Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Guns

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    I think one of the problems is the extremists on both sides.

    Gun enthusiasts, or "2nd amendment advocates" resist ANY regulation, citing the slippery slope argument -- ANY regulation is just the beginning of complete ban.
    On the other hand, there are gun control advocates who seem to want absolute control - even NO gun ownership.

    Personally, I have no problem with requirements for safety.
    The problem here is that if you are going to use a gun for personal safety, it needs to be easily accessible, yet safe from children.

    When my children were small, I had my .357 ruger with a trigger lock that could be released by adult type pressure -- it took some strength to remove the trigger lock, but an adult could do it quickly and easily. A child, not so much.
    Now, that would be ON TOP of keeping the gun in a safe place.

    I think something that freaks out some of the gun control advocates is the notion of allowing children to SEE the guns, and explain to them what they can do.
    I took my kids to the gun range with me, and taught them respect for what the gun could do.

    It's curiosity, too many times, that causes children to seek out the gun that they have not been allowed to see or touch, and those encounters often end quite badly.

    As with so many controversial subjects, what is needed is some common sense and middle ground, but that's so hard to achieve.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #62
      Just as a quick aside.....

      My oldest daughter, when we went to the gun range, thought the noise of the gunshot was HORRIBLE, even with hearing protection, and was absolutely "turned off" to guns. For the longest time, she didn't want to be around them, or have them anywhere around her.

      My youngest daughter (4 years younger almost to the day ) took to guns like a duck to water, INCLUDING a full appreciation for the need for safety. At one point, she was actually my assistant gun range safety officer when I was in competition shooting.

      BOTH of them, however, fully realized what a gun could do, and were allowed to decide accordingly.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        I had to ponder this for a while. Life carries with it dangers. If you are careless the dangers are greater. Is it desirable for state to eliminate all danger. I see the responsibility of the state to protection from outside and from criminal behavior. I am not a smoker, but I do not see the outlawing of tobacco as a role the state should have. I see the drug problems in the US and I see a situation caused by the existence of laws against drugs. We are now in a state where removing those laws will definitely cause great problems. The over reaching of government has been overall more harmful than helpful. Careless use of guns is far less of a problem than careless use of cars, for example. Less government is better. I apply that to gun laws.
        I'm not sure I entirely understand this view. Back in the early 90s, I was a associated with the anarcho-punk scene, and they wanted less government as well. But the views and goals of those people I know who are still into the anracho scene are polar opposite to conservatives I know who also advocate for "less government". It seems like what many people mean by "I want less government", is that they want less government in the things they support, but more government in the things they don't support, but maybe that's true for a lot of non-conservatives as well, even if they don't actually say so in so many words. Is more government inherently bad? Certain nations that have a lot more government than we do seem to be better off than we are. Then again, there are some nations that seem to flourish where government is less restricted.

        Personally, like you (I think), I have less of an issue with more government involvement in the drug war (papers on the subject seem to suggest that prohibition of alcohol, for instance, was largely effective http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/), but (maybe its a holdover from my anarcho days) I'm also sympathetic to the idea of less governance.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          I'm not sure I entirely understand this view. Back in the early 90s, I was a associated with the anarcho-punk scene, and they wanted less government as well. But the views and goals of those people I know who are still into the anracho scene are polar opposite to conservatives I know who also advocate for "less government". It seems like what many people mean by "I want less government", is that they want less government in the things they support, but more government in the things they don't support, but maybe that's true for a lot of non-conservatives as well, even if they don't actually say so in so many words. Is more government inherently bad? Certain nations that have a lot more government than we do seem to be better off than we are. Then again, there are some nations that seem to flourish where government is less restricted.

          Personally, like you (I think), I have less of an issue with more government involvement in the drug war (papers on the subject seem to suggest that prohibition of alcohol, for instance, was largely effective http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/), but (maybe its a holdover from my anarcho days) I'm also sympathetic to the idea of less governance.
          For me, it's more about LOCAL government. To quote Eddy Chiles, "I think the FEDERAL government ought to defend our shores, deliver our mail and leave us alone!"

          Seriously, though, I FAR more like the idea of going down to "city hall" and giving the law makers an earful than contending with the idiots in DC who seem all too often to go to "the highest bidder".
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            I think one of the problems is the extremists on both sides.

            Gun enthusiasts, or "2nd amendment advocates" resist ANY regulation, citing the slippery slope argument -- ANY regulation is just the beginning of complete ban.
            On the other hand, there are gun control advocates who seem to want absolute control - even NO gun ownership.

            Personally, I have no problem with requirements for safety.
            The problem here is that if you are going to use a gun for personal safety, it needs to be easily accessible, yet safe from children.

            When my children were small, I had my .357 ruger with a trigger lock that could be released by adult type pressure -- it took some strength to remove the trigger lock, but an adult could do it quickly and easily. A child, not so much.
            Now, that would be ON TOP of keeping the gun in a safe place.

            I think something that freaks out some of the gun control advocates is the notion of allowing children to SEE the guns, and explain to them what they can do.
            I took my kids to the gun range with me, and taught them respect for what the gun could do.

            It's curiosity, too many times, that causes children to seek out the gun that they have not been allowed to see or touch, and those encounters often end quite badly.

            As with so many controversial subjects, what is needed is some common sense and middle ground, but that's so hard to achieve.
            There is always going to be those people who sleep with a loaded gun under their pillow with no locks. And its a fact that people who shouldn't have guns are going to have access to them under current regulations. It does seem logical to me that if we were to place a ban on guns entirely, that eventually (maybe not today, maybe not in 50 years) gun violence would eventually begin to fade. I often hear about the wrong people getting guns through the black market, but in a nation with very strict gun laws, even acquiring weapons through those means would be much harder, much more expensive than the current system. Like many things in America, the system is broke. The solution, to my mind, is dispelling the cultural underpinning of gun mania, but I have no doubt that that would prove extremely complicated, if not downright impossible. Maybe if we made guns uncool like we have cigarette smoking within the last 30 years or so, but who wants to watch a good action flick without guns?

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              For me, it's more about LOCAL government. To quote Eddy Chiles, "I think the FEDERAL government ought to defend our shores, deliver our mail and leave us alone!"

              Seriously, though, I FAR more like the idea of going down to "city hall" and giving the law makers an earful than contending with the idiots in DC who seem all too often to go to "the highest bidder".
              I hear ya. I don't vote, but if I did, I'd probably vote for Ron Paul and his son. I like their ideas on local government. That said, I ain't got much room to complain about these things since I don't participate in the process.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                There is always going to be those people who sleep with a loaded gun under their pillow with no locks.
                Yeah, and I think that's just dumb -- particularly if it's a semi-auto.

                And its a fact that people who shouldn't have guns are going to have access to them under current regulations. It does seem logical to me that if we were to place a ban on guns entirely, that eventually (maybe not today, maybe not in 50 years) gun violence would eventually begin to fade.
                As much as it sounds like a bad cliche, the criminals are not going to give up THEIR guns.... so, there's a recipe for disaster.

                I often hear about the wrong people getting guns through the black market, but in a nation with very strict gun laws, even acquiring weapons through those means would be much harder, much more expensive than the current system.
                I honestly don't think that's achievable. There are just WAY too many guns, and this is like the drug war -- we focus on eliminating the supply rather than the demand. And, where there is a demand, those who are doing the demanding will find a supply.

                Like many things in America, the system is broke. The solution, to my mind, is dispelling the cultural underpinning of gun mania, but I have no doubt that that would prove extremely complicated, if not downright impossible. Maybe if we made guns uncool like we have cigarette smoking within the last 30 years or so, but who wants to watch a good action flick without guns?
                And, therein lies the problem.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Gun enthusiasts, or "2nd amendment advocates" resist ANY regulation, citing the slippery slope argument -- ANY regulation is just the beginning of complete ban.
                  Can you blame them? Liberal infestation has succeeded on nearly every other issue precisely because they play the "bit by bit" game so well. Conservatives may be on the defense on this issue but the main reason why the defense held is because for once they realize what's at stake and fully understand how their enemy operates.
                  "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                  There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    As much as it sounds like a bad cliche, the criminals are not going to give up THEIR guns.... so, there's a recipe for disaster.
                    In my opinion, if you make guns illegal, eventually (maybe in many many years) the guns that exist today are going to be fail. You take guns off the market today, and it will make guns more difficult for criminals to obtain. They may never be impossible to obtain, but they will likely be harder to obtain. I don't agree that that is a recipe for disaster, but we may just have to agree to disagree on that matter.

                    I honestly don't think that's achievable. There are just WAY too many guns, and this is like the drug war -- we focus on eliminating the supply rather than the demand. And, where there is a demand, those who are doing the demanding will find a supply.
                    Like the paper I linked to seems to indicate, prohibition did work to varying degrees. Is it achievable in this day in age? I agree with you, it probably isn't. There's just too much strife on the matter. Both criminals and law abiding folk would rather die than give up on gun culture. That's why I think getting to the root of the issue is the only solution, if we really want a solution, but I'm convinced that most people in America don't want a solution. We're a nation that likes to argue about these things, but rarely do we act.

                    And, therein lies the problem.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                      Can you blame them? Liberal infestation has succeeded on nearly every other issue precisely because they play the "bit by bit" game so well. Conservatives may be on the defense on this issue but the main reason why the defense held is because for once they realize what's at stake and fully understand how their enemy operates.
                      What I find very bizarre is that, unlike, say, drug laws, guns law deregulation seems to be growing in liberal circles. If you read enough largely liberal websites (Reddit is an example that comes to mind), the two topics that seem to be swinging wildly in the opposite direction among young liberals is guns and nuclear energy. When I was a young guy, liberals, as a rule, wanted very harsh federal restrictions on weapons, and on nuclear energy, but to my surprise, that's no longer the case. I guess the voice of the baby boomer hippy generation is beginning to die out, and is being replaced by young blood.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        In my opinion, if you make guns illegal, eventually (maybe in many many years) the guns that exist today are going to be fail. You take guns off the market today, and it will make guns more difficult for criminals to obtain. They may never be impossible to obtain, but they will likely be harder to obtain. I don't agree that that is a recipe for disaster, but we may just have to agree to disagree on that matter.



                        Like the paper I linked to seems to indicate, prohibition did work to varying degrees. Is it achievable in this day in age? I agree with you, it probably isn't. There's just too much strife on the matter. Both criminals and law abiding folk would rather die than give up on gun culture. That's why I think getting to the root of the issue is the only solution, if we really want a solution, but I'm convinced that most people in America don't want a solution. We're a nation that likes to argue about these things, but rarely do we act.



                        Surprisingly enough for a demon liberal, I recognise the US is never going to get rid of its guns. I don't believe they should. I do think that buying a gun ought to be uniformly regulated with decent background checks. I think handguns ought to be restricted to a few limited categories. If you really are in imminent fear for your life, by all means sleep with a rifle by your bed and a magazine handy but not accessible to children. BTW, if your community is as dangerous as this, you have already left civilisation and are living in the wild west.

                        Here in Oz, for our cars to be registered, they need to pass a 'roadworthy' certification process. Further, if stopped by police, they can and do examine your car for safety issues including tyres and lights. Would it be feasible to have something similar for guns? Maybe having 'safe gun handling classes as mandatory with an exam to pass to own? I don't know, I'm just guessing here.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                          Surprisingly enough for a demon liberal
                          You ain't no demon.

                          Here in Oz, for our cars to be registered, they need to pass a 'roadworthy' certification process. Further, if stopped by police, they can and do examine your car for safety issues including tyres and lights. Would it be feasible to have something similar for guns? Maybe having 'safe gun handling classes as mandatory with an exam to pass to own? I don't know, I'm just guessing here.
                          Here in America some states require car inspections, some don't. I've lived in both. Its up to the state. CP's idea of leaving it up the state could be applied to weapons same as they are for cars. Big distinction to me between guns and cars is intended purpose. Cars are intended mainly to get from point A to B. Weapons are intended mainly to kill people or animals. Both can be used for other purposes, whether that's for racing at a track, or shooting targets, but they have an intended purpose. From a purely apologetic standpoint, I wonder if Natural Law should be applied to inanimate objects same as animate ones.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            In my opinion, if you make guns illegal, eventually (maybe in many many years) the guns that exist today are going to be fail. You take guns off the market today, and it will make guns more difficult for criminals to obtain. They may never be impossible to obtain, but they will likely be harder to obtain. I don't agree that that is a recipe for disaster, but we may just have to agree to disagree on that matter.
                            I have to disagree with you, brother... every town has their meth labs where enterprising criminals produce the drugs that have been made "illegal". With today's technology, you can actually "print" guns from composite materials, and just about any machine shop can manufacture a gun. Guns will still have to be available for police and military, and those guns don't always stay in police or military control. Plus, many of the former soviet states manufacture guns by the millions, either legally under license, or they make a slight variation and produce their own models. I can't see guns going away for many many years.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                              Here in Oz, for our cars to be registered, they need to pass a 'roadworthy' certification process. Further, if stopped by police, they can and do examine your car for safety issues including tyres and lights. Would it be feasible to have something similar for guns? Maybe having 'safe gun handling classes as mandatory with an exam to pass to own? I don't know, I'm just guessing here.
                              In Texas, the concealed license course is MAINLY about safety and litigation. Sure, there's a portion on the range where you have to prove you can safely handle and fire your weapon, but the vast majority of the course is about when NOT to use your handgun.

                              There is always the argument, however, that taking that course is tantamount to "registering your weapon" which is not acceptable to many 2nd amendment proponents.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                You ain't no demon.



                                Here in America some states require car inspections, some don't. I've lived in both. Its up to the state. CP's idea of leaving it up the state could be applied to weapons same as they are for cars. Big distinction to me between guns and cars is intended purpose. Cars are intended mainly to get from point A to B. Weapons are intended mainly to kill people or animals. Both can be used for other purposes, whether that's for racing at a track, or shooting targets, but they have an intended purpose. From a purely apologetic standpoint, I wonder if Natural Law should be applied to inanimate objects same as animate ones.
                                It's a shame many of you guys are so suspicious of your federal government. Wouldn't be a good idea to have uniform gun laws across the nation?

                                I totally agree with your comments about the design of guns. They are intended to hurt people, and hurt people with little effort. Even knives and hatchets have a multitude of other intended purposes.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                291 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X