Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Jan 29, '13 at 7:17pm

wolf1991

wolf1991

3,557 posts

Ever tried hunting with a rock? Traps are dangerous to everything, can't use that. I find this kind of naïve discussion of guns annoying. Surprise, people with degrees retire into the wild to get away from this sort of thing. Yet you still can't leave us alone. Shame on you.


I'm not sure I see this as being relevant. Congrats?

And why is there such an outcry against people who are trying to be reasonable about gun legislation?

Now I'll admit the current bills seem to be a bit of a knee jerk reaction, but I would rather have this stuff sorted out over time than to simply continue without any reasonable measures in place.
 

Posted Jan 30, '13 at 1:44am

PauseBreak

PauseBreak

317 posts

And why is there such an outcry against people who are trying to be reasonable about gun legislation?


One issue that people are aware of, it is just another small step towards more dismantling of the Bill of Rights. The problem with trying to compromise with these some of these legislators is that they have down right said, on record, that their goal is to disarm America. And it blows my mind that people either refuse to acknowledge that fact or that when presented with that truth they just shrug their shoulders and say nothing.

Although, you can't simple educate people who refuse to acknowledge the facts that are put before them. The information is out there, but.....what I really think it is, most people are afraid. They see the "writing on the wall" and by shoving fingers in their ears and turning their back to the issues that it will somehow a. just get better. b. won't effect them.

Sure background checks are great. Making sure a felon cannot purchase a weapon is a great tool to deter violence. But this issue that people don't want to hear over and over (although its true and valid) is that said felon can still obtain a weapon some way, some how. The best way to defend yourself, so you are not powerless against an aggressor, is to arm yourself one way or another. It again, blows my mind that people think laws are going to stop a criminal that is consciously making the decision to break the law.

But therein lies the problem that people who study history and know that history repeats itself. It is these small measures that are obviously over stepping their bounds, are going to eventually lead to a breaking point. It is coming (that's the bad news) but it is coming slowly (that's the silver lining).
----
I was going to type this rather long couple of paragraphs. But why? People have already made their minds up. No one here is going to convince anyone otherwise.

The best I can say is open your minds and look past what you have been taught and seek knowledge yourself. Stop listening to that garbage CNN and FOX. Start listening/reading to some alternative news sources and you will begin to really see the poo-storm America is in for. Ask questions for yourself and don't carelessly throw out the answers that you may not like.


In closing, the absolute greatest mistake anyone can make, is to believe that "it cannot happen to me."
 

Posted Jan 30, '13 at 2:18am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,438 posts

Start listening/reading to some alternative news sources

Such as...? There's not much unbiased stuff out there other than legal text that even the people signing it rarely read, NPR (mostly neutral, occasional slight lean either way depending on topic), and BBC (very slightly Dem/Lib at times).
 

Posted Jan 30, '13 at 3:22am

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

151 posts

"it cannot happen to me."


...said the people who buy guns for safety and protection despite the reality that guns in the home are more likely to shoot the residents (gun owner and family) or friends they know than an attacker/intruder/potential rapist/burglar/hamburglar/ninja/pirate/oscar the grouch/assassin/zombie.
Homes with guns are more likely to have homicides and ER trips due to gun shot wounds (both on purpose and "accidental").
 

Posted Jan 30, '13 at 2:36pm

PauseBreak

PauseBreak

317 posts

EmperorPalpatine,
hereâs a good source for to try out. www.drudgereport.com
NPR is funded by the government. You tell me who controls it. =\\

Getoffmydangle,

I was going to write something in response, but I've decided that you are not worth an argument. Just reading your response is a testament that you are the ignorant type.
(despite the fact you pull out some statistic that you do not source) ((i.e. you pulled out your rear-end to justify your comments on pirates and zombies)) So how about you back your statements up before you run your mouth?

Also despite you mocked cannot happen to me. Only fools think that nothing bad will happen to them. They don't prepare themselves and they ridicule those that do and then when something bad does happen they expect those that were ready to come and give them aid.

Here's a great example, look at all the "preppers" that people make fun of now. Hurricane Sandy hit 91 days ago and only now Congress has approved aid? Are you joking me? That's over 3 months. Those "preppers" are the ones laughing now, they have food and water and whatever supplies they need while the government wait for over 3 months to help the people.

Sorry to burst your little bubble bro, but bad things happen all the time. Either you are prepared/independent or you sit and cry in the corner like a little girl waiting for someone else to take care of you.

 

Posted Jan 30, '13 at 5:28pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

One issue that people are aware of, it is just another small step towards more dismantling of the Bill of Rights.


Making policy to determine safe usage is not dismantling freedom or the bill of rights.

The problem with trying to compromise with these some of these legislators is that they have down right said, on record, that their goal is to disarm America.


Either extreme is bad. Arguing that one side wants something one way doesn't take into account that the people who are that extreme are not the majority by any means.

But this issue that people don't want to hear over and over (although its true and valid) is that said felon can still obtain a weapon some way, some how.


Sure they can. That doesn't mean irresponsible gun owners still aren't a problem. More strict gun control means there's less guns out there for criminals to get a hold of, and still doesn't take away people's rights to own a weapon.

It is these small measures that are obviously over stepping their bounds, are going to eventually lead to a breaking point.


Small measures, you mean making sure idiots who can't safely handle a potentially lethal weapon aren't stockpiling them in their garage, where anyone can simply access them? You mean having more in-depth background checks, to make sure people who want to own guns aren't going to go on a rampage, even if it's a very small amount that actually do so? You mean making it so that weapons, which were made for war, are not so common it's extremely easy to get a hold of one?

In closing, the absolute greatest mistake anyone can make, is to believe that "it cannot happen to me."


Excess paranoia doesn't help either. Sure, it can happen to you. But it's not likely to, nor should you go around assuming that it will.

Only fools think that nothing bad will happen to them.


And only paranoid people think that something bad will definitely happen to them.

They don't prepare themselves and they ridicule those that do and then when something bad does happen they expect those that were ready to come and give them aid.


Preparation is different from expectation. Someone who owns a handgun and keeps it in their bedroom just in case someone breaks in while they're home is different from someone with 5 rifles, a shotgun, and does shooting practice twice a week for the day they have to defend themselves from a random maniac.

Here's a great example,


Yes, it is a great example of a red herring.

but bad things happen all the time.


Said bad things aren't always solved by owning a gun.

Either you are prepared/independent or you sit and cry in the corner like a little girl waiting for someone else to take care of you.


Owning a gun is not necessarily being prepared for bad things in life, nor is it impossible to be prepared without owning a gun.
 

Posted Jan 31, '13 at 3:34am

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

151 posts

PauseBreak
Just having a fun bro

I was going to write something in response, but I've decided that you are not worth an argument. *then goes on to write a response*
;) thats at least worth a smile

You are absolutely correct though, in my haste and amusement to point out the irony in your statement (that you apparently still don't get), I forgot to cite my sources. Tisk tisk.
Allow me to rectify: Peer-reviewed journal article
Guns at home and child safety (also peer reviewed journal article)
Peer reviewed journal article
Injuries and Deaths due to Firearms in the Home (also a peer reviewed journal article)

Also despite you mocked cannot happen to me. Only fools think that nothing bad will happen to them.
My hope is that if you read any of those articles, you might understand the "irony" of your argument-- ie buying a gun to make your family safe despite the statistical fact that the gun is more likely to do you/your family harm than good. And especially: buying a gun because "only fools think nothing bad will happen to them." The point is that buying that gun increases your likelihood of something bad happening (who would have thought that more guns around meant more guns being used? Weird right?). "Too much gun violence? Get more guns!!"

I'm not opposed to gun ownership, just ignorance, irrationality, and poor reasoning. I think you may have mis-pegged me bud.
I'm glad you brought up preppers. I love that show and I have been heavily involved in community disaster preparedness for a few years now. It is very important to be personally prepared for disasters and everyone will be individually better off if the community as a whole is prepared. Good call. But I can tell you that disaster preparedness is a completely separate sphere than the gun control debate. Those people in Sandy's path need housing, food, and supplies, and perhaps to not be living at sea-level, but not more guns. Once again, if you add more guns to the mix, in desperate people's hands, you have more problems, not fewer. Guns turn non-lethal confrontations, debates, or misunderstandings into lethal situations, especially when nerves are frail, stress is high, and one's community has been wrecked by a disaster. If everyone in Sandy's path had been "prepared" (guns, food, water, and supplies...), their houses and supplies would still have been washed away by the storm. Then you just have a bunch of homeless, shelterless, disaster-struck, desperate, hungry people with guns. ---aka a worse situation than we have now.

Liking guns, and supporting gun ownership does not equal having to believe that more guns makes every situation better.

--Attacking NPR? How sad. If you think drudge is a more reliable source of unbiased information than NPR I would be concerned about your critical thinking skills. Also, Government funding provides less than 5% of NPR's funding, none of which comes directly from the federal government, but instead is channeled through local member stations as payment for content....and that
 

Posted Jan 31, '13 at 3:44am

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

151 posts

last post, last sentence cutoff supposed to read something like... "and that

 

Posted Jan 31, '13 at 4:21pm

Deth666

Deth666

670 posts

My hope is that if you read any of those articles, you might understand the "irony" of your argument-- ie buying a gun to make your family safe despite the statistical fact that the gun is more likely to do you/your family harm than good. And especially: buying a gun because "only fools think nothing bad will happen to them." The point is that buying that gun increases your likelihood of something bad happening (who would have thought that more guns around meant more guns being used? Weird right?). "Too much gun violence? Get more guns!!"


There are a lot of gun owners that don't know how to use a gun, properly. Especially, the ones who go out and buy a gun for self defense purposes. They buy the gun put it wherever and never learn how to use it. There should be a mandatory training course before you get a gun. When I was a younger lad, to get my hunting license I needed to take a "Hunter's Safety Course". I think it was a 12 hr course split up over two days. There was a lot of firearm safety, though, only as it related to hunting. If your gonna have a gun you should know how to use it safely. There's a lot of people out there who don't know the first thing about guns.
 

Posted Feb 1, '13 at 8:20pm

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

151 posts

There are a lot of gun owners that don't know how to use a gun, properly. Especially, the ones who go out and buy a gun for self defense purposes. They buy the gun put it wherever and never learn how to use it. There should be a mandatory training course before you get a gun. When I was a younger lad, to get my hunting license I needed to take a "Hunter's Safety Course". I think it was a 12 hr course split up over two days. There was a lot of firearm safety, though, only as it related to hunting. If your gonna have a gun you should know how to use it safely. There's a lot of people out there who don't know the first thing about guns.


There are a lot of people out there who are not very smart. That is a problem with many symptoms. If you think about it, just under half the population has below average intelligence. That is not a comforting fact.

The other point you made about safety courses is really smart. But it would never happen without people clamoring about the government tyrants taking their guns (despite nobody every saying anything about taking anyone's guns away).
I'm just brainstorming here, but: To own and drive a car, which is much more essential to daily living than a gun in modern society, there are all kinds of requirement that ensure everyone is capable of at least maintaining a minimum level of knowledge, ability, and responsibility. There is a safety course, safety test, license, registration, and liability insurance (at least in some states) required to own and operate a car. Its just part of living and functioning in a complex, cooperative society. And despite all of these obstacles, there is virtually nobody that doesn't have a car if they want and can afford one. I think the same thing would be true of guns. If these safety and responsibility measures were put in place it would probably reduce gun accidents and illegal guns in the hands of criminals, but still allow people who follow the rules to have their guns.
The DMV is a pain in the butt, but nobody would get any respect for babbling that the DMV is trampling on our freedoms or taking away our cars.
 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!