Sorry, another gun control thread

[Paladin3]

I used to be a very reasonable, middle of the road gun owner. For many years I didn't even shoot, but about 8 years ago decided to get back into the hobby. I've never been an NRA member, but now am strongly considering it.

This is the consequences of being railed at by anti-gunners accusing me of not caring about the lives of children because I don't agree with the stupid, reactionary gun laws you folks want to put in place. This is why I'm quite a bit more radicalized over the issue than I used to be.

I don't own an "assault rifle." My thing is old west six-shooters and black powder guns. I own just one semi-auto 9mm pistol that I consider a tool to be used when I do feel the need to conceal carry for self-defense.

Now I'm angry. Now I've got a cause to work against and it's you anti-gunners who don't reasonable debate, but who use every dirty trick to demonize us or think of gun owners as simpletons you have to save from themselves.

Now don't go thinking I'm the next one to shoot up the place. I've got a stronger sense of duty to obey the law, taking responsibility for my own actions and the sanctity of precious life than most do.

I just wanted you to understand how many people you are pissing off. Keep at it and guns laws will remain right about where they are for a long, long time.

 

[Paladin3]

Lol what a load of tripe.

I like tripe...menudo is good.

 

[Paladin3]

Lol what a load of tripe.

All you have to say is "If the lives of myself and my family were in danger I would NOT want a gun." Go ahead, say it.

 

[MrSquished]

I used to be a very reasonable, middle of the road gun owner. For many years I didn't even shoot, but about 8 years ago decided to get back into the hobby. I've never been an NRA member, but now am strongly considering it.

This is the consequences of being railed at by anti-gunners accusing me of not caring about the lives of children because I don't agree with the stupid, reactionary gun laws you folks want to put in place. This is why I'm not far more radicalized over the issue than I used to be.

I don't own an "assault rifle." My thing is old west six shooters and black powder guns. I own just one semi-auto 9mm pistol that I consider a tool to be used when I do feel the need to conceal carry for self-defense.

Now I'm angry. Now I've got a cause to work against and it's you anti-gunners who don't reasonable debate, but who use every dirty trick to demonize us or think of gun owners as simpletons you have to save from themselves.+

Now don't go thinking I'm the next one to shoot up the place. I've got a stronger sense of duty to obey the law, taking responsibility for my own actions and the sanctity of precious life than most do.

I just wanted you to understand how many people you are pissing off. Keep at it and guns laws will remain right about where they are for a long, long time.

Yes it's the unreasonable gun control folks - you know - those who argue that a gun is the same thing as a hammer, knife or car and that there should be ZERO laws for gun control - that drove you to this point.

 

[kage69]

For consideration since Lott was brought up.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-john-lott-gets-right_us_5a4eb4b2e4b003133ec6a3d2

Valid points.

 

[fskimospy]

A whole bunch of stupid arguments.

Just because something is hard doesn't mean automatically the right or effective thing to do.

I didn't say it was - I said it was the right thing to do and we shouldn't let the fact that it is hard keep us from doing the right thing. Before you call an argument stupid you should be sure you understand it.

Self defense is absolute not the only reason to own a gun but probably the most important one. The consequences for failure if you happen to need to defend your life or that of your family are simply too great. Your stupid fucking statistical increase in the chance of an accident is not the defining reason to own or not own a gun. Just like you will never cut yourself if you don't own a knife, you could make the same dumb argument about a ton of household items that can potentially harm you.

This is a nonsensical argument. If a gun increases your likelihood of being the victim of homicide that means for every n times owning a gun saves someone's life there are at least n+1 times where it cost them their life. Saying you want to purchase something for personal safety that on net makes you less safe is an irrational position to hold.

You attempt to educate gun owners to the dangers of owning a gun like we don't already know. The vast majority of us take reasonable precautions, just like you do when you seatbelt up in your car to mitigate the chance of injury. It's called be a responsible adult. I know you think everyone is just a idiot you need to rescue, but get over yourself.

Again, the data quite clearly shows that the average gun owner does not know the dangers of owning a gun. If they did, the vast majority of them wouldn't buy one for personal safety as they decrease personal safety. I didn't say I needed to rescue anyone, only that for the average American purchasing a gun for the purpose of self-protection is foolish and greater education on this matter would probably be helpful. The data backs this up.

Most people do obey laws and that's why we have them. When we already have a multitude of laws making shootings and murder illegal, why do you want gun ban laws that will only serve to strip the constitutional and basic self-defense rights of the many and not do a damn thing to stop the few who are the problem. And, PLEASE, work within the real world and understand a complete gun ban isn't possible.

Do laws deter behavior or do they not?

Again, if you have the votes then go do something about it and change the law. Or just continue to masturbate to the fiction that you are doing something by "educating" the world to how correct your way of thinking is for all of us. It's right up there with "Think about the children!"

It's ironic that you would say that. 'Think about the children' is an argument that fundamentally asks people to substitute feelings for facts. My argument has dealt entirely with facts while you are the one making emotional arguments about how we need to 'think about the family'. You like guns, I get it. That shouldn't prevent you from accepting the facts about them.

 

[mikeymikec]

All you have to say is "If the lives of myself and my family were in danger I would NOT want a gun." Go ahead, say it.

At face value, I agree with you. However, because society is somewhat larger than just me, it makes more sense to take the bigger picture into account, and once I do that, my response is:

At the expense of every idiot by default being able to have a gun and being able to shoot up schools? Fuck no. If I don't have easy access to convenient killing machines, then chances are nor do most other people. On the flipside, if I have easy access to firearms, then so do other people and so in the highly unlikely situation that my family is in danger, the level of danger just increased without any guarantee that my firearm would be ready to use and within reach, whereas the person doing the threatening in a society that allows easy access to firearms is far more likely to have one ready to use.

Furthermore, for someone who already acknowledged that guns don't make you safer, I'm somewhat bewildered to find you playing the opposite card now.

 

[fskimospy]

I used to be a very reasonable, middle of the road gun owner. For many years I didn't even shoot, but about 8 years ago decided to get back into the hobby. I've never been an NRA member, but now am strongly considering it.

This is the consequences of being railed at by anti-gunners accusing me of not caring about the lives of children because I don't agree with the stupid, reactionary gun laws you folks want to put in place. This is why I'm not far more radicalized over the issue than I used to be.

I don't own an "assault rifle." My thing is old west six shooters and black powder guns. I own just one semi-auto 9mm pistol that I consider a tool to be used when I do feel the need to conceal carry for self-defense.

Now I'm angry. Now I've got a cause to work against and it's you anti-gunners who don't reasonable debate, but who use every dirty trick to demonize us or think of gun owners as simpletons you have to save from themselves.+

Now don't go thinking I'm the next one to shoot up the place. I've got a stronger sense of duty to obey the law, taking responsibility for my own actions and the sanctity of precious life than most do.

I just wanted you to understand how many people you are pissing off. Keep at it and guns laws will remain right about where they are for a long, long time.

We do want reasonable debate but you are not being reasonable. You acknowledge that my point about gun safety is fundamentally correct and then rage against it as if me pointing out inconvenient facts is an insult to you. Facts aren't insults, they are just facts.

I get the sense that what you really want is not a reasonable debate but for the rest of us to adopt your position. I personally doubt any set of logical arguments is likely to sway the gun rights community so the debate isn't really about convincing you or making you less angry. You're already effectively a lost cause IMO. It's about other people who aren't radicalized.

 

[Paladin3]

Yes it's the unreasonable gun control folks - you know - those who argue that a gun is the same thing as a hammer, knife or car and that there should be ZERO laws for gun control - that drove you to this point.

The mantra is that owning guns makes you statistically less safe. Yes, it does. As does owning many potentially dangerous household items. My step-father lost most of three fingers to a table saw. If he hadn't owned one it never would have happened.

But it's totally disingenuous to say that means I think a gun and a table saw or a pair of scissors are the same thing. My point is when do you decide a tool is too dangerous for me to have, and what gives anyone the legal or moral right to say so when I've broken no law or done no harm with it. I think we have plenty of laws against murder and shooting people already, but now I have to give up my constitutional rights to satisfy the need of some to feel like they are doing something about the problem? And if I don't agree I'm immune to common sense and logic? Or don't care about the lives of children?

Makes me shake my head when I hear such.

 

[Paladin3]

At face value, I agree with you. However, because society is somewhat larger than just me, it makes more sense to take the bigger picture into account, and once I do that, my response is:

At the expense of every idiot by default being able to have a gun and being able to shoot up schools? Fuck no. If I don't have easy access to convenient killing machines, then chances are nor do most other people. On the flipside, if I have easy access to firearms, then so do other people and so in the highly unlikely situation that my family is in danger, the level of danger just increased without any guarantee that my firearm would be ready to use and within reach, whereas the person doing the threatening in a society that allows easy access to firearms is far more likely to have one ready to use.

Furthermore, for someone who already acknowledged that guns don't make you safer, I'm somewhat bewildered to find you playing the opposite card now.

Well, then you are not living in the real world. There are more guns in America than people, and the gun culture is firmly ingrained in our society. There is no possible way you will every collect a meaningful number of weapons from those who refuse to give them up peacefully.

If I had the ability to magically make all the guns in the world disappear I would use it. I would make that rather tiny sacrifice for the greater good and starting stocking up on swords. But I won't sacrifice my constitutional rights for the impossible dream of a weapon free world.

And if you did achieve your impossible dream, it would not do a thing to stop the barbarism in some human beings hearts. Man was killing man long before the advent of the gun. To prohibit yourself a tool your enemy is sure to use is folly at it's greatest.

Unless you intend to pacify your stronger and better armed enemy that leaving you alone will later gain him sky cake in heaven.

 

[fskimospy]

The mantra is that owning guns makes you statistically less safe. Yes, it does. As does owning many potentially dangerous household items. My step-father lost most of three fingers to a table saw. If he hadn't owned one it never would have happened.

But it's totally disingenuous to say that means I think a gun and a table saw or a pair of scissors are the same thing. My point is when do you decide a tool is too dangerous for me to have, and what gives anyone the legal or moral right to say so when I've broken no law or done no harm with it. I think we have plenty of laws against murder and shooting people already, but now I have to give up my constitutional rights to satisfy the need of some to feel like they are doing something about the problem? And if I don't agree I'm immune to common sense and logic? Or don't care about the lives of children?

Makes me shake my head when I hear such.

People own knives because they are highly useful in preparing food, among other uses. Their danger to you is the cost you bear for having that other utility, but that utility is why they are owned and it's perfectly reasonable to accept that risk for other benefits. The primary reason people say they own guns is for the purpose/utility of self-protection. Since they actually make you less safe that is an illogical reason to own a gun.

There are many perfectly reasonable reasons to own a gun - sport shooting, hunting, etc. In those cases, just like a knife, you are accepting the harms that are associated with gun ownership in order to access their utility for amusement, food, whatever. That is a logical argument, but not the one that the vast majority of gun owners make when justifying their purchase. That's one of the many reasons why comparing knives to guns is silly.

 

[richaron]

The mantra is that owning guns makes you statistically less safe. Yes, it does. As does owning many potentially dangerous household items. My step-father lost most of three fingers to a table saw. If he hadn't owned one it never would have happened.

But it's totally disingenuous to say that means I think a gun and a table saw or a pair of scissors are the same thing. My point is when do you decide a tool is too dangerous for me to have, and what gives anyone the legal or moral right to say so when I've broken no law or done no harm with it. I think we have plenty of laws against murder and shooting people already, but now I have to give up my constitutional rights to satisfy the need of some to feel like they are doing something about the problem? And if I don't agree I'm immune to common sense and logic? Or don't care about the lives of children?

Makes me shake my head when I hear such.

Yeah... You keep trying to imply a gun is in the same league as other stuff which can cause damage. I've seen you do it again and again.

A table saw and a pair of scissors have been designed with a purpose. They might be used to kill but that is not their design. Guns were designed to kill. I guess they may be owned for sport but that was not their design.

As much sense as your post makes on the surface, it's fundamentally wrong. And I don't think an appeal to an archaic law about an organized militia defending your country from invaders has any relevance to this argument.

 

[Paladin3]

Yeah... You keep trying to imply a gun is in the same league as other stuff which can cause damage. I've seen you do it again and again.

A table saw and a pair of scissors have been designed with a purpose. They might be used to kill but that is not their design. Guns were designed to kill. I guess they may be owned for sport but that was not their design.

As much sense as your post makes on the surface, it's fundamentally wrong. And I don't think an appeal to an archaic law about an organized militia defending your country from invaders has any relevance to this argument.

I only compare guns to other potentially dangerous items when the argument is made that I am statistically less safe to own one. So what? We accept the danger of owning many tools and objects in exchange for the utility we put them to all the time.

Guns can be used for much more than killing, and, this will be hard for you to wrap your brain around, sometimes killing, or at least defending yourself and what you hold dear, in very necessary. It's very rare that you may need such protection, and if you don't want to take that precaution I completely understand and support your decision. But if the poop does hit the propellers the very first thing you will do is call someone with a gun to come help you out. So, please, stop all the BS about how guns only kill and so shouldn't exist.

And you have completely ignored that the only guns you are every going to collect from a country where there are more firearms than people are the ones the law-abiding willing surrender. The proposed "common sense" gun laws will do very little to deter crime, just as the last assault weapons ban did noting. Unless, of course, you have some magic to collect all those weapons?

The folks who are a problem aren't here on this board. The nuts/evil/sick individuals who will kill aren't listening to your impassioned pleas and arguments. Nothing I've seen proposed, that was actually possible to implement, would put a dent in gun violence.

 

[mikeymikec]

Well, then you are not living in the real world.

I'm sure this made sense to you when you wrote it. There is a world outside America. Things are different elsewhere. I realise this may be a shock to you.

There are more guns in America than people, and the gun culture is firmly ingrained in our society.<snip>

Stop right there. You like the gun laws the way they are in America, so attempting to argue that it would be difficult and pointless to change things is an utterly disingenuous position, which got ten times worse when you wrote this:

Unless you intend to pacify your stronger and better armed enemy that leaving you alone will later gain him sky cake in heaven.

This is a position advocating escalation, not de-escalation.

 

[richaron]

I only compare guns to other potentially dangerous items when the argument is made that I am statistically less safe to own one. So what? We accept the danger of owning many tools and objects in exchange for the utility we put them to all the time.

Guns can be used for much more than killing, and, this will be hard for you to wrap your brain around, sometimes killing, or at least defending yourself and what you hold dear, in very necessary. It's very rare that you may need such protection, and if you don't want to take that precaution I completely understand and support your decision. But if the poop does hit the propellers the very first thing you will do is call someone with a gun to come help you out. So, please, stop all the BS about how guns only kill and so shouldn't exist.

And you have completely ignored that the only guns you are every going to collect from a country where there are more firearms than people are the ones the law-abiding WILLINGLY SURRENDER.

Again you're bringing in some idea about "statistically less safe" when it's a strawman argument. That has nothing to do with any our my arguments (even if it is the case).

And your tripe about "defending" yourself is already assuming people have firearms. That is, your are pretending the existance of firearms is necessary because firearms exist. Lol, circular much? Not a good argument against removing firearms.

I propose there exists a very real possibility that guns aren't widespread, and thus all your tunnel vision arguments for the need of guns are unnecessary. So the debate should be how we can achieve a society where guns aren't widespread.

 

[Paladin3]

I'm sure this made sense to you when you wrote it. There is a world outside America. Things are different elsewhere. I realise this may be a shock to you.

Stop right there. You like the gun laws the way they are in America, so attempting to argue that it would be difficult and pointless to change things is an utterly disingenuous position, which got ten times worse when you wrote this:

This is a position advocating escalation, not de-escalation.

No, shit, there is more to this world than the United States. I never knew that. I's dumb.

Not pointless or difficult to change things...IMPOSSIBLE! The only changes you could possibly make would do nothing to stop those bent on committing gun violence.

No, I don't advocate escalation. I advocate being prepared for the worst since you can't stop those who would seek to do you harm. Willingly disarming while other stay armed is putting you completely at their mercy should they choose to exert control over you.

All of your arguments revolve around the assumption that you can achieve your peaceful world if the law abiding among us would just agree to give up our guns. And that you have some magic that will make it possible to confiscate the weapons of those who refuse to comply. While you selectively choose to ignore those who would use it as an opportunity to do even further harm.

You want to ban a tool and think it will magically change the evil/sickness/criminal element in the hearts of some men. I say better to be prepared than let your wishful thinking disarm the 99.9%+ of gun owners who aren't the problem. Even if you could.

 

[Thebobo]

No, shit, there is more to this world than the United States. I never knew that. I's dumb.

Not pointless or difficult to change things...IMPOSSIBLE! The only changes you could possibly make would do nothing to stop those bent on committing gun violence.

No, I don't advocate escalation. I advocate being prepared for the worst since you can't stop those who would seek to do you harm. Willingly disarming while other stay armed is putting you completely at their mercy should they choose to exert control over you.

All of your arguments revolve around the assumption that you can achieve your peaceful world if the law abiding among us would just agree to give up our guns. And that you have some magic that will make it possible to confiscate the weapons of those who refuse to comply. While you selectively choose to ignore those who would use it as an opportunity to do even further harm.

You want to ban a tool and think it will magically change the evil/sickness/criminal element in the hearts of some men. I say better to be prepared than let your wishful thinking disarm the 99.9%+ of gun owners who aren't the problem. Even if you could.

Yes now STFU

 

[Paladin3]

Again you're bringing in some idea about "statistically less safe" when it's a strawman argument. That has nothing to do with any our my arguments (even if it is the case).

And your tripe about "defending" yourself is already assuming people have firearms. That is, your are pretending the existance of firearms is necessary because firearms exist. Lol, circular much? Not a good argument against removing firearms.

I propose there exists a very real possibility that guns aren't widespread, and thus all your tunnel vision arguments for the need of guns are unnecessary. So the debate should be how we can achieve a society where guns aren't widespread.

Sorry, not sure where you are from, but I'm in the United States. We are the ones who allegedly have a gun problem and are having the current debate. I know we have more guns than we do people in the U.S. So, tell me where guns aren't widespread that is applicable to this discussion?

I happen to live in smalltown North Idaho, where firearms are very common. We hunt, target shoot and carry weapons for self-defense. You don't even need a license to open or conceal carry in this state, and it's not the dangerous wild west so many claim it should be because of the proliferation of guns.

And I already said if I could somehow make guns completely disappear I would. I'm just not ready to disarm because you think I should when I know damn good and well that you have no workable plan to get the guns away from the folks who are actually misusing them. People keep ignoring the fact that 99.9%+ of civilian owned guns are never used to commit a crime or hurt anyone. And those are the only guns you have a chance in hell of ever collecting because criminals/sick/evil folks won't turn theirs in.

Not to mention there are already a multitude of laws against shooting and murdering folks. And the last assault weapons ban didn't do crud to lessen gun violence. Much of what you folks propose has already been tried and failed. So, what laws do you have up your sleeve that I should support? What further laws short of a complete ban, which is impossible to enact, will do jack poop to change things?

And, please, don't tell me I just don't understand the negative effect guns have on society. I've seen people bleed out after being shot more than once. I've seen more death than the average person from all kinds of causes. I've seen guns misused just as I've seen alcohol and automobiles misused. I've hung out with folks in prison for murder. With kids who've stabbed other kids to death.

That still doesn't make me want to turn in my guns and hope everyone else will magically do the same and play nice. No mater how much fun it would be to collect swords and learn to fence.

 

[Paladin3]

Yes now STFU

What a retort. At least I was making a point and told someone to vote and change things or STFU.

 

[MrSquished]

The mantra is that owning guns makes you statistically less safe. Yes, it does. As does owning many potentially dangerous household items. My step-father lost most of three fingers to a table saw. If he hadn't owned one it never would have happened.

But it's totally disingenuous to say that means I think a gun and a table saw or a pair of scissors are the same thing. My point is when do you decide a tool is too dangerous for me to have, and what gives anyone the legal or moral right to say so when I've broken no law or done no harm with it. I think we have plenty of laws against murder and shooting people already, but now I have to give up my constitutional rights to satisfy the need of some to feel like they are doing something about the problem? And if I don't agree I'm immune to common sense and logic? Or don't care about the lives of children?

Makes me shake my head when I hear such.

from what i've seen most people want sensible gun control laws, not to simply ban guns. but i haven't heard everybody's opinions on the matter I'm sure. At least on this forum so far. IN my FB feed on gun control discussions it's impossible to get the gun folks to admit that guns are much of anything different than having a hammer, so we never get to actual regulation discussions since we can't even agree on what we are regulating.

 

[boomerang]

Democrats are after Trump right now. Next on the list will be conservatives. There are only two ways to protect myself from this. One is through the voting process. The other is to retain the ability to defend myself.

I'm not planning on giving up either of those two.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Democrats are after Trump right now. Next on the list will be conservatives. There are only two ways to protect myself from this. One is through the voting process. The other is to retain the ability to defend myself.

I'm not planning on giving up either of those two.

I've read that they've prepared a special camp just for you. Thoughts and prayers, bunky. Thoughts and prayers.

 

[ivwshane]

Democrats are after Trump right now. Next on the list will be conservatives. There are only two ways to protect myself from this. One is through the voting process. The other is to retain the ability to defend myself.

I'm not planning on giving up either of those two.

You better keep looking out your window, I hear they are coming really, really soon!!

 

[nickqt]

You better keep looking out your window, I hear they are coming really, really soon!!

FEMA trains, JadeHelm Walmarts.

Also: Pizzagate.

Be wary, fellow TruthSeeker.

Pizzagate.

Also: Benghazi.

 

[ivwshane]

FEMA trains, JadeHelm Walmarts.

Also: Pizzagate.

Be wary, fellow TruthSeeker.

Pizzagate.

Also: Benghazi.

He must go through Depends like crazy with all the pants shitting and bed wetting he does because of his fear of liberals. I'm guessing that's also why he has a large collection of guns.