Do you support more gun control?

[schneiderguy]

I don't know much about Sig Saur or what ever they are but think S&W, Colt, Winchester, Ruger and other US companies have some that USSS could use...

It is about the US Government buying foreign made anything... Set a dang example...

IF I could have my way legislation ought to include some provision regarding Made in the US... Of course, we have these treaties and all that but my desire overlooks that.

Sig has a US manufacturing plant.

S&W has gained a lot of ground against Glock in the law enforcement pistol competition in the last 5 or so years with the M&P line of polymer semiautos.

Ruger makes decent budget guns but they aren't really suitable for "serious" uses.

Colt whored themselves out to the US government to make M4 rifles and neglected the production of their handguns. Now they only make a couple thousand single action revolvers and 1911s every year.

Winchester, like Colt, is a shell of their former selves. They're owned by FN (Belgium) now.

tl;dr S&W is the only serious handgun manufacturer that's American owned and made.

If you open up your criteria to American made (but owned by a foreign company) then that opens up Glock, FN, Beretta, and Sig.

 

[LunarRay]

+1

LoL Remember the liberal media says he is "WHITE.......hispanic".

I don't care if he's a Right Wing Racist bigot... based on what I've heard or seen thus far something more has to be provided by the State to even get to trial... As far as I'm concerned the Florida Law and the circumstances, if true, point toward his being sustained in his claim of Justified Homicide...

The media are well... let the facts speak for themselves... Hopefully we won't have any insane happenings if what I suggest above occurs.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I don't care if he's a Right Wing Racist bigot... based on what I've heard or seen thus far something more has to be provided by the State to even get to trial... As far as I'm concerned the Florida Law and the circumstances, if true, point toward his being sustained in his claim of Justified Homicide...

The media are well... let the facts speak for themselves... Hopefully we won't have any insane happenings if what I suggest above occurs.

I agree but the media and politicians with anti-2nd amendment views have been pushing this case with a clear bias toward using race to divide and fear of guns to conqueror in regards to the SYG law and gun rights as whole.

 

[cybrsage]

I wasn't really presenting it as an argument that one group doing something wrong makes it OK for another group to do something wrong, mainly because that would be a silly argument

My point was more that if a group is going to use a general principle to advocate a specific position, that argument doesn't work very well if the group does not appear to actually believe in that general principle.

Arguing general ideas based on specific cases is usually pretty suspect. After all, you could just as easily argue that if anyone has been the victim of a crime using a LEGALLY purchased gun, pro-gun ownership people helped that situation come about. That "works" for pretty much any position too, which is why it's a crappy argument. Throwing in the rape reference makes it a crappy AND tasteless.

For instance... If one drunk driver kills a bus full of nuns and orphans, those who wish alcohol to remain legal doomed the nuns and orphans. If one innocent person in Iraq was killed by the military, those who support the invasion doomed the innocent victim. If better education and welfare could have prevented one person from becoming a criminal, then those who oppose education and welfare spending doomed that criminal's victims. If ignoring the constitution would help stop one terrorist, then those who support the 4th amendment doomed the terrorist's victims. Etc, etc.

Obviously you can see why this is a problematic way to argue...

I agree with both of you. It would be better to say that those who are anti-gun are also anti-defend yourself against criminals via the use of a gun.

We all know criminals respond well to "you are doing something bad, stop it", so there is no need to carry a gun.

 

[alkemyst]

I agree that for almost any type of good, gun or not, we should try to buy domestic manufactured. However, does it bother you when US LEO's and their deptartments purchase foreign made arms? For example, I believe the standard sidearm of the US Secret Service is a SIG P226, which is of Swiss origin.

If it does bother you, I think as a whole we export considerably more weaponry than we import.

But as a general rule, liberals (and of course a liberal buying a gun must be way confused, stats be damned) buy cheap foreign knock-offs, and conservatives forge their own AR-15's and 1911's from the finest Pennsylvania steel and aluminum. This is fact, write it down.

best one out now is CZ 75 P01.

but yeah owning a gun = crazy talk for most of america and sadly many of those types actually own illegal weapons.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Looks good to me. Here's some more countries which I wish America had the same rights as...

Switzerland, where every citizen is issued a full-auto rifle and required by law to keep it prepared with ammo in their house:

Or possibly Israel... reow.

Looks a lot like some parts of Arizona where it is not uncommon to see people open carrying with holstered handguns or over the shoulder rifles.

 

[LunarRay]

Sig has a US manufacturing plant.

S&W has gained a lot of ground against Glock in the law enforcement pistol competition in the last 5 or so years with the M&P line of polymer semiautos.

Ruger makes decent budget guns but they aren't really suitable for "serious" uses.

Colt whored themselves out to the US government to make M4 rifles and neglected the production of their handguns. Now they only make a couple thousand action revolvers and 1911s every year.

Winchester, like Colt, is a shell of their former selves. They're owned by FN (Belgium) now.

tl;dr S&W is the only serious handgun manufacturer that's American owned and made.

If you open up your criteria to American made (but owned by a foreign company) then that opens up Glock, FN, Beretta, and Sig.

Wow, I'm edified! Thanks...

Yes, made in America is a major factor... with American bits and pieces depends on the value added factors. It appears my assumptions were ill founded.

I suppose to arm the Police with the best for the intended purpose makes sense regardless of place of manufacture... I'd like to see American made meet that criteria if it don't atm...

I recall in Vietnam the early M16 being problematic due to the powder or some such until they chromed the thingi... Guess the criteria then has not carried forward.
I only carried a .45 (1911) and felt safer than those who had the M16s... well... the PBRs did have twin .50 forward and single on the fantail plus other options... so guess some stuff exceeded the criteria and some fell short. Using a .50 on people is like using a 200lb bomb to rid the house of ants...

 

[jackstar7]

I've been convinced. Gun-owners are very brave.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally Posted by Rainsford View Post
For instance... If one drunk driver kills a bus full of nuns and orphans, those who wish alcohol to remain legal doomed the nuns and orphans.

No, the hypothetical government agency banning seatbelts on buses (or the government which purchases seatbelt-less buses for public schools) doomed them.

Originally Posted by Rainsford View Post
If one innocent person in Iraq was killed by the military, those who support the invasion doomed the innocent victim.

More or less, yes. How is that not the case? It's basically the same as those in support of the death penalty having some responsibility when one innocent man is executed.

Originally Posted by Rainsford View Post
If better education and welfare could have prevented one person from becoming a criminal, then those who oppose education and welfare spending doomed that criminal's victims.

There's a huge difference between forbidding a protection and not supplying one. That is an issue of government's obligation to provide certain essential services to promote a healthy country.

Originally Posted by Rainsford View Post
If ignoring the constitution would help stop one terrorist, then those who support the 4th amendment doomed the terrorist's victims.

Uh, I don't see any parallel here.

My point was that this METHOD of argument is faulty. I just threw together some quick examples of the style, I wasn't making an actual argument with any of them.

I'll use the example you provided though..."It's basically the same as those in support of the death penalty having some responsibility when one innocent man is executed." The problems is that your statement is not exactly wrong, it's the conclusion that's often implied with statements like this that is wrong.

Yes, if you support the death penalty, you DO bear some responsibility when an innocent person is executed. But the only reason anyone says things like this is that they silently add "...therefore you're wrong to support the death penalty." It's a bad argument, since no position is completely without negative side effects. And while those side effects should certainly play a part in forming an opinion, they shouldn't be the ONLY thing that's considered. Not to mention that these specific situations are almost always framed as emotional appeals, which tends to cloud the issue even more.

 

[woolfe9999]

What I want to know is, if liberals are so rabidly in favor of gun control, why does a typical poll show a little over half the forum are liberals, but a poll like this has 80% against gun control?

 

[monovillage]

What I want to know is, if liberals are so rabidly in favor of gun control, why does a typical poll show a little over half the forum are liberals, but a poll like this has 80% against gun control?

Because this was a public poll and some of the anti-gun people that actually posted in this thread didn't vote in the poll.

 

[Rainsford]

I agree with both of you. It would be better to say that those who are anti-gun are also anti-defend yourself against criminals via the use of a gun.

That actually sounds much less accurate to me. People are in favor of gun control for quite a few different reasons, but I'd bet very few of those people want to restrict gun ownership specifically so that law-abiding citizens can't defend themselves from criminals.

I really think the gun control debate is not a disagreement over an idea, the two sides are arguing almost entire different things. Pro-gun people assume the only factor in the debate is law-abiding citizens being armed. And they'd rather believe that anti-gun people disagree rather than consider that maybe the pro-gun side just isn't very good at convincing the non pro-gun folks that this is what the debate is really about.

I think it doesn't help that a big part of this misunderstanding is the rather major cultural gap between "gun" places and "non-gun" places in America. In the former, guns and gun ownership are just normal. In the latter, guns make you stand out. I grew up mainly in big cities in more liberal parts of the country, and guns just weren't a big thing there. Intellectually I realized that this wasn't true everywhere, but I still remember being a bit surprised when my college girlfriend (who grew up on a farm) came down the stairs of her house casually carrying a rifle she had retrieved for her dad. It's a normal part of life there, but not where I'm from.

And to be honest, I think both sides are INCREDIBLY bad at bridging this gap in cultural understanding.

We all know criminals respond well to "you are doing something bad, stop it", so there is no need to carry a gun.

I've found little need to carry a gun because personally confronting criminals is not really a common activity for me I understand that it happens, but the odds seem low enough that carrying a gun in case I need to shoot someone is pretty far down on my list of priorities.

 

[Rainsford]

What I want to know is, if liberals are so rabidly in favor of gun control, why does a typical poll show a little over half the forum are liberals, but a poll like this has 80% against gun control?

Part of it may be that the poll doesn't really ask what you think it asks. The only options are "ban guns", "somewhat more gun control" and "no additional gun control".

Since we have some gun control right now in most places, and quite a bit in some states, not supporting MORE gun control is not at all the same as being "against gun control". And for that matter, voting for some additional gun control isn't "rabidly in favor of gun control". Your problem seems to be that you think only those two extremes exist...

 

[piasabird]

The real problem is that you cant legislate morality or respect. There was an article on on here last month about how some people in Chicago who were at a fast food resteraunt and some girl says "what you lookin at?" Then she leaves and brings back all her friends and they stomped them almost to death on the floor. It does not take a gun to be a ruthless criminal. People are becoming animals, so they should be treated as such.

 

[Orignal Earl]

What I want to know is, if liberals are so rabidly in favor of gun control, why does a typical poll show a little over half the forum are liberals, but a poll like this has 80% against gun control?

Because this forum is 99% IT workers, and socially awkward, so you really have to start figuring things out from there

 

[a777pilot]

Because this forum is 99% IT workers, and socially awkward, so you really have to start figuring things out from there

Hey, neat! I'm a one percenter.

 

[monovillage]

Hey, neat! I'm a one percenter.

Me too! Awesome!

 

[Orignal Earl]

Me too! Awesome!

Sociopaths get their own category

 

[mikeymikec]

Yes, we need to control the guns getting into the hands of criminals.

Each citizen, at the age of 18, should be issued one hand gun along with ammo and instructions on how to control said gun. At 21, if they've been a responsible gun owner, they should be issued a rifle and ammo along with a refresher on proper gun control.

Criminals, being aware of the fact that all adults are potentially armed, would go into another line of work, if they're smart.

That's pretty funny.

Yes, we need to control the guns [from?] getting into the hands of criminals. The best way to do this is to give out as many guns as possible! Then, when we haven't actually caught someone who is potentially a criminal misusing a firearm, we'll give them some more!

The criminals will literally drown in guns! Problem solved!

<facepalm>

 

[irishScott]

I'd be more comfortable with gun-owners if they'd just admit the fears that drive them to want to own a gun.

So the imaginary fear you see in others makes you uncomfortable? Sucks to be you.

Not saying there aren't scared/paranoid gun owners out there, but there are plenty of us who have neither trait.

 

[Orignal Earl]

So the imaginary fear you see in others makes you uncomfortable? Sucks to be you.

Not saying there aren't scared/paranoid gun owners out there, but there are plenty of us who have neither trait.

I think there's cultural differences at play here too
For those of us from the rest of the Western countries the thought of having to strap a gun to yourself to go outside is very bizarre
Fear is the first thing that comes to mind
Look at it this way, when we think of the death penalty in countries like Iran, China, you think its because of their governments. That if the people had a choice they would vote no to capital punishment
Yet, even with the US's total mistrust of their gov, the people would actually vote to give the state the power to kill them.

 

[Incorruptible]

The liberals are such hypocrites, the fat rosie odonnell opposes guns yet she has a bodyguard who carries a gun but this is the kind of stupidity that you get from liberals

 

[blankslate]

The liberals are such hypocrites, the fat rosie odonnell opposes guns yet she has a bodyguard who carries a gun but this is the kind of stupidity that you get from liberals

Why? She chooses to hire someone who has experience with weapons and how to use them if it becomes a necessity as a bodyguard. Rather than just taking a few hours of CCW courses then thinking she's as pro as a professional bodyguard... when she might overreact and discharge her firearm without need...

Problem non-existent except in your head.

 

[Incorruptible]

Why she chooses to hire someone who has experience with weapons and how to use them if it becomes a necessity as a bodyguard. Rather than just taking a few hours of CCW courses then thinking she's as pro as a professional bodyguard... when she might overreact and discharge her firearm without need...

Problem non-existent except in your head.

But she rails against guns and rants about how there so bad yet she has a bodyguard who carries a gun and she benefits from that

 

[blankslate]

What I want to know is, if liberals are so rabidly in favor of gun control, why does a typical poll show a little over half the forum are liberals, but a poll like this has 80% against gun control?

I'm a liberal yet I like to spend the occasional afternoon plinking.

I realize that the toothpaste is out of the tube so to speak.

In a perfect world there would be some sci-fi test to make sure that some people don't turn into blithering morons around guns...

like this guy... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8wZU7edaz8

or these people... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uqD8Ja6IZ0&feature=related

before giving them a CCW.

Seeing as how that isn't possible. I live with it as being shot by someone with a gun is rather unlikely unless you live in a bad place or you are just an inveterate asshole who provokes people without reason.