proposition on the ballot, I study it carefully before voting on it, or just pass it by ... but that isn't true for everyone. And in choosing politicians ... I pretty much don't even ask what their gun control position is, it's so far down the list. But given that I do believe rational middle ground exists on most everything if we all looked hard enough, what would you propose?

In the state of California it is required that you take a test to get a safety certificate to buy a handgun. I would be okay with making that a requirement for all guns since the safety certificate has little room for abuse. It is not a form of registration and you do not have to give your guns up when it expires. I have a class 03 (antique collector) Federal Firearms License so I am exempt from having to have a handgun purchase card now because I have a more prestigious credential.

I am okay with concealed weapon permits because it helps keep the carrier up to date on relevant laws, checks that people maintain a certain level of accuracy in the event they have to defend themselves, and thoroughly explains to them the responsibility they are taking on.