And if more people like you would engange in a solution going forward than winning battles won, we'd be far ahead of the snarky inputs of BUG et. al. Seriously. I wish I was being sarcastic.
guns
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
FWIW, I personally am not a big "assault rifle" guy. I do happen to own one (an AK-47 pattern AKM) that came my way as part of a trade, but it sits in the back of my safe and seldom if ever gets taken to the range. Of the guns in my collection, it is by far my least favorite. And if we did indeed have a repeat of the 1994-2004 ban, it really wouldnt affect me personally since I already own all the high-cap mags I will ever need for the guns I have that use them.
I defend the right to own so-called "assault weapons" for the same exact reason that I defend Muslims when right-wing bigots (who usually agree with me about guns) try to blame terrorism on the Islamic faith. I'm not a Muslim, and I have some serious theological disagreements with the tenets of their faith, but the moment we resort to inaccurate stereoptypes and start blaming the wrong thing for the problem, we stop looking for the solution to that problem.
I defend the right to own so-called "assault weapons" for the same exact reason that I defend Muslims when right-wing bigots (who usually agree with me about guns) try to blame terrorism on the Islamic faith. I'm not a Muslim, and I have some serious theological disagreements with the tenets of their faith, but the moment we resort to inaccurate stereoptypes and start blaming the wrong thing for the problem, we stop looking for the solution to that problem.
There is a GINORMOUS difference between people getting killed with guns and people getting killed with cars.
Cars are not designed to kill people. Cars are not designed to get maximum efficiency when hitting people and causing death. Cars are not designed to be interchanged with other parts to increase efficiency when hitting people. And Cars are not designed to be used on a battlefield.
The automobiles of today are built for safety and in fact, some include features that automatcally stop the car if its about to hit anything. These designs are intended to save people, not kill them.
However, any moving object if going fast enough can kill a person, but that isnt the same as a gun which is the "INTENTION" behind picking one up in the first place.
There is nothing in the design of a gun that protects people, in fact, the designs by the makers own admission, are getting better "STOPPING POWER" and thats a phrase you have used yourself in many posts on guns.
I cant recall a situation where a auto maker boasted about their vehicles ability to have greater stopping power against a living creature. I dont believe that an auto makers designers are sitting around a board room testing features that will kill people, unlike the gun makers whos only concern is just that.... KILLING PEOPLE.
As for your suggestion that the shooter could have had a lever action hunting rifle and a couple of revolvers and the outcome being the same, well, thats just plain silly talk. This 20 year old kid could have never killed as many people with a lever action rifle as that takes away from accuracy and the delays between shots makes it harder to aim. This would require great skill and everything from reloading to speed loaders would have to be timed perfectly in order to duplicate the carnage.
An assault type weapon NEEDS no skill to operate, and its just a matter of pulling the trigger over and over using military style rounds that go through one person and into another like slicing a hot knife through butter.
Heck, I bet all of you gun guys on this board could hit the side of a barn with a Bushmaster .223, it isnt that tough.
Cowards want the military style guns, just because it takes less skill to operate, and if they are uninpeded in shooting 50 rounds, they will eventually hit something.
The tools make all the difference in the world. The initial calculation of a mass shooting begins and ends with the weapons. There is nothing in between but execution of the act.
The latest shooter who killed the firemen in NY shot them with a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle and almost a half mile distance from a berm on the beach while they fought the fires.
He didnt need to be close, as that weapon could have hit them from a mile away.
But, thats how you see your country in the future, just one more mass shooting away from anarchy on the streets.
peace
TOS
Last edited by a moderator:
What needs to happen, is for the courts to get involved with gun ownership. By that, i mean, when there is a filing for divorce and there is no agreement, then the court should ask both parties if there are registered guns in the home, if so, those guns should be surrendered to the court until the divorce is final, all documents signed, all property settled and both parties or the gun party has been evaluated by a psycologist.
If a family has a troubled teen at home who has been involved with the law, then the courts should ask if there are any registered guns in the home, if so, those guns would have to be surrendered to the courts until the conclusion of the childs legal woes and both parents and child would have to be subjected to mental evaluations before the guns are returned to the home.
If a person gets convicted for drunk driving with injuries, then the courts should ask if there are any registered guns at home, and those too should be surrendered and forfeited.
If a person gets convicted for drug crimes, no matter how small, then the courts should ask if there are any guns registered and those too should be surrendered and forfeited.
If a person is forced into rehabilitation for ANY reason, any and all guns should be forfeited and future gun owner rights stripped.
If a person is on ANY kind of anti anxiety pills, then the doctor should fill out a report and that report sent to the firearm registry where the agency should recover ANY guns this kind of person should have.
If any person "houses" a convicted or formally convicted felon and there are guns in the home, those guns should be forfeited to the firearm registry.
These will take millions of guns out of the hands of people who will commit serious crimes in the future.
We can start there.
peace
TOS
If a family has a troubled teen at home who has been involved with the law, then the courts should ask if there are any registered guns in the home, if so, those guns would have to be surrendered to the courts until the conclusion of the childs legal woes and both parents and child would have to be subjected to mental evaluations before the guns are returned to the home.
If a person gets convicted for drunk driving with injuries, then the courts should ask if there are any registered guns at home, and those too should be surrendered and forfeited.
If a person gets convicted for drug crimes, no matter how small, then the courts should ask if there are any guns registered and those too should be surrendered and forfeited.
If a person is forced into rehabilitation for ANY reason, any and all guns should be forfeited and future gun owner rights stripped.
If a person is on ANY kind of anti anxiety pills, then the doctor should fill out a report and that report sent to the firearm registry where the agency should recover ANY guns this kind of person should have.
If any person "houses" a convicted or formally convicted felon and there are guns in the home, those guns should be forfeited to the firearm registry.
These will take millions of guns out of the hands of people who will commit serious crimes in the future.
We can start there.
peace
TOS
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Ideally, the 2nd Amendment would be updated and written in such a manner as to enumerate the fact that armed self defense, as well as defense of a free state, is both a fundamental human right and a responsibility. Once that important point is clarified, perhaps then it would be possible to establish minimum training, mental-health, background and licensing requirements, with a "shall issue" system in place for those who pass such training. Philosophically speaking I dont have a problem with shall-issue licensing and training requirements similar to the ones I met when I got my carry permits, but I get really nervous when I hear such terms bandied about by anti-gun zealots like Dianne Feinstein and Michael Bloomberg, who would ban guns and make such licenses all but impossible to obtain if they had their way. In short...a serious discussion of the issue begins by accepting armed self defense as a fundamental human right and not a privelege to be granted or denied at the whim of a bureacrat.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
No I don't.
It is a useless conversation with nothing but opinions.
There are no facts and nobody here has the authority to enact any changes.
No one who does have the authority will ever read this thread.
Typical UPS management. Always stay in the box. No imagination, no vision.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Terrorists who use IED's are the problem....although I would argue that the bigger underlying problem is that our troops shouldnt be over there in the first place. In any case it is a false comparison; IED's are illegal here (as they should be) and I am quite sure that they are also illegal under Afghan law.
It is worth noting that, during the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, civilians were allowed by American troops to keep AK 47's in their homes for self defense.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
According to TOS, since I am a white man who owns a gun, I am automatically a coward and a lunatic and a would-be mass murderer who is but one layoff or divorce away from going insane and killing every innocent person who crosses my path.
He is entitled to his opinion...but no matter how open minded I try to be, I simply cannot find any "middle ground" in there where any sort of meaningful debate could even begin. Help me out here, maybe I'm missing something.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
As long as you concentrate on the guns, you are not dealing with the problem logically.
Emotionally maybe but not logically.
You already said you had an ak47 with high capacity clips in your home. What purpose do you suggest you have this weapon other than for collecting dust in a safe?
You my friend, have no IDEA what will set you off. Nobody does, but what makes it more conceivable is that fact that you are armed to the teeth for no apparent reason other than to satisfy an obsession with guns.
The bigger the better, the larger the magazine the greater the courage. It all goes hand in hand when a person snaps.
If a domestic situation arose in your life that struck you deep in the heart, and you were to overreact, would you think to grap your butter knife first?
Of course not, youd grap the very little princess strapped to your leg and let her do the talking for you.
Cmon, weve seen this movie a million times in this country.
Peace
TOS
Actually, I'm not focused on guns at all. I'm focused on a comprehensive solution based on service, particularly military. How better to create pause before getting into unnecessary wars, keep a check on mental health, and keep track of the issuance of weaponry than to have the entire nation vested in service to the nation? Might take a generation, but I think it would do wonders. Have alot more careful handling and understanding of weapons. I've heard horror stories about what happens on a military base when a weapon goes missing from the armory. We need that kind of awareness. We need (when we do have to go to war) to be able to avoid sending men and women to 4, 5, 6, tours of duty. We need lawmakers to think about their actual flesh and blood being sent off to battle. It has to be very personal on all levels.
In post 3771, TOS leaves guns as a tangental issue and begins exploring the human dynamics that may lead to gun violence. I think you could discuss something in that area.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
And he follows in #3782 by claiming that I am one bad day away from being a mass murderer.
What the hell, I will give it a shot (no pun intended) but he has a poor track record of being rational and realistic.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
You are operating under the common liberal misconception that an inantimate object (the gun) has some sort of power over the one who carries it, and that the simple act of possessing a firearm will cause otherwise rational and decent people to "snap" and become homicidal. There are between 150 and 200 million gun owners in this country who didnt commit an act of violence today, plus untold millions who have owned guns in past times and who went to their graves without ever having committed a single act of violence in their lifetimes even though they had guns in their homes. So from a factual and statistical standpoint, your assertion of the gun as the equivalent of an evil Ring of Power that will turn all who weild it into some sort of Gollum-like creature is an incorrect one.
As to the potential that I might "snap"...all I can say is that Im 45 yrs old and in my lifetime I have been through divorce, financial strife, recovery, the death of family members, dealing with addict/alcoholic family members etc etc etc and despite all that drama not once have I ever even come close to any sort of violent behavior. I have held a carry permit for 16 years and not once have I ever drawn or displayed a weapon or participated in any sort of altercation or argument with another person.
Heres a question. You want to create a central registry of sorts to control access to guns, and to create numerous requirements for mental evaluations etc as a condition of gun ownership. Ok...since alcohol is a direct causitive factor in far more deaths and domestic violence than firearms, would you support the same level of government control and intrusion into your personal life over the purchase of a bottle of wine or a 6 pack of beer?
Babagounj
Strength through joy
TOS about post # 3772 ,
You should also include anyone who runs for any public office into your list of those that need to forfeit any guns.
Because anyone who runs for office has to be NUTS.
And who should be in charge of your firearm registry ?
What would qualify someone to be hired by this new gov't backed agency ?
You should also include anyone who runs for any public office into your list of those that need to forfeit any guns.
Because anyone who runs for office has to be NUTS.
And who should be in charge of your firearm registry ?
What would qualify someone to be hired by this new gov't backed agency ?
Similar threads
