Why do you have to be a gun geek to have an opinion on gun control?

[jamesrage]

I disagree, TD, because most chances are you will not encounter the same thing that a cop would and you won't be called out to take care of the same number of situations that police would. :shrug:

Aren't you the same people who scream for assault weapon bans and other anti-2nd amendment laws even though your odds of being in a mass shooting are probably near the same odds as winning the lottery?

 

[TurtleDude]

Aren't you the same people who scream for assault weapon bans and other anti-2nd amendment laws even though your odds of being in a mass shooting are probably near the same odds as winning the lottery?

its the great hypocrisy of the anti gun left-there isn't enough violent crime to justify honest citizens being armed with the state of the art defensive firearms, but crime is so bad we have to rape the rights of millions to keep all those criminals from getting guns.

you see this nonsense because the real goal is banning guns for honest people, not honestly doing something about crime as Bob pretends

 

[Bob N]

most people drive their cars each day and don't get into an accident

most peoples' homes don't catch on fire

Most people don't come down with a life threatening disease

Indeed. That's my point.

 

[Bob N]

Aren't you the same people who scream for assault weapon bans and other anti-2nd amendment laws even though your odds of being in a mass shooting are probably near the same odds as winning the lottery?

Thanks for proving the point that I have been making with TD . :thumbs:

 

[jamesrage]

Thanks for proving the point that I have been making with TD . :thumbs:

What point is that? That you think mass shootings justify so called assault weapon bans and other infringements on the 2nd amendment but you think violent crime does not justify citizens having guns even though the odds are drastically much higher that you can be a victim of an violent crime more so than you will be a victim of a mass shooting? I remember years ago some 2nd amendment opponent on another forum tried the same logic to deny citizen their right to carry a gun on college campuses. He tried claiming that the violent crime rate on college campuses did not justify college students being armed even though he was the same person to scream bloody murder for assault weapons bans and other infringements on the 2nd amendment anytime there was a mass shooting. it seems to me that if you people do not think the violent crime rate justifies citizens being armed then you shouldn't be in favor of assault weapon bans.According the FBI there are around 1,175,000 violent crime offenses in 2014, while between 2000-2013 there were 160 active shooter situations or 11.4 active shooter incidences a year.In 2010 around 247 won a lottery prize of a million dollars or more. So odds are you will win a million dollars before you will be a victim in a mass shooting.

 

[TurtleDude]

Indeed. That's my point.

and 99.9% of legal gun owners don't cause any problems with guns so laws that allegedly are designed to decrease crime but mainly harass that 99.9% are dishonest and should be eliminated

 

[Bob N]

and 99.9% of legal gun owners don't cause any problems with guns so laws that allegedly are designed to decrease crime but mainly harass that 99.9% are dishonest and should be eliminated

The NRA doesn't have a concrete plan on how one identifies the 99.9%. and that is what worries me.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The NRA doesn't have a concrete plan on how one identifies the 99.9%. and that is what worries me.

You don't need to "identify the 99%;" you only need to recognize and address the causes behind why the 1% are going to use the guns badly.

Creating draconian legislation which either restricts ownership or prepares the way for future restrictions/confiscations is not the way to go about it.

Since the percentage is so small, and the harms constantly overblown...I'd say focus on punishing offenders and dealing with the socio-economic problems that lead those engaged in criminal endeavors to resort to violence.

Financing more mental health programs and making them a positive option rather than a mark of shame would also go a long way towards dealing with many of the people who might engage in violent massacres.

 

[Bob N]

Aren't you the same people who scream for assault weapon bans and other anti-2nd amendment laws even though your odds of being in a mass shooting are probably near the same odds as winning the lottery?

What point is that? That you think mass shootings justify so called assault weapon bans and other infringements on the 2nd amendment but you think violent crime does not justify citizens having guns even though the odds are drastically much higher that you can be a victim of an violent crime more so than you will be a victim of a mass shooting? I remember years ago some 2nd amendment opponent on another forum tried the same logic to deny citizen their right to carry a gun on college campuses. He tried claiming that the violent crime rate on college campuses did not justify college students being armed even though he was the same person to scream bloody murder for assault weapons bans and other infringements on the 2nd amendment anytime there was a mass shooting. it seems to me that if you people do not think the violent crime rate justifies citizens being armed then you shouldn't be in favor of assault weapon bans.According the FBI there are around 1,175,000 violent crime offenses in 2014, while between 2000-2013 there were 160 active shooter situations or 11.4 active shooter incidences a year.In 2010 around 247 won a lottery prize of a million dollars or more. So odds are you will win a million dollars before you will be a victim in a mass shooting.

Why in the world would one need an assault weapon if the chances are you would never encounter another person that has the intention of using an assault weapon on you, because you would be too busy working to make a living because you can't find the winning lottery numbers.

 

[jamesrage]

Why in the world would one need an assault weapon if the chances are you would never encounter another person that has the intention of using an assault weapon on you, because you would be too busy working to make a living because you can't find the winning lottery numbers.

You do realize that under the Brady assault weapons ban if you took the bayonet lug and flash suppressor off a AR-15 and renamed it it would no longer be an assault weapon? The only things that differentiate an assault weapon from all other semi-automatic firearms is the cosmetic features.

 

[Bob N]

You don't need to "identify the 99%;" you only need to recognize and address the causes behind why the 1% are going to use the guns badly.

Creating draconian legislation which either restricts ownership or prepares the way for future restrictions/confiscations is not the way to go about it.

Since the percentage is so small, and the harms constantly overblown...I'd say focus on punishing offenders and dealing with the socio-economic problems that lead those engaged in criminal endeavors to resort to violence.

Financing more mental health programs and making them a positive option rather than a marl of shame would also go a long way towards dealing with many of these "mass-shootings."

Most of what you explained would most likely be ripped apart by the GOP legislature to begin with.

And I do not consider legislation on registration to even come close to draconian. Seriously. I have both a house and a car registered to the state and I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[jamesrage]

Most of what you explained would most likely be ripped apart by the GOP legislature to begin with.

And I do not consider legislation on registration to even come close to draconian. Seriously. I have both a house and a car registered to the state and I don't see anything wrong with it.

Of course you don't. You don't like the 2nd amendment.The fact you think it should be treated like a state granted privilege shows your disdain for the 2nd amendment.

 

[Bob N]

You do realize that under the Brady assault weapons ban if you took the bayonet lug and flash suppressor off a AR-15 and renamed it it would no longer be an assault weapon? The only things that differentiate an assault weapon from all other semi-automatic firearms is the cosmetic features.

I don't care how you decorate it. Any gun that is capable of holding numerous bullets (that can also be quickly reloaded.) that can harm or kill a medium to large group of people should be regulated.

 

[Bob N]

Of course you don't. You don't like the 2nd amendment.The fact you think it should be treated like a state granted privilege shows your disdain for the 2nd amendment.

Show me in the second amendment where it's illegal to register guns. Because like it or not guns are already being regulated anyways. :shrug:

 

[Captain Adverse]

Most of what you explained would most likely be ripped apart by the GOP legislature to begin with.

And I do not consider legislation on registration to even come close to draconian. Seriously. I have both a house and a car registered to the state and I don't see anything wrong with it.

NO?

They can take away your license leaving you with a car you cannot use legally...driving being a privilege. That makes your car either a street ornament or something you have to sell to someone who can still drive. Of course you can still try driving illegally, and they will simply confiscate it if you get caught.

Your bought-and-paid-for house can also be confiscated by the State if you don't pay your taxes on it.

What price for your right of self-defense? If they can require registration of any and all tools you can use, they can deny your right to them and eventually confiscate any you might need to defend yourself with too.

 

[jamesrage]

I don't care how you decorate it. Any gun that is capable of holding numerous bullets (that can also be quickly reloaded.) that can harm or kill a medium to large group of people should be regulated.

So you want all semi-automatic firearms and possibly revolvers regulated or banned regardless if they are deemed "assault weapons" or not?

 

[jamesrage]

Show me in the second amendment where it's illegal to register guns. Because like it or not guns are already being regulated anyways. :shrug:

The only reasons for firearm registrations are for excessive taxation or confiscation, which do violate someones right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Bob N]

So you want all semi-automatic firearms and possibly revolvers regulated or banned regardless if they are deemed "assault weapons" or not?

Some regulated while some banned; it depends on how many bullets can come out of the barrel in one trigger pull.

 

[Bob N]

The only reasons for firearm registrations are for excessive taxation or confiscation, which do violate someones right to keep and bear arms.

I won't argue the taxation, James, but I will argue that the state is coming in to take your guns.

Haven't seen that one yet.

 

[jimbo]

You do realize that under the Brady assault weapons ban if you took the bayonet lug and flash suppressor off a AR-15 and renamed it it would no longer be an assault weapon? The only things that differentiate an assault weapon from all other semi-automatic firearms is the cosmetic features.

Exactly. If you take a Ruger 10/22, often used in gun classes, and a couple of hundred bucks, you can turn it into an assault weapon. You don't need a milling machine or a screwdriver to do this.

It's all about the cosmetics.

 

[jamesrage]

Some regulated while some banned; it depends on how many bullets can come out of the barrel in one trigger pull.

All semi-automatic firearms regardless if they are deemed assault weapons or not deemed assault weapons only one bullet comes out of the barrel in one trigger pull.

 

[jamesrage]

I won't argue the taxation, James, but I will argue that the state is coming in to take your guns.

Haven't seen that one yet.

How can you claim no one is coming to take guns when you people are proposing bans on certain guns? Are you hoping that everyone turns in their firearms that get banned?

 

[Bob N]

How can you claim no one is coming to take guns when you people are proposing bans on certain guns? Are you hoping that everyone turns in their firearms that get banned?

Machine guns are illegal to own, but I'll bet you still have your guns that are legal, right?

 

[jimbo]

Some regulated while some banned; it depends on how many bullets can come out of the barrel in one trigger pull.

All weapons capable of firing more than one round with a single trigger pull and manufactured since 1986 are banned. Possession of those grandfathered are heavily regulated.

You're demonstrating a lack of knowledge of guns and gun laws.

 

[apdst]

I'm getting so tired of right wingers telling me I need to educate myself on guns in order to have an opinion on gun legislation. I don't care anything about learning about those awful killing machines any more than I care about learning about medieval torture devices. I couldn't care less what the difference is between a semi-automatic and an automatic or what the difference between the Child Killer 6000 and the Arab Impaler 7500 guns. Honestly, what does it matter?

Haven't we gone too far when we can own weapons that kill 50 people?

If Omar Mateen had had one of those guns that go POW! click-click POW! click-click POW! could he have killed 50 people? Could Adam Lanza have shot a classroom full of children with a gun like that?

The kind of guns that go ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta and fire lots of bullets really quickly need to go. You don't need it to hunt and you don't need it to defend your home. These guns are for killing and should not be in the possession of civilians!

We liberal's lack of knowledge of guns is just a red herring.

You don't have to be gun geek, but as with any debate your argument is worthless without accurate information.

Example: liberals want to ban, "fully automatic", weapons. There's no such thing, hence they can't be banned.

The liberals want to ban, "hi-capacity clips". There's no such thing. You see where this is headed.