The 2013 Fakku SD Gun Control thread.
0
Flaser wrote...
yummines wrote...
I just don't understand the need to have a rifle to protect yourself.Anything stronger than a handgun was made for the specific purpose to kill. Not self-defense.
I know with that logic people shouldn't have handguns either, but at least those with some training can be used for non-lethal takedowns. After all that's why our police have handguns and not rifles. Nobody, and I mean nobody should own a gun without being properly trained as well, even for self-defense. An untrained person with a gun is a bigger danger to the ones around him than it is protecting the ones around him.
No, you are wrong. *All* guns were designed to kill, no exceptions. It's the lethality that gives weapons their authority. It's this authority itself that protects a gun owner first and foremost, the threat of *deadly* violence.
If you go for a "non-lehtal" takedown, you're out of your mind... in fact you likely won't be able to do that in a stressful situation. Matter of fact you'll have trouble even hitting your target, hence why it's taught to aim for the center of mass.
On the training issue, I agree with you.
I'm for gun-control too, as a weapon carries quite a bit of responsibility and wouldn't mind if people could only own and carry weapons once taught how to handle that. If you can fork over a $300 for a gun, passing a $20-$40 course that teaches you gun-safety and drills you on proper use doesn't seem so arbitrary. If possible I'd include a situation drills too, where people are taught how to find cover, call the police and warn the attacker that they're armed and ready use their weapon.
It should be a universal right, but just like driving an automobile it should come with requirements.
However I'm not sure whether it's the weapons itself that make the USA so much deadlier. Most homicide with firearms are committed with handguns and all the various kinds of "assault weapon" (a pure BS. concept) or "magazine limits" won't change those as most Saturday night specials fall right outside these regulations.
no i know that all guns were made to kill. that's why people try to get around that, by making thinks such as rubber bullets and shotguns that shoot beanbags.
but im guessing that's too difficult for the common civilian to get, so instead we all get guns to kill each other.
i guess i was thinking too ideally
0
yummines wrote...
no i know that all guns were made to kill. that's why people try to get around that, by making thinks such as rubber bullets and shotguns that shoot beanbags.
but im guessing that's too difficult for the common civilian to get, so instead we all get guns to kill each other.
i guess i was thinking too ideally
No, both are available to civvies, especially the beanbag/baton rounds for shotguns. And probably they work for many situations. Except rubber bullets require a specially modified firearm (lighter bullets not providing enough recoil force to cycle the action), and less-lethal 12ga rounds only work in a pump gun. There is the other problem in that if one is facing someone on harder drugs, often they won't perceive the pain and literally the only thing that stops them is when their muscles do not get blood or their CNS shuts down.
[unrelated]
MrColionNoir posted a new video. )Note, I think he's leaving out a need for better mental health care but he makes goooooood points)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR3t7j2tUec
0
Flaser wrote...
I'm for gun-control too, as a weapon carries quite a bit of responsibility and wouldn't mind if people could only own and carry weapons once taught how to handle that. If you can fork over a $300 for a gun, passing a $20-$40 course that teaches you gun-safety and drills you on proper use doesn't seem so arbitrary. If possible I'd include a situation drills too, where people are taught how to find cover, call the police and warn the attacker that they're armed and ready use their weapon.This is a sensible regulation that I'd support because it doesn't restrict the access for civilians to own firearms. Anyways, I required a training course to teach me how to drive properly when I came of age and a vehicle is arguably more dangerous to the public than a .22 handgun. So it stands to reason that teaching people how to responsibly handle the firearm is just common sense. Florida and a few other states already require training from certified courses in order to acquire a concealed carry permit so it isn't much of a stretch to require training to use a firearm.
0
It's a great idea, but unfortunately, the equivalence between cars and guns breaks down in two respects:
1) owning and driving a car is not specifically mentioned and protected by the bill of rights.
2) you can't go on Daily Kos and ThinkProgress to find people pushing for the complete elimination of car ownership, starting with regulations that made cars easier to track and harder to afford.
Anti-gun groups call us paranoid for not trusting their long-term goals. But when the "National Coalition to Ban Handguns" suddenly changes its name to the "Coalition to Stop Gun Violence", with all the same immediate policy recommendations, we kinda assume they're just being quieter about the "ban" bit. So we end up fighting the group itself, as well as its few reasonable proposals, because we know they aren't arguing in good faith.
[size=10](I mean, really, these guys want to massively expand the secret "no-fly list" and make it part of daily life? I thought left-wing people rightly hated that list? But apparently not when it's being used against their enemies...)[/h]
I took a safety course before getting my concealed carry permit, and a basic training course after. I really wish the millions of dollars we have to spend fighting arbitrary magazine bans could be used to fund and promote that kind of education, which after all was originally the NRA's only mission.
I just can't think of any way to make it mandatory without anti-gun people undermining it as part of their overall agenda. It'd be like letting PETA appoint people to the USDA LOL.
1) owning and driving a car is not specifically mentioned and protected by the bill of rights.
2) you can't go on Daily Kos and ThinkProgress to find people pushing for the complete elimination of car ownership, starting with regulations that made cars easier to track and harder to afford.
Anti-gun groups call us paranoid for not trusting their long-term goals. But when the "National Coalition to Ban Handguns" suddenly changes its name to the "Coalition to Stop Gun Violence", with all the same immediate policy recommendations, we kinda assume they're just being quieter about the "ban" bit. So we end up fighting the group itself, as well as its few reasonable proposals, because we know they aren't arguing in good faith.
[size=10](I mean, really, these guys want to massively expand the secret "no-fly list" and make it part of daily life? I thought left-wing people rightly hated that list? But apparently not when it's being used against their enemies...)[/h]
I took a safety course before getting my concealed carry permit, and a basic training course after. I really wish the millions of dollars we have to spend fighting arbitrary magazine bans could be used to fund and promote that kind of education, which after all was originally the NRA's only mission.
I just can't think of any way to make it mandatory without anti-gun people undermining it as part of their overall agenda. It'd be like letting PETA appoint people to the USDA LOL.
0
Altereggo wrote...
(I mean, really, these guys want to massively expand the secret "no-fly list" and make it part of daily life? I thought left-wing people rightly hated that list? But apparently not when it's being used against their enemies...)The "wings" of both sides are just hypocrites. When their guy is in office, all expanses or abuses of power are fair game but, when the other team is in power, then the very things they supported are no unconstitutional. I remember in 2003 when Hilary Clinton said
“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
That was when a Republican was in office but, the moment we have a Democrat? Now, it's just un-American to question or oppose the government (and if you do you're obviously a racist, neo-nazi, white supremacist). That is, until a Republican is back in office then it's your patriotic duty to oppose them.
Then again what do you expect from a president with a "truth team"
0
Oh shit everyone, debate's over. They win
This is the ignorant and hateful bullshit we have to deal with. You can just feel the bigotry oozing out of them, can't you?
The best part is that the DHS just issued a "personal protection weapon" spec the other day, specifically mentioning ease-of-use by female agents. It called for the exact weapons they're trying to ban as "not suitable for personal protection"
This is the ignorant and hateful bullshit we have to deal with. You can just feel the bigotry oozing out of them, can't you?
The best part is that the DHS just issued a "personal protection weapon" spec the other day, specifically mentioning ease-of-use by female agents. It called for the exact weapons they're trying to ban as "not suitable for personal protection"
0
Altereggo wrote...
Oh shit everyone, debate's over. They winThis is the ignorant and hateful bullshit we have to deal with. You can just feel the bigotry oozing out of them, can't you?
The best part is that the DHS just issued a "personal protection weapon" spec the other day, specifically mentioning ease-of-use by female agents. It called for the exact weapons they're trying to ban as "not suitable for personal protection"
McCarthy just shot her own argument to pieces, pardon the pun. Last I checked, the AR-15 is a rifle. And there is no way anyone who has spent any time with guns is going to recommend a bolt-rifle for defense.
0
What annoys me about the topic of gun control is the fact that most gun enthusiasts think gun control is trying to keep them from having guns. I am always seeing things of people crying how Obama wants to take our guns away and it annoys me.
0
Steven H. wrote...
What annoys me about the topic of gun control is the fact that most gun enthusiasts think gun control is trying to keep them from having guns. I am always seeing things of people crying how Obama wants to take our guns away and it annoys me.It is from the standpoint of attrition. No reasonable gun owner honestly thinks that 'Obama is coming for their guns' because confiscation WILL result in both armed resistance and partial defections from the military. The 'antis' know this. Their goal is to prevent anyone new from owning them, similar to California's law. When someone dies, their registered weapons must be turned in or sold elsewhere. On a federal level, such a ban would in a generation's time remove all 'scary' weapons from civilian hands. It's confiscation by attrition. Most of the people who own AR-15s, or AK-47 style rifles, FALs, HK's, ect all commonly believe that the second amendment confirms our right to possess firearms sufficient to discourage the government from taking 'drastic' actions. The Constitution was created to limit the government, not the people. Preventing future potential owners from owning such firearms constitutes the gutting of and a direct attack on the second amendment, and is thus resisted vehemently.
0
Steven H. wrote...
What annoys me about the topic of gun control is the fact that most gun enthusiasts think gun control is trying to keep them from having guns. I am always seeing things of people crying how Obama wants to take our guns away and it annoys me.Well... What IS it then? Confiscation bills have come up, and we've defeated them (so far). That was the only saving grace of the recent New York affair.
Anti-gun people are open about wanting to ban the guns we own. And you're somehow annoyed that we acknowledge this?
0
Steven H. wrote...
What annoys me about the topic of gun control is the fact that most gun enthusiasts think gun control is trying to keep them from having guns. I am always seeing things of people crying how Obama wants to take our guns away and it annoys me.Perhaps, it's because the anti-gun fanatics seem to think that the U.K. is a perfect example of how guns should be treated. These individuals keep pushing for restrictions and bans on certain firearms despite the fact that gun ownership is going up.rates are going down. Not to mention that various legislatures are proposing bills that are eerily similar to this.
So we've got people who ignore the facts about guns and gun control who continue to push forward with their knee jerk legislation. Then we have people such as Rep. Donna Edwards who is on the record saying that “since Columbine, there have been 181 of these school shootings.” That’s an inflated figure. She used a list of “major school shootings” supplied by the Brady Campaign that included incidents that were neither shootings nor at schools.
So these individuals, misrepresent information (read: lie), ignore the facts about how gun control doesn't work nor actually has any tangible affect on the levels of violence a country suffers and actually is unrelated entirely from the levels of violence.
It only seems paranoid to you because you simply didn't know any better. You probably felt you could trust those elected officials in Washington or that you could trust the media to always give you the truth. I mean, there couldn't possibly be ulterior motives behind someone's actions in regards to potential control over others right?
Hammers kill more people than rifles. Y'know, we just need to ban hammers. They're just too deadly for anyone other than the police or military to use.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Steven H. wrote...
What annoys me about the topic of gun control is the fact that most gun enthusiasts think gun control is trying to keep them from having guns. I am always seeing things of people crying how Obama wants to take our guns away and it annoys me.Perhaps, it's because the anti-gun fanatics seem to think that the U.K. is a perfect example of how guns should be treated. These individuals keep pushing for restrictions and bans on certain firearms despite the fact that gun ownership is going up.rates are going down. Not to mention that various legislatures are proposing bills that are eerily similar to this.
So we've got people who ignore the facts about guns and gun control who continue to push forward with their knee jerk legislation. Then we have people such as Rep. Donna Edwards who is on the record saying that “since Columbine, there have been 181 of these school shootings.” That’s an inflated figure. She used a list of “major school shootings” supplied by the Brady Campaign that included incidents that were neither shootings nor at schools.
So these individuals, misrepresent information (read: lie), ignore the facts about how gun control doesn't work nor actually has any tangible affect on the levels of violence a country suffers and actually is unrelated entirely from the levels of violence.
Hammers kill more people than rifles. Y'know, we just need to ban hammers. They're just too deadly for anyone other than the police or military to use.
Generally, I agree with Fiery on this issue is where I lean a bit Libertarian. There's always going to be accidents, etc. The way to 'manage' violence is to disencourage it in our homes, in our schools. IE: Building a community.
That said, I also believe there's a line we can balance. There's reasonable actions we can take to keep more dangerous weapons from falling into the hands of criminals. And we can tote the line between respecting privacy and at the same time not casting a net over all people with "mental disorders, etc"
For example: Depression is not a "mental disorder", I wouldn't classify it as such. We all feel depressed at points or another. And Severe Depression can be treated through therapy and other natural means as well.
Those citizens have the right to their second amendment as any other, of course there should be a regulation for these kinds of citizens, but the regulation is to protect, not prevent.
0
LustfulAngel wrote...
Generally, I agree with Fiery on this issue is where I lean a bit Libertarian. There's always going to be accidents, etc. The way to 'manage' violence is to disencourage it in our homes, in our schools. IE: Building a community.I get the feeling you were trying to imply you disagreed with me somewhere but, I'm not sure if it's an error on your part or if I misread something.
1
I'm thinking the assault weapon ban is extremely unlikely to become law. I think what will go through are universal background checks,tighter enforcement/penalties for gun trafficking,and the ATF might actually get the authority to do stuff...along with a permanent director.
I'm hoping something relating to mental illness/health gets passed as well,along with requring gun owners to go through enough training o they don't end up accidentally shooting themselves or others. Srsly, i question the right of people who can't handle guns safely to have them
I'm hoping something relating to mental illness/health gets passed as well,along with requring gun owners to go through enough training o they don't end up accidentally shooting themselves or others. Srsly, i question the right of people who can't handle guns safely to have them
0
Altereggo wrote...
Steven H. wrote...
What annoys me about the topic of gun control is the fact that most gun enthusiasts think gun control is trying to keep them from having guns. I am always seeing things of people crying how Obama wants to take our guns away and it annoys me.Well... What IS it then? Confiscation bills have come up, and we've defeated them (so far). That was the only saving grace of the recent New York affair.
Anti-gun people are open about wanting to ban the guns we own. And you're somehow annoyed that we acknowledge this?
Are you talking about H.R.226? Which gives the owner the right to give up their gun for a tax credit. It doesn't say it forces the US people to give them up.
Also let it be known I believe in gun control and background and mental health checks. I don't believe the Government should ban guns, but I do think they should make the purchasing of those guns harder along with the bullets that go with them.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
Generally, I agree with Fiery on this issue is where I lean a bit Libertarian. There's always going to be accidents, etc. The way to 'manage' violence is to disencourage it in our homes, in our schools. IE: Building a community.I get the feeling you were trying to imply you disagreed with me somewhere but, I'm not sure if it's an error on your part or if I misread something.
I was saying that I mostly agreed, I do lean Libertarian on this issue. But I also think there are safe mechanisms that we should try to put into place that don't put the second amendment liberties and rights in danger.
It doesn't have to be either/or, we can accomplish a sane, safe policy.
0
LustfulAngel wrote...
I was saying that I mostly agreed, I do lean Libertarian on this issue. But I also think there are safe mechanisms that we should try to put into place that don't put the second amendment liberties and rights in danger.It doesn't have to be either/or, we can accomplish a sane, safe policy.
There is a problem with that view. Gun owners have made numerous sacrifices over the years because they believed they could somehow come to a compromise with anti-gun individuals. That is a very naive belief, to think that groups such as the Brady campaign will stop before they have a total and comprehensive ban on all private ownership of firearms while maintaining excessive bureaucratic controls such as expensive licenses, expensive " government approved" safety classes, excess regulations over where you can keep them, what kind of security devices, how you can transport them, where you can transport them, etc over anything they can't get a Federal ban on.
So it very much is all or nothing with these groups. Every inch you voluntarily give up only puts them that much closer to achieving what they want. I've already referenced how the Brady campaign provided false information for their campaigns. You can't reason/compromise with a group that has shown it has no integrity.
0
Steven H. wrote...
Are you talking about H.R.226?
No, the first bills drafted in NY and Illinois had confiscation, but it was taken out when they realized they didn't have the votes. And Dianne Feinstein is quite open about confiscation being her long-term goal, so why should we let her take a single step towards it?
At this point we just don't trust them enough to EVER want to make "compromises" with them.
Because what have they offered US? Compromise is about give and take, and all they want to do is take. Maybe they should offer us national concealed carry reciprocity and a ban on gun registries in exchange for ending private sales? That would be a compromise.
Edit: there are now Thirty Four anti-gun bills in the New Jersey legislature. One of them is a ban on the 10 round magazines we "compromised" on last time.
So what's stopping them coming back for even more later? All we can do is beat them here.
0
Altereggo wrote...
Steven H. wrote...
Are you talking about H.R.226?
No, the first bills drafted in NY and Illinois had confiscation, but it was taken out when they realized they didn't have the votes. And Dianne Feinstein is quite open about confiscation being her long-term goal, so why should we let her take a single step towards it?
At this point we just don't trust them enough to EVER want to make "compromises" with them.
Because what have they offered US? Compromise is about give and take, and all they want to do is take. Maybe they should offer us national concealed carry reciprocity and a ban on gun registries in exchange for ending private sales? That's a compromise.
I think a 2,000 dollar tax break is actually a pretty good compromise, also why do you want to ban a registration? That just sounds like you don't wanna be caught if you did commit a crime using a gun.
Most likely we'll never agree on this subject.
0
Steven H. wrote...
I think a 2,000 dollar tax break is actually a pretty good compromise, also why do you want to ban a registration? That just sounds like you don't wanna be caught if you did commit a crime using a gun.
1) Don't you dare call me a criminal. I didn't start insulting you, so have the decency to refrain from it yourself.
2) I can buy a $150 "assault weapon" and get a $2000 tax credit for it? Sounds good to me! I never say no to free money.
3) Registration of all firearms has been done in three english-speaking countries: Australia, England, and Canada. In two of those cases the registry was used to enforce confiscation several years later.
In Canada's case the registry was partially repealed before that could happen.
So you can perhaps see why we don't want to go down that road, yes?