With 5% of the world's population, Americans now possess ~1/2 of the world's guns

Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by Muse, Jan 7, 2013.

  1. StinkyPinky

    StinkyPinky Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    8
    I don't get you guys. We already have gun control in this country. You cannot go out and buy or own certain weapons already and no one seemed to whine about the 2nd then.

    No one (except a few extremists) is asking for a total gun ban. Just to tone it down a bit which we have done before in the past. Perhaps a limit on amount of guns owned and restricting certain types of firearms. If you want to buy a weapon in the mistaken belief it protects your family, then knock yourself out. Most "gun control" advocates don't have an issue with that. What we have an issue with is Mom and Pop owning a big bag of semi-auto weapons and stashing it under their bed so their mentally deranged or clinically depressed son can get access to them.
     
  2. spidey07

    spidey07 No Lifer

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2000
    Messages:
    65,476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right. Because what you described happens almost never but you want to fundamentally infringe on natural rights of defense.

    NO!

    You DO know that most fire arms are the deadly semi-automatic that sprays boolits, right? Of all the guns I own, only one isnt semi-auto...a pump action shotgun. You think that thing is any less deadly? It's probably the most deadly single shot I have.
     
    #202 spidey07, Jan 8, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2013
  3. Nemesis 1

    Nemesis 1 Lifer

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    11,379
    Likes Received:
    0
    No its the law of a corrupt gooberment , You about to know the law of the land. for those who think they can own land.
     
  4. irishScott

    irishScott Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    21,570
    Likes Received:
    1
    Do you even know what semi-auto means? Without googling? I don't think you do, you're using it very, very wrong. I mean "confusing a stick shift for an automatic transmission" wrong. And that's a big part of the problem.

    And you misunderstand the mentality of gun ownership. Sure there are some paranoids out there, but I think even they understand that the gun in and of itself does nothing. It's the user behind it that matters. Suffice it to say most gun owners are.. normal. As in you wouldn't know they own guns unless they told you. They just don't make the media's agenda-driven news.

    The Virginia tech shooting involved two handguns. One with ten rounds in the magazine and one with 15 rounds in the magazine. Granted the latter would be an "assault weapon", but the point is he carried a shit-ton of reloads. And guess what? He killed more people than the Sandy Hook Psycho, despite his lack of big scary black boom stick (as opposed to tame, folksy, wooden boom stick with near identical capabilities).

    And even if you limit detachable mags, you know what I can do? I can tape several of them together with fucking packaging tape, meaning to reload all I have to do is pop out old mag, move magazine array half an inch, pop in new mag. It's ridiculously easy and has been around since Vietnam.

    And you know what? I and many gun owners wouldn't have much issue with things like mental health checks and such. In fact I know gun store owners who support such measures. But no one, not a single senator or congressman, is proposing that. What they are proposing is a blanket ban, which is lazy legislating at best and the product of a destructive cultural agenda at worst.

    There is no reason why anyone who can prove that they're mentally competent, law-abiding, and a proficient shooter should not be able to own an assault weapon. Agreed? So where's that bill?

    So long as the charge is led by the likes of Feinstein and McCarthy, who's anti-gun zealotry rivals that of suicide bombers (and is just as stupid), it's going to be very hard to convince me that any gun control is a good idea. Even if we were in fantasy land and it were effective in the US, I wouldn't trust the federal government to implement it in the slightest.
     
  5. irishScott

    irishScott Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    21,570
    Likes Received:
    1
    It is?

    ^^^ Sound familiar?


    Panicked? Is that what you think? I feel strongly about this issue yes, but panicked? Lol. You could ban all guns and I'd be fine. It's the broader implications I'm worried about. You don't restrict freedom in any context without a solid, factual reason or very strong theories. There is no factual reason to ban assault weapons or high capacity magazines (essentially every study done on the Clinton ban showed no measurable difference in gun crime), there are no strong theories.

    There ARE factual reasons and strong theories to institute things like mental health checks, mandatory training, that sort of thing. But that obvious step is lost on so many that there has to be an ulterior motive. And I don't even have to look for it, it's being brandished by those leading the charge. Feinstein herself voted for the freaking UN to have a say in determining domestic US gun laws. SCOTUS just barely passed the protections on an individual right to bear arms.

    I have no heard a single moderate voice asking for reasonable gun control. It's all "ban this, ban that, that looks scary ban it too; just in case". "Oh and the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners who haven't done anything wrong? Yeah, we'll say they're not the problem and then treat them like they are. Fucking hillbillies."

    That's the attitude I hear from the majority of gun control advocates, and yeah it pisses me off. Namely because it's fucking stupid. Never-mind that they almost always demonstrate pathetic lack of knowledge about the very thing they seek to regulate. You talk to a gun rights advocate and he/she pulls out a bunch of stats. Even if they're bad numbers, I can guarantee very few gun control advocates can do the same. You know why that is? Because gun control advocates are usually the ones doing the attacking, and gun rights advocates have to repeatably defend themselves.

    Until that changes, yeah, I'm not putting my gun rights in the hands of any politicians; and certainly not in the hands of anyone who knows as much about guns as a 3rd grader does about calculus.
     
    #205 irishScott, Jan 8, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2013
  6. 1prophet

    1prophet Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Messages:
    4,117
    Likes Received:
    8

    Say again,

    lots of people make a good living off these instruments of violence, while living in not so terrible conditions,

    yet somehow this is acceptable while the rag tag Afghani making guns is not.:rolleyes:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  7. xj0hnx

    xj0hnx Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    9,267
    Likes Received:
    1
    Why? As what I posted in response to it clearly shows, it and his interpretation are 100% wrong.

    First off, I don't need some politician to tell me which firearms I can have, or if I can have them at all. My right to have a firearm are as protected as your right to post your dribble on this forum. Second, to the bolded, um ...no, they aren't, all one has to do is read the bills, and actually know something about firearms to see that, or one could simply Google "McCarthy barrel shroud" and watch the idiocy ooze from her ignorant snatch ...

    http://bit.ly/VOFazK

    Except that their past track record has been a miserable failure, and funny enough the guns that scared you totalitarian progressives the most aren't even affected in any meaningful way.

    Don't know, why is it so hard for you to understand?

    Because those "smart" people don't want "sensible" gun legislation, they want to ban as many guns as they can and still get re-elected. Because the problem isn't the guns, it's the people, but going after the real problem doesn't have the emotional impact that trying to ban scary "military" weapons does.
     
  8. OrByte

    OrByte Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2000
    Messages:
    8,995
    Likes Received:
    0
    people like Feinstein want to ban weapons and materials in order to hurt the gun industry and corporations. I have a problem with that and i agree that i dont think her bill goes in the right direction in terms of improving gun safety. But I'm not entirely dismissing her bill, I think its a start.

    people like you want to hide behind the constitution so that you can play pretend GI JOEs with all your gun buddies...thats fine. But I think the 2nd Amendment argument is a complete farce..a joke..I think you guys are being led by the nose on a smoke and mirrors campaign to keep the money flowing to the gun industry, and thats pathetic. No one is taking away the 2nd amendment. You may not like the fact that firearms and sales are regulated...tough sh!t. It is...deal with it.

    people like me want considerate, reasonable, and logical controls put in place in terms of which firearms and materials should be allowed for public purchase, who should be allowed to purchase them and where guns should be allowed to be carried. That's where I think SMART people come into play....people like researchers, and mental health professionals...advocates for responsible gun ownership. People that are going to provide the data necessary to make reasoned descisions on gun safety. And give our legislators all the justification and data possible to legislate appropriately.

    Heaven forbid this country has a reasonable conversation about this...and that is EXACTLY what the gun lobby/industry wants to avoid!!! And people like you and Mr. Frothy at the mouth Alex Jones and Piers Morgan perpetuate...this dysfunctional red herring argument that goes no where...and keeps money flowing to the gun industry.
     
  9. xj0hnx

    xj0hnx Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    9,267
    Likes Received:
    1
    It's not a start because it is a complete farce, and does nothing whatsoever to address the real problems.

    Don't like it? Change it, till then ...tough shit.

    No one is being lead by anything, if you think the "gun industry" is influencing how people think about the 2nd, and firearms then you are even more clueless than I thought.

    More asinine restrictions that do absolutely nothing to address the problem, and only affect law abiding firearms owners DO infringe on people's freedom protected by the 2nd whether YOU think so or not.

    That not happening though. The pillars of anti-gun nut job ideas on gun legislation are distortions, and outright lies.

    You speaking of red herrings is delicious ironing. There is no conversation coming from the anti-gun nut job lobby, that's you, there's fallacy, appeal to emotion, and lies.
     
  10. OrByte

    OrByte Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2000
    Messages:
    8,995
    Likes Received:
    0
    lol!!
     
  11. xj0hnx

    xj0hnx Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    9,267
    Likes Received:
    1
    The sum of your brain power on display.
     
  12. irishScott

    irishScott Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    21,570
    Likes Received:
    1
    Can't speak for everyone but I was taught, in 4th grade history and up through high school (whenever it was touched on), that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure that the militias would still be around to overthrow the government if it became necessary. This was backed up by many of the quotes you've seen in this thread.

    This was in a public school in a fairly liberal, extremely well off area of Northern Virginia over several different teachers.

    Now granted that's not the primary reason I own guns, but it is a legitimate reason IMO; and in my case at least the freaking gun lobby had nothing to do with establishing that perspective. It's a perspective rooted in historical fact, even if the modern politics of it are only a few decades old.
     
  13. OrByte

    OrByte Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2000
    Messages:
    8,995
    Likes Received:
    0
    no actually I'm just not going to bother anymore

    I can't lay out my position any clearer than I already did yet for some reason you call me out on appeals to emotion, fallacies, and other BS that frankly I think you are projecting something at this point which has nothing to do with me nor my positions

    keep clinging to your guns and religion and 2nd amendment rights. Thanks
     
  14. OrByte

    OrByte Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2000
    Messages:
    8,995
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am in TOTAL agreement with you and your 2nd amendment rights...you can have it..if it was a fvcking dish I would serve it to you myself.

    I even enjoy the 2nd amendment rights too...I love my 2nd amendment rights

    what I am trying to show you...is that this should not be about the 2nd amendment at all but rather gun regulation...something that is already being done!!
     
  15. spidey07

    spidey07 No Lifer

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2000
    Messages:
    65,476
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will. They are natural rights and liberties that you, nor man, nor government can take away.
     
  16. irishScott

    irishScott Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    21,570
    Likes Received:
    1
    Oh it's all about gun regulation. Only the extreme minority thinks gun regulation (in most states) should be loosened. The 2nd amendment is brought in because of the gun control leaders' obvious and in some cases openly stated contempt for it.

    Plus, politicians like extremes to rile up their constituents, and in this case innocent gun owners get caught in its wake. If the 2nd amendment can conceivably be used to defend these gun owners, why shouldn't they use it?

    Politics is almost never about solving problems, that takes place on the lower levels when the politicians are convinced to let it happen. On the congressional and senate floor, it's all about power.
     
  17. xj0hnx

    xj0hnx Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    9,267
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes, I know, I know.
     
  18. RabidMongoose

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2001
    Messages:
    11,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's shocking that the US has 50% of the world's guns. It's very troubling because a significant portion of our population is mentally sick, too.
     
  19. rommelrommel

    rommelrommel Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,057
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why is it shocking? Have you been living under a rock your whole life?

    It's also wrong, but not massively... I keep seeing 875-900 million guns in existence. The US probably has 300 million or so. So somewhere around a third. I believe they're also counting guns held by the govt at all levels in that as well.
     
  20. unokitty

    unokitty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    3,349
    Likes Received:
    0

    According to Wikipedia, North America contains 5.17 per cent of the world's population, yet it also controls 27.1 per cent of the world's net worth.

    Do you find that troubling as well?

    Uno
     
  21. sothsegger

    sothsegger Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    i hope you are not suggesting censorship of violence in films, language, or media. i, for one, don't feel that media violence causes actual violence. rather, something else is causing both media and actual violence. violence on film and tv is at least a creative way to process the violent energy in society. i feel censorship would increase actual violence, not reduce it.
     
  22. Agent11

    Agent11 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    3,535
    Likes Received:
    1
    How would restricting the number of fire arms owned by an individual stop mass shootings??

    This is why we cannot relax. You guys keep opening your mouths with torrential amounts of stupid.
     
  23. sothsegger

    sothsegger Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    watch out! "clinically depressed" doesn't mean prone to violence.
     
  24. Broheim

    Broheim Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Messages:
    4,582
    Likes Received:
    1
    just understand..there are people that are smarter than, and they are tasked with the job of determining whether people need to have <insert liberty here>

    basically it seems like you'd love North Korea...

    on a side note, I'm happy to report from a country with draconian gun laws that we have successfully disarmed all criminals and did not just have our third shooting this week... oh wait :hmm:
     
  25. spidey07

    spidey07 No Lifer

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2000
    Messages:
    65,476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly. They slip up and let their real goals shine through.

    Control.