JuiceWinslow
Main Eventer
Flair Country
Joined on: Sept 9, 2012 17:32:08 GMT -5
Posts: 2,706
|
Post by JuiceWinslow on Jan 21, 2013 1:49:25 GMT -5
Never felt the need to own or shoot a gun. I don't get it. Whatever floats your boat.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 21, 2013 1:53:57 GMT -5
Never felt the need to own or shoot a gun. I don't get it. Whatever floats your boat. I've never owned one, shot one or even held one.
|
|
|
Post by Word™ on Jan 21, 2013 2:15:21 GMT -5
Guns don't kill people.. People kill people.
|
|
JuiceWinslow
Main Eventer
Flair Country
Joined on: Sept 9, 2012 17:32:08 GMT -5
Posts: 2,706
|
Post by JuiceWinslow on Jan 21, 2013 2:19:33 GMT -5
I honestly don't think there is anything anyone can do to change anything regarding guns in the U.S. People are just crazy... and crazy sh*t happens. It's just the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 21, 2013 8:16:21 GMT -5
Never felt the need to own or shoot a gun. I don't get it. Whatever floats your boat. I've never owned one, shot one or even held one. I shot a BB gun one time. Got nothing out of it and wasn't any good at it either. That is the extent of my firearms experience. Fortunately for me, my bare hands are lethal weapons.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Specific on Jan 21, 2013 8:33:07 GMT -5
I've never owned one, shot one or even held one. I shot a BB gun one time. Got nothing out of it and wasn't any good at it either. That is the extent of my firearms experience. Fortunately for me, my bare hands are lethal weapons. Beware. One day Obama may want to chop off one of your hands to regulate lethal bare hand weapons.
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Jan 21, 2013 12:54:28 GMT -5
So here's my question. Whether the guns are obtained legally or not...how many children dying is enough to make it harder to get the guns? How many movie theatre massacres must take place before these shootings stop? How long are we going to ignore mental health in this country? Since harshest everyone wants to blame it on. "He wasn't mentally stable" and that's the end of the discussion. If all these shooters are mentally unstable, and their parents have guns in the hi one, maybe there should be laws - like in Japan - that require guns to be locked up with ammunition stored and locked away separately. That's all that anyone is saying. Regulations. Never once has there been a single person in DC trying to ban and confiscate all guns. I swear, only in America, do the words "gun regulation" translate "we're-a takin' all a yo gunz!!!!"
|
|
|
Post by wabarrett on Jan 21, 2013 13:37:20 GMT -5
So here's my question. Whether the guns are obtained legally or not...how many children dying is enough to make it harder to get the guns? How many movie theatre massacres must take place before these shootings stop? How long are we going to ignore mental health in this country? Since harshest everyone wants to blame it on. "He wasn't mentally stable" and that's the end of the discussion. If all these shooters are mentally unstable, and their parents have guns in the hi one, maybe there should be laws - like in Japan - that require guns to be locked up with ammunition stored and locked away separately. That's all that anyone is saying. Regulations. Never once has there been a single person in DC trying to ban and confiscate all guns. I swear, only in America, do the words "gun regulation" translate "we're-a takin' all a yo gunz!!!!" Well said. Far too many nutters putting people's lives at risk. If making guns harder to get hold of is the only way of having a hope in hell of preventing/ reducing that, then so be it IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Suckasays on Jan 21, 2013 14:05:39 GMT -5
sigh...
Guns...guns guns. So tired of this same old argument that continues to just go in a circle with the exact same comments 5-500 times each.
|
|
BigEvilNerd
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 15, 2003 17:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 4,659
|
Post by BigEvilNerd on Jan 21, 2013 14:24:21 GMT -5
I just got done typing this reply to the other thread about guns in this forum and by the time I hit submit, the thread was locked. Because I'm too lazy to type up another one, here it is again: Ah yes, we're 3 pages in and we've already had just about every usual insipid argument against gun ownership....many of them from people who have admitted they know little to nothing about guns. I'm impressed with Slappy's defenses because he's approaching it from the standpoint of someone who isn't even a gun owner, but he can still see the problem with trying to legislate these problems away. With regards to the people shot on gun appreciation day....yeah, it's not the best face to put on the gun rights movement. That's part of the problem with ANY movement....there are going to be well-spoken, well-intentioned, and well-educated people who are on your side, and there are going to be some incompetent people as well. People that you wish would just shut their mouths and please allow the people who represent the real, sensible majority to do the talking. But the media doesn't find those kind of people interesting. The media finds imbeciles and nutjobs interesting, so that's what you're going to see and read about. Just some points to consider: 1. Nearly 90 million U.S. households own at least one firearm. That's a huge, huge slice of the electorate and a powerful voice, if united. From a strictly pragmatic sense, large-scale confiscation would be almost completely impossible to enforce. which leads me to: 2. Large-scale sweeping confiscation is probably never going to be put forward as a legislative initiative. It's too impractical, it's too hard, and it's pretty much guaranteed political suicide for whoever proposes it. That's why incremental erosion of gun ownership rights is the only way those with an anti-gun agenda are going to be able to accomplish what they're after. It starts with banning the 'scary looking' guns. It starts with high-cap magazine restrictions. And it starts with firearm registration. Once those are in place, it's more of a cakewalk to take more and more pieces out of the pie. 3. People need to wise the up about what an AR-15 is. People look at an AR-15 and think it's a full-auto, select-fire type "machine gun" like they've seen in a thousand movies. Guess what folks: an AR-15 and a Ruger 10/22 are basically functionally identical. Difference is: one has an unassuming wood stock and no pistol grip. The other has a polymer stock, pistol grips, and a TERRIBLE FOLDING STOCK. OH MY GOD A FOLDING STOCK. BAN IT. Again, gun legislation is argued and implemented by people with ZERO knowledge of firearms. 4. People also need to understand the whole "you don't NEED_____" argument and why it is fallacious. I could make that very same argument against a huge number of items but you'd call me patently absurd. You might even call me on infringement of your rights. I might say "You don't NEED to have a V8 engine in your car. A more efficient V6 would get you where you're going just as well." You'd laugh at me if I suggested that because it definitely appears to be stepping over the boundary of infringing on your right to choose what you want to own. Guns shouldn't be treated any differently. I don't feel anyone has the right to tell me what I NEED. I'll be the judge of that. 5. Gun owners and people who feel passionately about gun rights are not all right-wing tinfoil-hat weirdos living in a shack somewhere. I feel very strongly about this issue. I own several guns. I like to shoot and hunt. I also carry a firearm on my person. But most people would look at my suite of political and social opinions and call them reasonably moderate. Some would even paint me as a liberal on many issues. I don't like political party labels but the point remains: gun owners are by-and-large a sensible but silent majority in this nation. 6. I ABSOLUTELY am in favor of any laws, actions, ordinances, that help get people with mental instability the help they need, and get it fast. I'm also in favor of making sure these people are thoroughly and completely screened if they try and acquire firearms. The good news is, a lot of this can be helped along by simply more strictly enforcing the laws WE ALREADY HAVE. Let's do this right. Let's not go knee-jerk on the bit and start doing things everyone will regret.
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Jan 21, 2013 16:10:12 GMT -5
Ah yes, we're 3 pages in and we've already had just about every usual insipid argument against gun ownership... This made me lose interest in anything else you had to say. Why is being anti-gun insipid and yet being pro-gun is so reasonable? I'm impressed with Slappy's defenses because he's approaching it from the standpoint of someone who isn't even a gun owner, but he can still see the problem with trying to legislate these problems away. You're impressed, because he's on your side? None of the proposed legislation was anything unreasonable, and yet the NRA is against it, because they have gotten away with lax laws for so long they don't want to have any sort of regulation imposed - on weapons which make it easier for people to murder.
|
|
BigEvilNerd
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 15, 2003 17:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 4,659
|
Post by BigEvilNerd on Jan 21, 2013 16:22:07 GMT -5
Ah yes, we're 3 pages in and we've already had just about every usual insipid argument against gun ownership... This made me lose interest in anything else you had to say. Why is being anti-gun insipid and yet being pro-gun is so reasonable? I'm impressed with Slappy's defenses because he's approaching it from the standpoint of someone who isn't even a gun owner, but he can still see the problem with trying to legislate these problems away. You're impressed, because he's on your side? None of the proposed legislation was anything unreasonable, and yet the NRA is against it, because they have gotten away with lax laws for so long they don't want to have any sort of regulation imposed - on weapons which make it easier for people to murder. The reason I am impressed by his reasoning is twofold; yes I agree with him, but more than that it's like I said: usually people making the case for gun ownership do it from a position like mine where they are gun owners and obviously have skin in the game. He doesn't, so I was pointing out that you don't even have to be a gun owner to see that side of the issue. And I'll say something about the NRA: I think the NRA is a bloated, stupid special interest group that really has gotten way afield from its purported purpose of serving the rights and interests of gun owners. They're just as open to corruption and idiocy as any other lobbying group. I tend not to be solidly in their corner all that often. As for the arguments against gun ownership, I'm trying to say that many of the so called reasonable points being brought up by the opposition come from a position of ignorance. I just think there's a lot of knee-jerk 'guns are bad' that tends to come out from these people and there's a lot less careful, considered opinion on the subject. I say this knowing full-well that there is a contingent of pro-gun advocates out there that I would consider equally knee-jerk. Those are people I resent as well for putting a bad face on the gun rights movement. In much the same way I would imagine you'd feel if someone came forward making particularly asinine arguments against gun ownership, even if you are fundamentally on the same side. I'll be the first to admit, I can get emotionally invested in this debate. It's no different than any other sociopolitical hot button topic you care to mention, but I feel strongly enough to make the arguments nonetheless. I'm sure you and plenty of other people find my opinions and points misguided and ridiculous, and that's the great thing about any argument...there are two sides and everyone's entitled to participate.
|
|
|
Post by Ben - #6 Munchie on Jan 21, 2013 16:50:49 GMT -5
I have an official thread
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 21, 2013 17:13:39 GMT -5
No one has proposed large scale confiscation. To my knowledge, it's never ever been proposed by anyone with any sort of legitimacy. Why do gun owners always go to that well?
|
|
BigEvilNerd
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 15, 2003 17:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 4,659
|
Post by BigEvilNerd on Jan 21, 2013 17:20:37 GMT -5
No one has proposed large scale confiscation. To my knowledge, it's never ever been proposed by anyone with any sort of legitimacy. Why do gun owners always go to that well? Because fearmongering is much easier than fact finding. I have never in my life, and never will, believe that the government will ever propose a sweeping large-scale confiscation. I definitely agree it's a far-fetched and preposterous idea. Incremental reductions in the number, type, and manner of weapons you're "allowed" to own? We can see that happening before our eyes.
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Jan 21, 2013 18:09:20 GMT -5
No one has proposed large scale confiscation. To my knowledge, it's never ever been proposed by anyone with any sort of legitimacy. Why do gun owners always go to that well? It actually was one of the proposed Democrat bills for the NY SAFE act
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 21, 2013 18:15:25 GMT -5
|
|
BigEvilNerd
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 15, 2003 17:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 4,659
|
Post by BigEvilNerd on Jan 21, 2013 18:28:57 GMT -5
No one has proposed large scale confiscation. To my knowledge, it's never ever been proposed by anyone with any sort of legitimacy. Why do gun owners always go to that well? It actually was one of the proposed Democrat bills for the NY SAFE act I am surprised I never heard of this legislation before. For those who are interested: www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/NYSAFE-Fact-Sheet.pdfI found the part about magazine restrictions particularly interesting. If you own a > 10 round magazine, you would be required to " surrender it to law enforcement within a year." There's also quite a bit of 'registration' language in there as well. Glad I don't live in NY....
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Jan 21, 2013 18:29:48 GMT -5
No one has proposed large scale confiscation. To my knowledge, it's never ever been proposed by anyone with any sort of legitimacy. Why do gun owners always go to that well? It actually was one of the proposed Democrat bills for the NY SAFE act
|
|
BigEvilNerd
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 15, 2003 17:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 4,659
|
Post by BigEvilNerd on Jan 21, 2013 18:49:13 GMT -5
It actually was one of the proposed Democrat bills for the NY SAFE act The exchange at the beginning of that first video sums it all up. He asks why they dropped the magazine limit from 10 to 7. The response was to "limit the number of people you could illegally kill." Then when asked about a home defense scenario, the bill's proponent responds with "change the clip, then." So....you want to drop the magazine limit to 7, on the assumption that you're limiting people's ability to go on a shooting rampage (false) and then you turn around and basically shoot your own argument in the foot by arguing that it is easy to just change magazines and keep going. Why the hell change the mag limit in the first place then? Jesus. It's changing laws for the sake of changing laws.
|
|