Gun Control - moved from E-cig thread

[seer]

I don't think we can compare deaths by automobile accident and the purposed assassination of large groups of innocent people - men, women, and children. And we do licence the use of cars, the sale of cars, the drivers of cars.

Yes we do, but the point remains if saving lives is your main concern we could save thousands a year by doing what I said.

And then - that people would behave as irresponsibly as your SOLD OUT sign is a big part of the problem. I mean, who, realizing that there may well be people that would use the guns bought at that sale to commit mass atrocities would nevertheless take that route? It seems like a sort of mental illness to me. Wanton disregard for others is what it boils down to to me.


Jim

So Jim, what gun owner today would want to register his gun with the Democrats openly talking about confiscation?

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't think we can compare deaths by automobile accident and the purposed assassination of large groups of innocent people - men, women, and children. And we do licence the use of cars, the sale of cars, the drivers of cars.

And then - that people would behave as irresponsibly as your SOLD OUT sign is a big part of the problem. I mean, who, realizing that there may well be people that would use the guns bought at that sale to commit mass atrocities would nevertheless take that route? It seems like a sort of mental illness to me. Wanton disregard for others is what it boils down to to me.


Jim

I can go buy a car today and nobody will check my license. It is only illegal to drive a car on a public street, you can drive one around your private property, to your hearts content.

[oxmixmudd]

2 and 3 are irrelevant. 1 is the problem. That part of the constitution served it's purpose, but I just don't believe it is still valid as it is currently being interpreted by say the NRA. Further, I don't think the right to bear arms prohibits the regulation of those arms, nor should it be interpreted to imply those that present serious risk of misuse should be allowed access to them. So it's really just a matter of how much is too much, not if we can regulate them, and not if we should regulate them.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Jim do you realize how many lives we would save if we only manufactured vehicles that could only reach the speed of 40 MPH, and had speed limit no higher than 40 MPH? And owning and driving a car is not even a Constitutional right. And remember the worse school shooting, ever, was done with two very generic hand guns. And what gun owner today would want to register his gun with the Democrats openly talking about confiscation?

Right now you are getting this:



https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-b...r15s-and-ak47s

I don't think we can compare deaths by automobile accident and the purposed assassination of large groups of innocent people - men, women, and children. And we do licence the use of cars, the sale of cars, the drivers of cars.

And then - that people would behave as irresponsibly as your SOLD OUT sign is a big part of the problem. I mean, who, realizing that there may well be people that would use the guns bought at that sale to commit mass atrocities would nevertheless take that route? It seems like a sort of mental illness to me. Wanton disregard for others is what it boils down to to me.


Jim

[Sparko]

That's an odd response sparko. We regulate a rather large number of very dangerous things because people in general are not capable or willing to do what would be required to keep others safe.

That are written into the constitution? Or more correctly the constitution prevents government interference and recognizes the right to bear arms. This "we are doing it for your own good" is the line dictators have used on the people for centuries. It is for their own power, not our good.

Should your desire to have guns without any form of regulation be yielded to at the expense of those that have died in recent years at the hands of those that could too easily obtain those same weapons? I do not believe so. First, you are the sort of person that likely will still be able to get guns and use them regardless Second, if we can make a dent in the number of these mass shooting events by putting up some roadblocks to ownership, it's worth it.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

That's an odd response sparko. We regulate a rather large number of very dangerous things because people in general are not capable or willing to do what would be required to keep others safe.

Should your desire to have guns without any form of regulation be yielded to at the expense of those that have died in recent years at the hands of those that could too easily obtain those same weapons? I do not believe so. First, you are the sort of person that likely will still be able to get guns and use them regardless Second, if we can make a dent in the number of these mass shooting events by putting up some roadblocks to ownership, it's worth it.

Jim

[seer]

Should your desire to have guns without any form of regulation be yielded to at the expense of those that have died in recent years at the hands of those that could too easily obtain those same weapons? I do not believe so. First, you are the sort of person that likely will still be able to get guns and use them regardless Second, if we can make a dent in the number of these mass shooting events by putting up some roadblocks to ownership, it's worth it.

Jim

Jim do you realize how many lives we would save if we only manufactured vehicles that could only reach the speed of 40 MPH, and had speed limit no higher than 40 MPH? And owning and driving a car is not even a Constitutional right. And remember the worse school shooting, ever, was done with two very generic hand guns. And what gun owner today would want to register his gun with the Democrats openly talking about confiscation?

Right now you are getting this:



https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-b...r15s-and-ak47s

[oxmixmudd]

I think a lot of the police and military would be on the civilian's side and would help arm them rather than disarm them in an actual revolution. But guns are not just for protecting against a rogue government. They are also used for private protection, sporting, and hunting. We have the right to own them and the government doesn't have the right to take them away. That's it. You have no right to tell me what I can own, or try to take away my guns or limit what I have. This is America dammit. Mind your own business and stop trying to tell others what they can and can't own.

That's an odd response sparko. We regulate a rather large number of very dangerous things because people in general are not capable or willing to do what would be required to keep others safe.

Should your desire to have guns without any form of regulation be yielded to at the expense of those that have died in recent years at the hands of those that could too easily obtain those same weapons? I do not believe so. First, you are the sort of person that likely will still be able to get guns and use them regardless Second, if we can make a dent in the number of these mass shooting events by putting up some roadblocks to ownership, it's worth it.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

(1)I don't disagree it would be very hard to remove them. That doesn't mean we should not try to limit access to them WRT new purchases, Nor does it mean we should not try to regulate in some way the ownership of the ones that currently are out there.

(2)I doubt seriously we'd ever face 'an invasion' until and unless the H-bombs have flown. Very few global powers can match us otherwise. It then goes back to more an oppressive government of our own.

And It's not that i don't think having gun's might help in that 'government gone berserk' situation, it's just that given the fact our gradually corrupting morals are producing more and more crazies, I'm not sure we can afford that luxury any longer - at least not in its current form.

To that point, I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments. There are realistic, helpful things we can do that will not result in someone invading your home and taking your AR-15s. We should at least stop fighting tooth and nail those sorts of proposals - registration, some sort of monitoring (probably like Driver's licences) where people are subject to periodic safety and mental fitness evaluations and where indications the owners of the most powerful legal weapons have lost it are acted on.

Boots on the ground yes. But with a lot more than just a personal AR-15. Grenades, RPG's, body armor, night vision, communications, air support, rations, medics, specially trained snipers, what else - you would know.

[Sparko]

(1)I don't disagree it would be very hard to remove them. That doesn't mean we should not try to limit access to them WRT new purchases, Nor does it mean we should not try to regulate in some way the ownership of the ones that currently are out there.

(2)I doubt seriously we'd ever face 'an invasion' until and unless the H-bombs have flown. Very few global powers can match us otherwise. It then goes back to more an oppressive government of our own.

And It's not that i don't think having gun's might help in that 'government gone berserk' situation, it's just that given the fact our gradually corrupting morals are producing more and more crazies, I'm not sure we can afford that luxury any longer - at least not in its current form.

To that point, I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments. There are realistic, helpful things we can do that will not result in someone invading your home and taking your AR-15s. We should at least stop fighting tooth and nail those sorts of proposals - registration, some sort of monitoring (probably like Driver's licences) where people are subject to periodic safety and mental fitness evaluations and where indications the owners of the most powerful legal weapons have lost it are acted on.



Boots on the ground yes. But with a lot more than just a personal AR-15. Grenades, RPG's, body armor, night vision, communications, air support, rations, medics, specially trained snipers, what else - you would know.

Jim

I think a lot of the police and military would be on the civilian's side and would help arm them rather than disarm them in an actual revolution. But guns are not just for protecting against a rogue government. They are also used for private protection, sporting, and hunting. We have the right to own them and the government doesn't have the right to take them away. That's it. You have no right to tell me what I can own, or try to take away my guns or limit what I have. This is America dammit. Mind your own business and stop trying to tell others what they can and can't own.

[oxmixmudd]

Your idea that AR15s are some especially evil weapon that "can make quick work of a crowd of people" - when in fact any semi-auto handgun or rifle can do the same.

The idea an AR15 can make quick work of a crowd of people is simple fact Sparko. As has been demonstrated time and time again.

A semi-auto handgun can't do the same sparko, at least not without some training and practice. Recoil absorption in the AR15 makes it much easier for the average shooter to maintain his aim in rapid fire succession. But other weapons with sufficient ammunition capacity and recoil absorption, yes they can. And They would need to be on the list too. AR15 is just an example of the type of weapon that needs to be managed.

In fact if you are just trying to "make quick work of a crowd" you could use two handguns and shoot twice as many people in the same time as you could with an AR15.

You might be able to shoot the same number of bullets. Maybe - extended magazine rounds were/are not hard to get for the AR15.

But not as accurately. And not without the muzzle velocity that makes the ammunition so destructive as it passes through the target.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

(1)I don't disagree it would be very hard to remove them. That doesn't mean we should not try to limit access to them WRT new purchases, Nor does it mean we should not try to regulate in some way the ownership of the ones that currently are out there.

(2)I doubt seriously we'd ever face 'an invasion' until and unless the H-bombs have flown. Very few global powers can match us otherwise. It then goes back to more an oppressive government of our own.

And It's not that i don't think having gun's might help in that 'government gone berserk' situation, it's just that given the fact our gradually corrupting morals are producing more and more crazies, I'm not sure we can afford that luxury any longer - at least not in its current form.

To that point, I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments. There are realistic, helpful things we can do that will not result in someone invading your home and taking your AR-15s. We should at least stop fighting tooth and nail those sorts of proposals - registration, some sort of monitoring (probably like Driver's licences) where people are subject to periodic safety and mental fitness evaluations and where indications the owners of the most powerful legal weapons have lost it are acted on.

Boots on the ground yes. But with a lot more than just a personal AR-15. Grenades, RPG's, body armor, night vision, communications, air support, rations, medics, specially trained snipers, what else - you would know.

Jim

[Sparko]

I don't think those civilian resistance units are only holding them off with rifles. They have other, more powerful, weapons - illegal to own or very difficult to acquire.



Not talking about no weapons, just controlling access to the ones that in the wrong hand can make quick work of a crowd of people.



I'm not a person that knows 'little or nothing'. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm stupid, or ignorant. That said, What is the 'your idea' to which you refer?

Jim

Your idea that AR15s are some especially evil weapon that "can make quick work of a crowd of people" - when in fact any semi-auto handgun or rifle can do the same.

In fact if you are just trying to "make quick work of a crowd" you could use two handguns and shoot twice as many people in the same time as you could with an AR15.

[oxmixmudd]

You are wrong. Just look at the Middle East where rebels and civilians have held off our military for decades. Usually a government is reluctant to use tanks and bombs against their own populace. And if civilians did make a stand against an oppressive government, they could use their civilian guns to bootstrap their way up to military grade weapons.

I don't think those civilian resistance units are only holding them off with rifles. They have other, more powerful, weapons - illegal to own or very difficult to acquire.

It is much easier to control a populace who has no weapons. As we have seen in Venezuela and other countries.

Not talking about no weapons, just controlling access to the ones that in the wrong hand can make quick work of a crowd of people.

I am just tired of people who know little to nothing about guns trying to tell the rest of the country how guns should be controlled. Your idea of AR15s is a perfect example.

I'm not a person that knows 'little or nothing'. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm stupid, or ignorant. That said, What is the 'your idea' to which you refer?

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

In a school shooting, a person could do just as much or more damage with any other gun than an AR15. A handgun, shotgun, or any semi-auto rifle. But the AR15 looks like a military weapon so it is evil and must be banned.