Gotta love the left media....

[yllus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Well, most weapons are bought by criminals. Thieves, murderers, rapists, Republicans, terrorists, etc.

So what you're saying is that thieves, murderers, rapists and terrorists are Democrats?

Post of the week!

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Yes, criminals don't usually buy guys from gun dealers, but the people that sell guns to criminals do - and we have yet to put any kind of process in place to slow this down. If we make it harder for criminals to get guns, there will be fewer crimes committed with guns - it's really that simple, but we do nothing about it.

I want to hear more about this. I realize that it is not the only way for a criminal to get a gun and the demand for other ways to be used will increase if we take that method away, but by how much will it REALLY increase? Is it at least worth considering that the result would be a lower number of fire arms in the hands of criminals? We really don't have any hard evidence that suggests it will work, but we also don't have any hard evidence that it won't work do we?

I am not necessarily saying that we should go the route of bans, but Neo is right about one thing. We need to be doing more of something and this country does seem to be overly sensitive about the consideration of solutions.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
It all comes down to probability and the probability of such a disaster occurring that justifies your cautious preparing for some kind of violent "revolution" is very low. Lower than the probability of many other problems that are more likely to occur but my guess is that you are not preparing for those. For example, it is far more likely that you will temporarily lose a source of your income due to lack of employment or a business going under right now than a massive violent revolution as people all over the US kill each other for food. Yet...instead of saving for a rainy day you spend it all on guns and ammo? No, sorry, but that does not compute. You would be better off saving that money than purchasing guns and ammo right now if you are concerned about preparing for the future.

I was referring to scenarios more like the one seen in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. As a resident of Northern Virgina, it's not outside the realm of possibility that Washington DC gets hit by a big bomb; and, those of us lucky enough to survive may need some serious hardware to hunt for food and protect our families.

And that's just one legitimate use for such weapons. Hunting, target practice, home protection, collectibles... any one of which, by itself, is a perfectly legitimate reason to own handguns and rifles of every sort -- including semi-automatic rifles commonly mistaken for "assault rifles."

And, no matter how much some of you are trying to play it down, there is a real possibility that the upcoming Democrat-run government may try to pass another weapons ban. It may not be the highest item on their list of priorities, but it's definitely still on their list!

I voted for Obama -AND- I believe that there might possibly be a weapons ban in the next four years. It's a very logical prediction, so the resulting increase in retail sales doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Xavier434
It all comes down to probability and the probability of such a disaster occurring that justifies your cautious preparing for some kind of violent "revolution" is very low. Lower than the probability of many other problems that are more likely to occur but my guess is that you are not preparing for those. For example, it is far more likely that you will temporarily lose a source of your income due to lack of employment or a business going under right now than a massive violent revolution as people all over the US kill each other for food. Yet...instead of saving for a rainy day you spend it all on guns and ammo? No, sorry, but that does not compute. You would be better off saving that money than purchasing guns and ammo right now if you are concerned about preparing for the future.

I was referring to scenarios more like the one seen in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. As a resident of Northern Virgina, it's not outside the realm of possibility that Washington DC gets hit by a big bomb; and, those of us lucky enough to survive may need some serious hardware to hunt for food and protect our families.

And that's just one legitimate use for such weapons. Hunting, target practice, home protection, collectibles... any one of which, by itself, is a perfectly legitimate reason to own handguns and rifles of every sort -- including semi-automatic rifles commonly mistaken for "assault rifles."

And, no matter how much some of you are trying to play it down, there is a real possibility that the upcoming Democrat-run government may try to pass another weapons ban. It may not be the highest item on their list of priorities, but it's definitely still on their list!

I voted for Obama -AND- I believe that there might possibly be a weapons ban in the next four years. It's a very logical prediction, so the resulting increase in retail sales doesn't surprise me in the least.

That makes more sense, but understand that your original response to my post was regarding the violent hungry revolution kind of stuff and not a single form of national disaster that strikes a small town that you can leave.

The worst part about Katrina in the manner which you speak of came to those that refused to leave their homes despite them being flooded and surrounded by deadly toxic water that came several days after the storm hit. They didn't need guns to get food and water after the storm. They needed to get their priorities straight and leave their wrecked homes in order to preserve themselves and their families. Hell, they had bodies of these people floating down the streets because they refused to leave. I am very sympathetic towards the victims of Katrina mind you, but that is just the way it is and a great many of them had many better options than guns and pride.

 

[spidey07]

palehorse,

I wasn't very big on owning firearms myself, always supported the right, until hurricane winds knocked out power for over a week. As soon as the next day when power was still out, gasoline was scarce people were getting desperate and crime rose dramatically. Shady looking characters were roaming the street looking for opportunity. And with so much crime the police were overwhelmed. I don't think people fully understand how bad guys think and just how something as simple as losing power for a day or two can completely change the way people operate. This was in a city where almost a million people lost power.

After seeing that, the look of desperation on people, my views have been dramatically changed as well as how stocked I am on ammunition. That and getting robbed while I was sleeping, I bought a shotgun the very next day as I realized I had no real way to protect myself if something ever did happen.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Xavier434
It all comes down to probability and the probability of such a disaster occurring that justifies your cautious preparing for some kind of violent "revolution" is very low. Lower than the probability of many other problems that are more likely to occur but my guess is that you are not preparing for those. For example, it is far more likely that you will temporarily lose a source of your income due to lack of employment or a business going under right now than a massive violent revolution as people all over the US kill each other for food. Yet...instead of saving for a rainy day you spend it all on guns and ammo? No, sorry, but that does not compute. You would be better off saving that money than purchasing guns and ammo right now if you are concerned about preparing for the future.

I was referring to scenarios more like the one seen in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. As a resident of Northern Virgina, it's not outside the realm of possibility that Washington DC gets hit by a big bomb; and, those of us lucky enough to survive may need some serious hardware to hunt for food and protect our families.

And that's just one legitimate use for such weapons. Hunting, target practice, home protection, collectibles... any one of which, by itself, is a perfectly legitimate reason to own handguns and rifles of every sort -- including semi-automatic rifles commonly mistaken for "assault rifles."

And, no matter how much some of you are trying to play it down, there is a real possibility that the upcoming Democrat-run government may try to pass another weapons ban. It may not be the highest item on their list of priorities, but it's definitely still on their list!

I voted for Obama -AND- I believe that there might possibly be a weapons ban in the next four years. It's a very logical prediction, so the resulting increase in retail sales doesn't surprise me in the least.

That makes more sense, but understand that your original response to my post was regarding the violent hungry revolution kind of stuff and not a single form of national disaster that strikes a small town that you can leave.

The worst part about Katrina in the manner which you speak of came to those that refused to leave their homes despite them being flooded and surrounded by deadly toxic water that came several days after the storm hit. They didn't need guns to get food and water after the storm. They needed to get their priorities straight and leave their wrecked homes in order to preserve themselves and their families. Hell, they had bodies of these people floating down the streets because they refused to leave. I am very sympathetic towards the victims of Katrina mind you, but that is just the way it is and a great many of them had many better options than guns and pride.

I don't have much sympathy for those who willingly stayed behind. Darwinism...

That said, I was speaking more of the outlying areas where homeowners and business owners banded together to protect their interests. Most of those who were armed retained their health, livelihoods, and possessions. Those who were unarmed were robbed blind for weeks on end -- even their food was stolen!

Sad, but true.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: spidey07
palehorse,

I wasn't very big on owning firearms myself, always supported the right, until hurricane winds knocked out power for over a week. As soon as the next day when power was still out, gasoline was scarce people were getting desperate and crime rose dramatically. Shady looking characters were roaming the street looking for opportunity. And with so much crime the police were overwhelmed. I don't think people fully understand how bad guys think and just how something as simple as losing power for a day or two can completely change the way people operate. This was in a city where almost a million people lost power.

After seeing that, the look of desperation on people, my views have been dramatically changed as well as how stocked I am on ammunition. That and getting robbed while I was sleeping, I bought a shotgun the very next day as I realized I had no real way to protect myself if something ever did happen.

What city is this? Here in South Florida we have hurricanes all of the time and the police have it under control. Especially after Andrew, this area learned how to prepare for the storms and work together afterward until power comes back on and the streets are clear. They don't prepare by stocking up on ammo. They prepare by stocking up on food that doesn't require preparation, water, batteries, char coal, Sterno, matches, lighters, gasoline, etc. You learn tricks like filling up a bath tub to the rim with fresh water the day before. If it is expected to be REALLY bad, we put steel shutters on every window and door if necessary, lock up everything, and leave town to stay somewhere else where our lives are not in danger.

Originally posted by: palehorse
I don't have much sympathy for those who willingly stayed behind. Darwinism...

That said, I was speaking more of the outlying areas where homeowners and business owners banded together to protect their interests. Most of those who were armed retained their health, livelihoods, and possessions. Those who were unarmed were robbed blind for weeks on end -- even their food was stolen!

Sad, but true.

Lock up, put up steel shutters, and leave. Your life is safe and interests are protected. See above.

Also, keep in mind that New Orleans is extremely high when it comes to crime and they have one of the most corrupt police forces in the nation. They are quite the exception and I don't understand why anyone would live there in the first place. I guess if you opt to live in such an area then it makes more sense to get a gun, but Miami isn't exactly a basket of fruit either and that city gets by just fine unless you are in an exceptionally bad area of town.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Look folks, calm down - for about the 50th time, I'm not for a gun ban in the US - I'm not a gun grabber either.

I corrected my first statement about AR-15's, - while I don't understand the need for someone to own one, I'm not at all calling for a ban on them.

As for the 'show me one time they've been used in a crime' question about .50 caliber weapons - ask the Mexican police about that, and ask yourself this question - why are we one of the only countries on the planet to sell them to just about anyone? At some point, if a gun is capable of bringing down small aircraft, do we need to be selling them to anyone who wants to buy one?

As for the childish "do you need a computer" comparison - guns are not in the same category as other 'collectibles', don't try to pretend they are.


My problem with guns, more precisely gun violence in the United States, is very simple - no one is doing anything about it. Any mention of a word that might be remotely construed to turn into a ban of any kind, and you have stuff like this going on - people rushing out to buy weapons - which I'll agree in many cases have been poorly labeled as 'assault weapons', when in all likelyhood there is very little chance of anything legally changing in regards to purchasing guns.

Yes, criminals don't usually buy guys from gun dealers, but the people that sell guns to criminals do - and we have yet to put any kind of process in place to slow this down. If we make it harder for criminals to get guns, there will be fewer crimes committed with guns - it's really that simple, but we do nothing about it.

Because in law-abiding hands they're not dangerous, and a criminal will get one anyway if they want it...we don't make meaningless laws that do no good but restrict liberty...or at least we shouldn't.

Bans are ineffective, and therefore should never be discussed. We'd be happy to entertain any useful, meaningful ideas however. The problem is no one makes useful, meaningful suggestions.

I've said for years, I'm all for background checks including mental health decree (just about existing treatments mind you, not dealing with 'potentials' which are subjective). I'm all for mandatory training, and/or recertification. Waiting periods (when short, and preferably skipable by those with CPL's) are useless, but fine with me if you insist (providing you make an exemption for anyone who gets court authorization, say at the time of filing a restraining order). You can also feel free to execute on the spot anyone convicted of 3 violent felonies. Even with all that it won't make a huge difference, but it's a start.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: NeoV
At some point, if a gun is capable of bringing down small aircraft, do we need to be selling them to anyone who wants to buy one?

Any gun is "capable" of bringing down small aircraft. Even a .22 Short could bring down a small aircraft with a lucky shot if the aircraft were flying near enough to the ground.

The only known uses of .50-caliber weapons in downing aircraft have been military aircraft using fully-automatic machine guns spraying fire while in combat against other aircraft, and as sniper fire on stationary aircraft (i.e., on the ground) on enemy airfields. Not even the military's best sharp shooters are going to hit an aircraft from the ground when the aircraft is flying between 150-500 miles per hour.

ZV

Let's see how many bigger and bigger bizarre reasons we can get this twerp to keep spewing.

"Do we really want any Joe Schmoe being able to kill Godzilla? I mean, he protects us from other giant monsters. Imagine how horrible it would be if he were killed by a gun owner."

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Let's see how many bigger and bigger bizarre reasons we can get this twerp to keep spewing.

"Do we really want any Joe Schmoe being able to Godzilla? I mean, he protects us from other giant monsters. Imagine how horrible it would be if he were killed by a gun owner."

One issue. Two sides of extremists. Both are equally awful in their own ways. Remember that. It applies to everything.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Let's see how many bigger and bigger bizarre reasons we can get this twerp to keep spewing.

"Do we really want any Joe Schmoe being able to Godzilla? I mean, he protects us from other giant monsters. Imagine how horrible it would be if he were killed by a gun owner."

One issue. Two sides of extremists. Both are equally awful in their own ways. Remember that. It applies to everything.

Yes, but gun owners are pro-choice while those advocating a gun ban are anti-choice.

Funny how choice is the battle cry of the left until it's a choice they don't like.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Let's see how many bigger and bigger bizarre reasons we can get this twerp to keep spewing.

"Do we really want any Joe Schmoe being able to Godzilla? I mean, he protects us from other giant monsters. Imagine how horrible it would be if he were killed by a gun owner."

One issue. Two sides of extremists. Both are equally awful in their own ways. Remember that. It applies to everything.

Only one side is spewing lies.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Let's see how many bigger and bigger bizarre reasons we can get this twerp to keep spewing.

"Do we really want any Joe Schmoe being able to Godzilla? I mean, he protects us from other giant monsters. Imagine how horrible it would be if he were killed by a gun owner."

One issue. Two sides of extremists. Both are equally awful in their own ways. Remember that. It applies to everything.

How is it an extreme point of view to feel like I should be able to own a fire arm, a right (not priviledge) gauranteed by the Constitution? Maybe opinion would sway if every night during the news right after they talk about shootings they say something like, "And tonight 80 million other gun owners did not shoot or kill anyone." But all we hear about is the negative. I have no problem what so ever with someone choosing not to own a gun, but I don't see why my constitutional rights should be comprimised.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

What city is this? Here in South Florida we have hurricanes all of the time and the police have it under control. Especially after Andrew, this area learned how to prepare for the storms and work together afterward until power comes back on and the streets are clear. They don't prepare by stocking up on ammo. They prepare by stocking up on food that doesn't require preparation, water, batteries, char coal, Sterno, matches, lighters, gasoline, etc. You learn tricks like filling up a bath tub to the rim with fresh water the day before. If it is expected to be REALLY bad, we put steel shutters on every window and door if necessary, lock up everything, and leave town to stay somewhere else where our lives are not in danger.

Louisville, KY. Not used to hurricanes at all. It was a mad house.

But you get my point. Unexpected things can happen and I'm very happy I'm pretty well armed. After the break-in and that experience a lightbulb went off in my head - I have no real way to protect myself. And nothing worse than a desperate criminal or a group of them.