Gun rights/control

[davislove 0]

I keep guns to be humane. If someone enters my home with the intent of hurting my family or myself, shooting them is far quicker and less painful than having to crush their skull with a hammer or attack them with a meat cleaver. I don't live in fear of it happening, but I live in a state of readiness knowing that anything can happen.

 

You gun guys all seem to have these ready made, bumper dticker responses. Why would someone want to break in your house and harm your family? Are you in witness protection?

[davislove 0]

Lol absolutely not. Law enforcement cannot ask a law abiding citizen to remove their legal holstered weapon unless they've broken the law.

 

Because they do everything by the book. Good one.

[davislove 0]

I've lived in Texas a good portion of my life.

Never owned a gun.

However, when I go to the movies now, I sure look around and look for anything that seems out of place.

I find myself thinking that if some bad guy were to start shooting up the place, I hope there's a 'good guy' with concealed carry who might quickly either put an end to it or at least divert attention so the rest of us can get out.

Crazy for sure. But that's where I've landed.

 

Gun or not, if someone start shooting a sane person is gonna seek shelter first. Not sure crossfire would be safer.

[CanadianIrish 0]

 

Second, I'd make all weapons illegal that didnt have biometric security. Gun manufacturers certainly have the money to make this happen, but the heavy hitting lobbyists of the NRA aren't having it. You go into a gun store to buy a weapon...you provide your fingerprints and the biometric profile (maintained by the ATF) is added to the weapon before you walk out of the store with it. Now you're the only person who can fire it. No more having to worry about stolen guns, accidental discharges with children, etc... It would obviously take time to phase out the legacy weapons....but law abiding citizens would have no issues with this provision, especially considering that manufacturers could afford kits that could be applied to older weapons to conform to the

 

I particularly loathe the comparisons of the United States to the rest of the world with regard to murders committed with guns. The U.S. is unlike any other nation---we have more immigrants, tourists, temporary inhabitants, more diversity, and more cultural acceptance than any other. We are obviously going to be a melting pot that is going to experience a wide spectrum of violence and madness that no other nation will ever have to endure. That is the price you pay for allowing your citizens to possess inalienable rights and for having an open door policy when it comes to immigration.

ate.

 

This biometric idea seems plausible - never heard it discussed before. I'm wondering how long it would take someone to figure out methods to override it, but it seems like a good idea in principal to me.

 

As for your second point, as a Canadian, I'm going to have to disagree with you there Echo. I live in Toronto, the most culturally diverse city in North America, hands down. We are not a melting pot, but rather a mixed salad (this is literally the awful analogy that is taught to just about every Canadian elementary school kid about the difference between American and Canadian culture....awful, I know). I think the point of the comparison is that we encourage others to keep their culture and share in ours as opposed to trying to get them to adopt to ours.

This guy would never have been able to legally obtain and possess the gun that he used in the attacks here. That to me is the big difference. I realize this is a complex argument and my position will be easily attacked by many of you. It is simply my opinion. I am not against the 2nd amendment - you want a gun, get a gun. But make it difficult to do so. And make it difficult for anyone else to use it.

 

I know it's cliche, but there really is no comparison in Western society to the US in terms of attacks like this. I am interested to see if this latest one brings about any changes.

 

As always, I hope my posts don't offend anyone on here - not my intention. I always enjoy coming on here and reading the intelligent, thought provoking arguments that the general discussion page promotes (except for when it's PT writing)

[nickman54 0]

You gun guys all seem to have these ready made, bumper dticker responses. Why would someone want to break in your house and harm your family? Are you in witness protection?

 

Why would someone shoot up a school or gay bar?

[TDUB 0]

Pretty interesting article up in my nape of the woods...

 

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/the-gun-how-i-bought-an-ar-15-in-a-five-guys-parking-lot/Content?oid=3421127

 

I'm not sure this completely supports either end of the argument...on the one hand this is just completely way too loose to be legal, but on the other hand does this just highlight how easy it would be to get your hands on one anyway? I'm not sure scrawny meth-head parking lot gun salesman wouldn't complete the same transaction if this wasn't completely legal.

 

I'd probably lean towards some type of stricter sales laws, but I have no idea what would even work...so I think we're just stuck.

[jimbo 377]

Echo has several good points, namely: the need for a set of laws at the federal level that applies equally to each state, biometric security and also the intolerance of the NRA to any kind of firearm regulation.

 

I don't see the need for anyone to own assault rifles. I am not against gun ownership, but believe they should be regulated and licensed. There is a right to bear arms, but it is not unlimited. Joe Schmo shouldn't be able to walk into a gun shop and purchase any kind of weapon, no questions asked.

 

It seems that as incidents as Orlando and Sandy Hook become more common, we do nothing to even try to find any remedy for these mass murders.

 

I have traveled quite extensively and the one thing that people from other countries have a difficult time understanding is the obsession with guns in America. I have an equally difficult time trying to explain it. Could it be an example of "American "Exceptionalism"?

[Kelly Gruene 26]

Gun or not, if someone start shooting a sane person is gonna seek shelter first. Not sure crossfire would be safer.

 

Crossfire probably wouldn't be particularly safe. But, the shooter probably starts shooting while standing near one exit, and the concealed carry guy is probably somewhere in the theater. The first shooter would probably be distracted and either shoot at the concealed carry guy or leave. The rest of us would of course duck and try to head toward the uncovered exit. The less someone is shooting directly at me, the safer I'm going to be, crossfire or not.

[davislove 0]

The less someone is shooting directly at me, the safer I'm going to be, crossfire or not.

 

Amen brother. You'd also be safer if the shooters had to reload more often.

[stdntDrvr 12]

Amen brother. You'd also be safer if the shooters had to reload more often.

 

over 100 people shot by a guy with a sig mpx...I'm sure he reloaded multiple times, but that didn't help the people at Pulse very much did it?

[nickman54 0]

over 100 people shot by a guy with a sig mpx...I'm sure he reloaded multiple times, but that didn't help the people at Pulse very much did it?

 

Slight correction, it was an mcx not mpx. The mpx comes in 40, 9mm or 357sig i think. Its only available as a pistol configuration to civilians, but can be SBRed to have a buttstock if you send a 200 check to uncle sugar and ask for permission.

[stdntDrvr 12]

Slight correction, it was an mcx not mpx. The mpx comes in 40, 9mm or 357sig i think. Its only available as a pistol configuration to civilians, but can be SBRed to have a buttstock if you send a 200 check to uncle sugar and ask for permission.

 

ah, my bad...thank you!

[coltssb 1,044]

 

I have traveled quite extensively and the one thing that people from other countries have a difficult time understanding is the obsession with guns in America. I have an equally difficult time trying to explain it. Could it be an example of "American "Exceptionalism"?

 

I work for a spine clinic and we have doctors from all over the world and this same very subject comes up frequently. Word for word as you said.

[nickman54 0]

ah, my bad...thank you!

 

Another fun fact. The MCX isnt an AR15 variant rifle. The internals are all different. Its a whole different weapons system.

[EddieAngel 508]

You gun guys all seem to have these ready made, bumper dticker responses. Why would someone want to break in your house and harm your family? Are you in witness protection?

 

So in other words what I have done to deserve to be a victim? The difference between you and I is that I am hoping for the best but preparing for the worst.

 

I wonder what these people did to provoke or deserve what happened to them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

 

Or like Nick said, a school, or a nightclub, or a place of employment? I don't think everyone needs to carry a gun, I don't think that everyone needs to sleep with a gun under their pillow and I understand the inherit danger of guns in the world, but I believe there is evil in this world and I am going to do what I can to protect my family.

 

When I was in the fourth grade I came home from school and walked in on someone robbing my house. They made me go to my room and count to 100, I remember my neighbor heard some of the activity and came over with a gun and chased off the burglar. Chances are the guy just wanted to take what he could and take off, but whose to say he might not have stabbed or shot and killed me if my neighbor had not come along?

 

That doesn't mean I am obsessed with guns, I don't think anyone here is, but I encourage the use and knowledge of them, and I encourage every capable and responsible person to own one. Never know when you might need to protect yourself, or maybe even your unarmed neighbor.

[jessemoore97 1,287]

Here's a post from ScotchIrishBlooded over on the Rivals board:

 

Sadly after every incident like Orlando, the immediate knee-jerk reaction is to talk about how we Americans are obsessed with guns. Fair enough in the sense that WE are obsessed with guns. Americans are gun crazy. No one owns more guns than we Americans. We are #1 in the world where gun ownership is considered. Fact: America has 90 guns for every 100 citizens in this country. Over 300 million. We own more guns than we do cars. More homes have a gun than have internet access.

 

But let’s put that statistic in perspective. There’s more to it and it isn’t talked about. Politicians and journalists would lead you to believe that “higher gun availability” means “higher rate of gun deaths”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

For example, despite being #1 in the world for gun ownership, America doesn’t even rank in the Top 100 countries for homicides. Out 218 countries and territories, the US is #112 with a murder rate of 3.8 murders per 100,000 people (2015 UNODC).

 

Let’s take it a step further. If you ONLY look at the deaths that are gun related America is at the LOWEST rate since the 1990’s and almost exactly where the US was in 1915.

 

Now take out the gun related deaths that aren’t crime related. For example, 64% of all gun deaths in the US are suicides. Another 4% are justifiable shootings.

 

Furthermore, take out the gang related shootings (where no laws would affect I might add) and the US has a gun related death rate of 2.0 per 100,000 people. A far cry from the perspective the liberal media would have you believe.

 

Here’s another FACT: most of the guns owned by Americans have never been shot outside of a firing range and will never be fired at another human being. The media doesn’t want you to know that because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

 

I actually agree with Hillary about this. Common sense tells me that any terrorist on the watch list should be denied gun ownership. Any one on the no fly list should be denied gun ownership. Anyone being investigated by the FBI (including Hillary) should be denied gun ownership.

 

That said, I just don't see any logic in solutions that involve penalizing the millions of legal, law-abiding citizens over the actions of a tiny minority especially when you consider that their actions are usually driven by religious fundamentalism, hate or mental illness.

[Kelly Gruene 26]

Here's a post from ScotchIrishBlooded over on the Rivals board:

Fact: America has 90 guns for every 100 citizens in this country. Over 300 million. We own more guns than we do cars. More homes have a gun than have internet access.

 

But let’s put that statistic in perspective.

 

For example, despite being #1 in the world for gun ownership, America doesn’t even rank in the Top 100 countries for homicides. Out 218 countries and territories, the US is #112 with a murder rate of 3.8 murders per 100,000 people (2015 UNODC).

 

Let’s take it a step further. If you ONLY look at the deaths that are gun related America is at the LOWEST rate since the 1990’s and almost exactly where the US was in 1915.

 

Now take out the gun related deaths that aren’t crime related. For example, 64% of all gun deaths in the US are suicides. Another 4% are justifiable shootings.

 

Furthermore, take out the gang related shootings (where no laws would affect I might add) and the US has a gun related death rate of 2.0 per 100,000 people. A far cry from the perspective the liberal media would have you believe.

 

Here’s another FACT: most of the guns owned by Americans have never been shot outside of a firing range and will never be fired at another human being. The media doesn’t want you to know that because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

 

Interesting.

Take a look at the World Bank website: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5

 

Let's put some more perspective on murder rates/100,000 by geographic area:

Honduras 91, Venezuela 54, Jamaica 39, Guatemala 35, Trinidad and Tobago 28, Brazil 27, Mexico 22, Panama 17, Ecuador 12, Nicaragua 11, Peru 10, Paraguay 10, US 5, Canada 2

 

How about: Afghanistan 6, Saudi Arabia 6, Iran 5, Lebanon 4, Turkey 4, Libya 3, West Bank/Gaza 1.

 

And then there's: Belgium 2, United Kingdom 1, France 1, Poland 1, Portugal 1, Netherlands 1, Denmark 1, Greece 1. Russia? 9

 

And finally: North Korea 5, South Korea 1, Japan 0

[Soko 128]

Here's a post from ScotchIrishBlooded over on the Rivals board:

 

Sadly after every incident like Orlando, the immediate knee-jerk reaction is to talk about how we Americans are obsessed with guns. Fair enough in the sense that WE are obsessed with guns. Americans are gun crazy. No one owns more guns than we Americans. We are #1 in the world where gun ownership is considered. Fact: America has 90 guns for every 100 citizens in this country. Over 300 million. We own more guns than we do cars. More homes have a gun than have internet access.

 

But let’s put that statistic in perspective. There’s more to it and it isn’t talked about. Politicians and journalists would lead you to believe that “higher gun availability” means “higher rate of gun deaths”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

For example, despite being #1 in the world for gun ownership, America doesn’t even rank in the Top 100 countries for homicides. Out 218 countries and territories, the US is #112 with a murder rate of 3.8 murders per 100,000 people (2015 UNODC).

 

Let’s take it a step further. If you ONLY look at the deaths that are gun related America is at the LOWEST rate since the 1990’s and almost exactly where the US was in 1915.

 

Now take out the gun related deaths that aren’t crime related. For example, 64% of all gun deaths in the US are suicides. Another 4% are justifiable shootings.

 

Furthermore, take out the gang related shootings (where no laws would affect I might add) and the US has a gun related death rate of 2.0 per 100,000 people. A far cry from the perspective the liberal media would have you believe.

 

Here’s another FACT: most of the guns owned by Americans have never been shot outside of a firing range and will never be fired at another human being. The media doesn’t want you to know that because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

 

I actually agree with Hillary about this. Common sense tells me that any terrorist on the watch list should be denied gun ownership. Any one on the no fly list should be denied gun ownership. Anyone being investigated by the FBI (including Hillary) should be denied gun ownership.

 

That said, I just don't see any logic in solutions that involve penalizing the millions of legal, law-abiding citizens over the actions of a tiny minority especially when you consider that their actions are usually driven by religious fundamentalism, hate or mental illness.

 

Look that is lovely and all but it doesn't really tackle what gun control activists are asking for - stricter background checks. You can still buy hundreds and hundreds of guns, fill your entire house up with guns and ammo for all I care. It is the complete unwillingness to allow any reason into implementing some fair and logical checks that people who may not be suitable to buy guns. It is harder to buy alcohol that it is to buy a gun and that doesn't make much sense.

 

Nobody is going to take your guns, it would just be nice to not read on the news that a suspected terrorist was able to buy his guns legally and mow down 49 people in cold blood. The NRA are not about your second amendment rights, they are a gun lobby financed by gun manufacturers to make money. They have lining their own pockets at heart, not your rights. They are even holding supreme court nominees up as they have become so entwined in Washington it is disgusting to watch.

[jessemoore97 1,287]

Look that is lovely and all but it doesn't really tackle what gun control activists are asking for - stricter background checks. You can still buy hundreds and hundreds of guns, fill your entire house up with guns and ammo for all I care. It is the complete unwillingness to allow any reason into implementing some fair and logical checks that people who may not be suitable to buy guns. It is harder to buy alcohol that it is to buy a gun and that doesn't make much sense.

 

Nobody is going to take your guns, it would just be nice to not read on the news that a suspected terrorist was able to buy his guns legally and mow down 49 people in cold blood. The NRA are not about your second amendment rights, they are a gun lobby financed by gun manufacturers to make money. They have lining their own pockets at heart, not your rights. They are even holding supreme court nominees up as they have become so entwined in Washington it is disgusting to watch.

 

I don't give money to the NRA or any political/special interest lobby. The NRA does fight for the second ammendment, agree to disagree on that. Do I agree with everything they do or say, absolutely not.

 

Gun control activists are all over the field with what they claim they want in gun control and so are the politicians who pander to them for support. In just the two threads about Orlando and this one I have read a number of opinions about what a person should or shouldn't hunt with, protect themselves with, be allowed to buy, who should or shouldn't be allowed to purchase, magazine capacity, etc etc. Again these are mostly without any basis in facts and spoken by many advocates out of complete ignorance. Why as a law abiding citizen should I be denied access to purchasing a firearm of my choice? No one, anywhere on the gun control side has been able to posit a coherent, factual response that could come anywhere close to answering that question.

 

The next question from an advocates mouth would be why do I need to buy X firearm and what is my purpose for owning it, of course in an effort to deviate from the original question. I don't ask car buyers why they bought whatever super fast sports car or a motorcycle enthusiast why they bought a really fast crotch rocket. They serve no useful function for having those suped up engines and speed to burn. The point is beside the right to own a firearm, myself and tens of millions of law abiding American citizens have done nothing to have our freedom of choice in a lifestyle that we support and is legal infringed upon. This is the exact type of personal choice and freedom that people railed against and ended prohibition, is slowly eroding the war on drugs, and so on. Law abiding people want to be able to be left alone to live their own lives, and 99% of them wish no ill will or malice on anyone. The reason for laws is to deal with the 1% f'ups who can't follow the rules and offer punishment or reparation as consequences , while everyone else knows not to break them or else. They are not for the purpose to keep enacting new ones so everyone has to get punished for the stupid sh*t the very few constantly make.

 

This is exactly the reason why we are the envy of the world, personal freedom. No where else will you find it to the level we have in America. I am sick of the government slowly taking away more and more of our freedoms. I don't want to be Canada (no offense), Europe, and any other country because I wouldn't have the same freedom I do here. We still live in a place where the rights of the few and unpopular are protected against the majority. The gun control issue, while being a big deal, is really a microcosm of a larger fight many are seeing across the landscape.

[NDMJ1984 0]

It is harder to buy alcohol that it is to buy a gun and that doesn't make much sense.

 

Nobody is going to take your guns,

 

Both of these statements are patently false.

 

Convicted criminals can buy alcohol, but can't buy guns. Drug addicts can buy alcohol, but can't buy guns. Someone committed to a mental institution at any point in their life can buy alcohol, but can't buy a gun. Military personnel who were dishonorably discharged can buy alcohol, but can't buy guns. Spousal abusers can buy alcohol, but can't buy guns. Stalkers can buy alcohol, but can't buy guns. Illegal immigrants can buy alcohol, but can't buy guns.

 

From December 2015 - "Its Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them." https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them

 

The Firearms Control Act of 1975, which banned gun ownership for D.C. Residents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975

 

From Tuesday - "Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment"

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613

 

Now, tell me again that no one wants to take away guns?