Is the right to bear arms outdated.
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
That apply to your kid who at age 17 does something stupid and points a gun at another kid at a party and takes his wallet?
50 years, no questions asked right?
Why doesn't any bring up how many lives are saved by guns each year? I heard a statement recently, but since I can't verify it, I won't quote it.
Thank you for bringing up the mother. Isn't it near always the parents that are the problem? If you watch the nany 911 show or the dog whisperer, they both focus on the parent/owner and that fixes the problem. Maybe we need to have as strict rules for procreation equal in difficulty as it is to get a concealed weapons permit.
Thank you for bringing up the mother. Isn't it near always the parents that are the problem? If you watch the nany 911 show or the dog whisperer, they both focus on the parent/owner and that fixes the problem. Maybe we need to have as strict rules for procreation equal in difficulty as it is to get a concealed weapons permit.
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
Why does gun ownership have to include assault weapons?
Every side of this debate will cite stats from other cultures and other countries to prove their points. I don't think data from Israel, or Switzerland, or any other country has anything to do with us. All of us know perfectly well that all that data will be distorted and fudged to prove any point the prover wants it to make.
Look this isn't about having NO firearm-related deaths- homicides, suicides, accidents, the works. It's about having FEWER deaths. We all know that people are going to keep blowing each other away in this country. It seems to be part of who we are.
If you take as a given that there are going to be a certain number of crazy people living with us, who WILL do this kind of thing (and by "this kind of thing" I mean Aurora, Newtown, and all the rest of these awful stories), then we are obligated to prevent them from having the means to carry out their worst impulses. That means a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammo clips, and high-energy ammo. It also means an amnesty period where people can turn them in, or they get bought back or whatever. After that, they are illegal and it's a felony to have them.
Why is this so hard to understand? People like me aren't suggesting that all firearms should be illegal. I am suggesting that ASSAULT WEAPONS and the hardware that goes with them should be illegal.
Look- a crazy person with a handgun may kill five or six people if he's a good shot. A crazy person will an AR-15 may kill two dozen or more. Until you reduce the supply of crazy homicidal people to zero, the next best thing is to reduce their means to act on their evil impulses.
And if banning assault weapons somehow makes me less safe- okay, I'll accept that. But I think that proposition is bullshit. This isn't s safe country, we've learned it over and over, and one of the reasons it ISN'T safe is that there are too many assault weapons out there. We'd all be a lot safer if they weren't available to anyone except the military and law enforcement.
If you can't defend your home with a shotgun or a S&W revolver, then you don't need an AR-15- you need to go to the range and practice. You need to work harder at learning to use the gun you already have.
Every side of this debate will cite stats from other cultures and other countries to prove their points. I don't think data from Israel, or Switzerland, or any other country has anything to do with us. All of us know perfectly well that all that data will be distorted and fudged to prove any point the prover wants it to make.
Look this isn't about having NO firearm-related deaths- homicides, suicides, accidents, the works. It's about having FEWER deaths. We all know that people are going to keep blowing each other away in this country. It seems to be part of who we are.
If you take as a given that there are going to be a certain number of crazy people living with us, who WILL do this kind of thing (and by "this kind of thing" I mean Aurora, Newtown, and all the rest of these awful stories), then we are obligated to prevent them from having the means to carry out their worst impulses. That means a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammo clips, and high-energy ammo. It also means an amnesty period where people can turn them in, or they get bought back or whatever. After that, they are illegal and it's a felony to have them.
Why is this so hard to understand? People like me aren't suggesting that all firearms should be illegal. I am suggesting that ASSAULT WEAPONS and the hardware that goes with them should be illegal.
Look- a crazy person with a handgun may kill five or six people if he's a good shot. A crazy person will an AR-15 may kill two dozen or more. Until you reduce the supply of crazy homicidal people to zero, the next best thing is to reduce their means to act on their evil impulses.
And if banning assault weapons somehow makes me less safe- okay, I'll accept that. But I think that proposition is bullshit. This isn't s safe country, we've learned it over and over, and one of the reasons it ISN'T safe is that there are too many assault weapons out there. We'd all be a lot safer if they weren't available to anyone except the military and law enforcement.
If you can't defend your home with a shotgun or a S&W revolver, then you don't need an AR-15- you need to go to the range and practice. You need to work harder at learning to use the gun you already have.
I'm sure Germans felt the same way circa 1938. Same with Russia, Turkey...etc. etc.
It's hard for me to believe someone living in NC feels as you do although Raleigh is far more liberal than most of the state for sure.
So I was going to let this go but after Jim's comments I just can't. So Jim what you are saying is that since you don't see any value/reason/fun in shooting an "assualt" rifle then nobody should own one? Talk about B.S. So I think that anyone that drives anything that is not electric or get's 42+ MPG should have to turn them in because they are only going to be used by recless people and put people in danger!!! These cars should only be used on a race track by professional drivers that can handle it and it's stupid and irresponsible to even want to drive something so dangerous on the street. Can you see that it never stops once you start down that road? Because you have no desire or fondness to do something dose not mean everyone feels the same, please don't determine what I can and can't do because you have no interest in it! For the moment we still live in a free society, can we please keep it that way... We in America can fly, drive, shoot and play with almost anything we want and it's determined by whae the person doing the activity decides they want to do.
Steve
Steve
Jim Craik,
are you not bothered by all the deaths caused by drinking and driving? Cell phone use while driving? Applying make up while driving? Street racing by kids on the road? I don't see anyone asking the government to go after these problems aggressively and they cause far more deaths every year.
are you not bothered by all the deaths caused by drinking and driving? Cell phone use while driving? Applying make up while driving? Street racing by kids on the road? I don't see anyone asking the government to go after these problems aggressively and they cause far more deaths every year.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Steve, I know you have heard this before, maybe this time you will pay attention.
Cars and cell phones are not designed to intimidate and kill, are they? Yes we have banned drinking and driving, with strict punishment for those who ignore the law. Reckless driving is banned, street racing, also banned. Typically we ban things that kill, the inocent, don't we?
Steve, all the examples of horrible ways to kill you gave, have been banned, except guns! What's your point?
Do you think that drunk driving, reckless driving and street racing should be legal?
********************
I will ask you again, if guns make you safer, why do we have by far the most gun murders?
Cars and cell phones are not designed to intimidate and kill, are they? Yes we have banned drinking and driving, with strict punishment for those who ignore the law. Reckless driving is banned, street racing, also banned. Typically we ban things that kill, the inocent, don't we?
Steve, all the examples of horrible ways to kill you gave, have been banned, except guns! What's your point?
Do you think that drunk driving, reckless driving and street racing should be legal?
********************
I will ask you again, if guns make you safer, why do we have by far the most gun murders?
Last edited:
Listen we are not china so a license or the sort for bearing a child is a no go over here. What we need is for people to stop being their kids friends and start to be parents again. I for one think we should beat our kids again. As a kid I knew once the belt came out shit was about to get real and if I didn't stop my nonsense I was not going to like outcome. Kids today have NO respect or fear for their parents and thus crap on them every chance they get. Smack the taste out of their mouth once publicly and watch how fast they snap in line. There is a reason that since the pussification of our country (I'd say early 2000's when the stupid f-ing participation awards became popular along with that political correctness sh!t) we are starting to see more of this and lets face it it's only going to get worse unless we as a people realize that we need to change and revert back to what worked and made us great. BEAT YOUR DAMN KID (I'm kidding ...... sort of)
P.S. any of you remember what a switch was or for my Spanish brethren a chankleta and if so ask yourself if you would ever get out of line with grams!!!!
P.S. any of you remember what a switch was or for my Spanish brethren a chankleta and if so ask yourself if you would ever get out of line with grams!!!!
Now lets adress the IDIOTIC idea that limiting clip capaity is going to change anything. You obviously have NEVER shot a gun before because with quick change clips for a simple 6 shooter you would be amazed at the reload speed one could attain. See this is another case of those who have no clue what they are talking about trying to dictate to those that do how they should conduct themselves. Better to just say that you have no clue what you are talking about and leave it at that. Remember that under your idiotic stance one would be limited to a specific number of rounds per clip but not how many clips you could carry so what's the point? This should shut this argument down and quick
Revolver Reload with Speed Loaders - YouTube
Notice that was just a simple 6 shooter so please if you have no idea what you are speaking about just don't post because you look foolish spewing nonsense.
Revolver Reload with Speed Loaders - YouTube
Notice that was just a simple 6 shooter so please if you have no idea what you are speaking about just don't post because you look foolish spewing nonsense.
To an extent I think it is. As a conservative, I am more worried about the 2 to 2.5 million violent crimes law abiding armed citizens prevent each and every year in the US.
I am also more worried how that when we rely on the police to respond we have about 5 times the number of deaths occur in a mass killing than when an armed citizen intervenes.
I guess liberals don't care about lives...they just want to push their anti-gun agenda.
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Darrin,
The statistics prove absolutliy, more guns more murder. In the US we have more guns per capita and more gun murder. That's a fact!
In Japan, they have very very few guns and almost no gun murders. But Keith says that the Japanese are very respectful people..............
But tell that to people who faced them in WWII, then they were blood thirsty, vicious, killers, but of course that's when they were all given guns.
The statistics prove absolutliy, more guns more murder. In the US we have more guns per capita and more gun murder. That's a fact!
In Japan, they have very very few guns and almost no gun murders. But Keith says that the Japanese are very respectful people..............
But tell that to people who faced them in WWII, then they were blood thirsty, vicious, killers, but of course that's when they were all given guns.
Actually, per capita, we are 8th on the list...not first.
If you want to go there, doctors kill hundreds of thousands a year more than guns. Yes, I know they don't mean too, but then again guns don't mean to either. They are inanimate objects...they are not evil...they are merely a tool that can be used for good or bad depending on who is using them. My suggestion to you is to arm yourself and get proficient and stop trying to take lives by wanting to deny the weak the ability to protect themselves.
Jim, are you suggesting that our drunk driving laws are effictive? I think we need to agree to disagree because we are not even on the same planet! 10,300+ deaths in 2010 due to drunk drivers would say you are totally clueless and dont understand at all what I'm trying to say. We have had a very sad and terrible thing happin and as is so often the case people over react and jump to lets ban guns and solve all these problems. We have had bans like this before and they have never worked and nerver will. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. As far as our laws (not federal mandated bans) on drunk driving, any Attorney worth a crap can get you off, it just takes $$$$$. Our laws don't work because the penilties are not strictly enforced and not tough enough. I could go on but it's a waste of time at this point, we are never going to agree on this.
Steve
Steve
Jim - you keep bringing up that chart but it doesn't say where or under what situations these crimes were committed. I am NOT defending assault weapons or high count magazines or anything else. I AM a gun owner who hopes to pass from this life having never to take the safety off or draw it from the holster. As a combat veteran, I have had the ethically and morally difficult choice of having to take human lives thrust upon me. I know what it means to kill a human being and it haunts me everyday....... but we are talking about gun users with no conscience, no moral code or , in these cases, mental states so far off base that they no longer have the ability to differentiate morally or ethically correct behavior. Fanatics are, by and large, unstoppable. In these recent cases the main cause is the lack of recognizing the potential for violence in the would be aggressor. A secondary cause is irresponsible care by the gun owner, i.e., unsecured weapons, not the legal purchase of the gun.
Your 'chart' fails to take into account the extremely high gun related crime in cities with high drug traffic. These crimes are committed by thugs who don't care one bit about whether the gun is legal, who they robbed or killed to get it, or who they kill with it. It is simply a business tool. Face it, the criminals don't give a shit about ANY laws, gun or anything else - that's why they're criminals. I was brought up in one of these neighborhoods in case you were wondering if I was talking without benefit of first-hand experience. Thank God for the oppotunity to leave. The murder rate is disproportionate to the suburbs or rural areas. Your 'chart' would have everyone believe the entiire U.S. is just one blazing hotbed of gun violence. I know you do not intend to present it as such, but you have to admit the drug trade in the inner cities breeds most of this statistical result. There are so many illegal guns in these areas it would be years and years before law enforcement could make a dent in the numbers on the street. Can the rest of us wait that long for the playing field to be leveled? Again, look at Chicago and the rest of Illinois - did the prohibition of handguns there eliminate any gun violence - answer is a fat NO, it's worse than anywhere else. And why isn't the rate of such crime much higher in a state like Vermont where no license is required and open carry is the rule, than it is in Illinois? How does that fit into your chart? Please look at realistic solutions to this problem. Yes, we need to recognize someone's potential for extreme violence and take the necessary steps, always a difficult call. No, we don't need 30 round clips for our hunting rifles or handguns. Yes, we need a standardized, equal set of requirements to own a handgun. Yes, certain assault weapons, those with extreme capacity, should be reviewed for legality. But NO, eliminating all private ownership will not make this problem go away. None of this will bring back any of the 26 children and adults in Newton,CT but well thought-out solutions wil go a long way toward eliminating the 'Next" time. Finally - Jim, I am not disagreeing with you that something has to be done. I respect your opinion and willingness to find answers and solutions.
Your 'chart' fails to take into account the extremely high gun related crime in cities with high drug traffic. These crimes are committed by thugs who don't care one bit about whether the gun is legal, who they robbed or killed to get it, or who they kill with it. It is simply a business tool. Face it, the criminals don't give a shit about ANY laws, gun or anything else - that's why they're criminals. I was brought up in one of these neighborhoods in case you were wondering if I was talking without benefit of first-hand experience. Thank God for the oppotunity to leave. The murder rate is disproportionate to the suburbs or rural areas. Your 'chart' would have everyone believe the entiire U.S. is just one blazing hotbed of gun violence. I know you do not intend to present it as such, but you have to admit the drug trade in the inner cities breeds most of this statistical result. There are so many illegal guns in these areas it would be years and years before law enforcement could make a dent in the numbers on the street. Can the rest of us wait that long for the playing field to be leveled? Again, look at Chicago and the rest of Illinois - did the prohibition of handguns there eliminate any gun violence - answer is a fat NO, it's worse than anywhere else. And why isn't the rate of such crime much higher in a state like Vermont where no license is required and open carry is the rule, than it is in Illinois? How does that fit into your chart? Please look at realistic solutions to this problem. Yes, we need to recognize someone's potential for extreme violence and take the necessary steps, always a difficult call. No, we don't need 30 round clips for our hunting rifles or handguns. Yes, we need a standardized, equal set of requirements to own a handgun. Yes, certain assault weapons, those with extreme capacity, should be reviewed for legality. But NO, eliminating all private ownership will not make this problem go away. None of this will bring back any of the 26 children and adults in Newton,CT but well thought-out solutions wil go a long way toward eliminating the 'Next" time. Finally - Jim, I am not disagreeing with you that something has to be done. I respect your opinion and willingness to find answers and solutions.
Last edited:
