White House to Push Gun Control

[nick1985]

Could you show me the source, so I can read it in context.

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.1/gun-facts-5.1-screen.pdf

All sources are cited. Feel free to dig in

 

[HAL9000]

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.1/gun-facts-5.1-screen.pdf

All sources are cited. Feel free to dig in

Ta, will do.

 

[Genx87]

Tell that to the 1811 people's families.

And???? Because 1811 people accidentally killed a family member with their gun I and my neighbors and the rest of the country should have their guns taken and us made criminals?

Stupid emotionally based logic is stupid.

 

[HAL9000]

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.1/gun-facts-5.1-screen.pdf

All sources are cited. Feel free to dig in

OK looked into it, it says that that one statistic I took issue with on the previous page was based on a times article from 2001, I can't find the original times source so I can't really argue with it. Soz dude.

And???? Because 1811 people accidentally killed a family member with their gun I and my neighbors and the rest of the country should have their guns taken and us made criminals?

Stupid emotionally based logic is stupid.

No because the ONLY guns exist is to kill. That is all. Guns should be banned because joe average has no right to own something who's express use is to kill.

 

[Genx87]

No because the ONLY guns exist is to kill. That is all. Guns should be banned because joe average has no right to own something who's express use is to kill.

Really? I have several guns. I use them to shoot targets. That said a gun can be used to kill. Much like many items. Are we going to ban them as well? And unlike Britain, we do have the right to own guns. Our founding fathers recognized the need of the civilian population to strike fear into the govt, not the other way around. For that I thank them.

 

[HAL9000]

Really? I have several guns. I use them to shoot targets. That said a gun can be used to kill. Much like many items. Are we going to ban them as well? And unlike Britain, we do have the right to own guns. Our founding fathers recognized the need of the civilian population to strike fear into the govt, not the other way around. For that I thank them.

That's what you use them for, but is that what they were made for?

You have the legal right, that doesn't equate to a moral right.

The express purpose of a gun is to kill, as well you know, sure you could use them for scratching your back or picking your nose but their purpose is a killing device.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

This rumor is refreshed every few months by gun shop owners to spur sales. I know at least a half a dozen folks that have bought AR's and other semi auto weapons in the last two years out of fear of a ban, and I regularly point and laugh at them. IMO anyone that thinks guns will ever be banned in the US is probably too stupid to own one.

Sure they might place more restrictions or requirements(which is probably a good idea) on buying guns or ammo, but it will never be illegal to own guns in this country. Even during the previous ban of "scarry guns" it only made it slightly more difficult to obtain a banned weapon and limited your choices somewhat.

But you know something needs to change when a guy can walk into a gunshop within 20 miles of the border and pay cash for 20 AK47's no questions asked and nothing reported to authorities, then return a few days later and buy 20 more. And the shop owner say "he passed the background check, I had no choice but to sell him the guns" :whiste:

 

[Genx87]

That's what you use them for, but is that what they were made for?

You have the legal right, that doesn't equate to a moral right.

Well obviously they were made for shooting targets. How else would they be able to shoot a target?

In what way is it immoral to be able to defend one self from his fellow man or govt?

 

[HAL9000]

Well obviously they were made for shooting targets. How else would they be able to shoot a target?

In what way is it immoral to be able to defend one self from his fellow man or govt?

They were made for shooting targets in the same way that DVD's were made for playing Frisbees. Both can be used for other purposes that for what they were meant to do.

It's immoral to kill. /Discussion on morality.

If your fellow man didn't have a gun you wouldn't need one either.

 

[Genx87]

They were made for shooting targets in the same way that DVD's were made for playing Frisbees. Both can be used for other purposes that for what they were meant to do.

It's immoral to kill. /Discussion on morality.

If your fellow man didn't have a gun you wouldn't need one either.

I am pretty sure DVDs were never marketed as a frisbee. Plus their design would make it hard to catch or control.

This is getting silly. All killing is immoral? Nobody has a right to self defense?

That last like is absolute crap. You telling me the elderly, physically unfit, women, single vs mobs, homeowners who are being robbed ect have nothing to worry about if their attackers dont have a gun? This is venturing into absurd.

 

[PrinceofWands]

They were made for shooting targets in the same way that DVD's were made for playing Frisbees. Both can be used for other purposes that for what they were meant to do.

It's immoral to kill. /Discussion on morality.

If your fellow man didn't have a gun you wouldn't need one either.

YOU claim it's immoral to kill, but there is NO singular truth to that. I claim that it IS moral to kill in defense of self, or for the greater good. I claim that it IS moral to kill to eat. Now where are we?

 

[xj0hnx]

You're absolutely right comparing the two is flawed, however it does give an insight into the fact that by banning guns the deaths went down. I'm not saying they stopped, they went down.

After the AWB sunset crime went down across the board, assault weapons save lives, at least according to your ignorant logic.

No because the ONLY guns exist is to kill. That is all. Guns should be banned because joe average has no right to own something who's express use is to kill.

Yes, we do, and that is WHY we have them, and the right to own them, to defend ourselves, whether it be from a criminal, or a the government.

That's what you use them for, but is that what they were made for?

You have the legal right, that doesn't equate to a moral right.

The express purpose of a gun is to kill, as well you know, sure you could use them for scratching your back or picking your nose but their purpose is a killing device.

Yes, their purpose is to kill, whether it food, criminals, foreign invaders, over reaching government. I do in fact have a moral right to be able to defend myself, and family, and a firearm is the tool designed to do that.

But you know something needs to change when a guy can walk into a gunshop within 20 miles of the border and pay cash for 20 AK47's no questions asked and nothing reported to authorities, then return a few days later and buy 20 more. And the shop owner say "he passed the background check, I had no choice but to sell him the guns" :whiste:

Why does it matter if he can walk in and buy 20 AK47's, disregarding the reality that no one can walk into a store and immediately walk out with an AK47, so what if someone buy 40 AK47's? Is him buying the AK47 the problem, or is the AK47 the problem? Is what he doing with 40 AK47's the problem, or is the AK47 the problem?

 

[thraashman]

Yeah, that is a really good start. Turn the majority of your population into criminals overnight. Brilliant fucking plan. Crime stats have no correlation with the amount of guns. Terrible logic, terrible start, terrible overall plan.

I can't find updated numbers, but as of 2005 about 3 in 10 adults in the US owned a gun. It's probably increased since there was an increase from 2000 to 2005. But still, not actually a majority. A lot yes, but not a majority. But considering how many people get jailed for relatively minor drug possession charges, adding gun owners would heavily overburden an already heavily overburdened system.

 

[Ldir]

This rumor is refreshed every few months by gun shop owners to spur sales. I know at least a half a dozen folks that have bought AR's and other semi auto weapons in the last two years out of fear of a ban, and I regularly point and laugh at them. IMO anyone that thinks guns will ever be banned in the US is probably too stupid to own one.

This

 

[PrinceofWands]

I can't find updated numbers, but as of 2005 about 3 in 10 adults in the US owned a gun. It's probably increased since there was an increase from 2000 to 2005. But still, not actually a majority. A lot yes, but not a majority. But considering how many people get jailed for relatively minor drug possession charges, adding gun owners would heavily overburden an already heavily overburdened system.

It's roughly 40% today, down from a high of roughly 50% in the mid 70s. It varies depending on methodology and thresholds.

 

[xj0hnx]

I can't find updated numbers, but as of 2005 about 3 in 10 adults in the US owned a gun. It's probably increased since there was an increase from 2000 to 2005. But still, not actually a majority. A lot yes, but not a majority. But considering how many people get jailed for relatively minor drug possession charges, adding gun owners would heavily overburden an already heavily overburdened system.

This is of course legal owners and people that haven't forgotten about grandpas WWII .45 sitting in the attic, I'd guess the actual number of firearms owners is a lot higher. The system would collapse if they tried to start imprisoning firearms owners, many of the people doing the enforcement would have to turn themselves in.

 

[thraashman]

YOU claim it's immoral to kill, but there is NO singular truth to that. I claim that it IS moral to kill in defense of self, or for the greater good. I claim that it IS moral to kill to eat. Now where are we?

I'm pretty sure he meant it's immoral to kill people. And if you're killing people to eat, I'm gonna have to side with Neckarb on that being immoral. Then again, maybe he's a vegetarian and did mean animals too. In which case I'd side with you.

 

[Ldir]

Really? I have several guns. I use them to shoot targets. That said a gun can be used to kill. Much like many items.

I have used a screwdriver to drive a nail. I could also use a gun to drive a nail. That doesn't change either's purpose. The purpose of a screwdriver is driving screws. The purpose of a gun is killing.

 

[Genx87]

I can't find updated numbers, but as of 2005 about 3 in 10 adults in the US owned a gun. It's probably increased since there was an increase from 2000 to 2005. But still, not actually a majority. A lot yes, but not a majority. But considering how many people get jailed for relatively minor drug possession charges, adding gun owners would heavily overburden an already heavily overburdened system.

That is really nitpicking isnt it? Whether is it 51% or 34%. The point is a sizeable portion of the population is turned into a criminal. And why? Because 1811 people are accidentally killed a year by a family member and guns are designed to kill people?

 

[thraashman]

This is of course legal owners and people that haven't forgotten about grandpas WWII .45 sitting in the attic, I'd guess the actual number of firearms owners is a lot higher. The system would collapse if they tried to start imprisoning firearms owners, many of the people doing the enforcement would have to turn themselves in.

Fair enough, good point.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I'm pretty sure he meant it's immoral to kill people. And if you're killing people to eat, I'm gonna have to side with Neckarb on that being immoral. Then again, maybe he's a vegetarian and did mean animals too. In which case I'd side with you.

Even if that's so, my other two claims remain. The point isn't how many, if any, agree with me, it's that there is NO single source of morality. To make a claim that something is or is not moral displays a profound lack of understanding with regards to basic ethics and philosophy.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

No because the ONLY guns exist is to kill. That is all. Guns should be banned because joe average has no right to own something who's express use is to kill.

Why not? If someone is trying to kill me or a member of my fiamly I absolutely have the moral and legal right ti kill them in self defense. Therefore I should have the right to own tools capable of accomplishing that goal.

 

[nick1985]

The purpose of a gun is killing.

Such a baseless blanket statement.

You are going to tell me the purpose of that over/under is to kill?

 

[halik]

OK looked into it, it says that that one statistic I took issue with on the previous page was based on a times article from 2001, I can't find the original times source so I can't really argue with it. Soz dude.



No because the ONLY guns exist is to kill. That is all. Guns should be banned because joe average has no right to own something who's express use is to kill.

I'm pretty sure there's an amendment out there that says the exact opposite.


Would bayonets fall under the same logic? Pretty sure their express purpose is to kill as well. Bow and arrows? Spears?

 

[OutHouse]

And your brain thinks the ACLU would take up a 2nd amendment fight in place of the NRA. Did you huff paint as a kid?

lol