Said "idiots" are gun-shy because of real experience. Government gun laws easily create a situation forcing people to live in rough neighborhoods where there are plenty of illegal guns, the police avoid the area for anything but the most serious crimes, and families are holed up, at the mercy of drug addled thugs. DC was a great example of this.

Secondly, giving the government records of every gun ownership tends to go badly when the government becomes totalitarian, so history minded gun owners are uneasy with that, but we make concessions on that for first sale.

I think gun owners are irrational on avoiding responsibility for control of the firearms they have, mandatory gun safe ownership, etc., but very rational on many of their current objections. The pro gun control advocates do not take the gun owner's concerns in mind when drafting the legislations, so little common ground is seen.

(November 3, 2013 at 11:24 am)justin Wrote:

(November 3, 2013 at 10:47 am)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: Gun control arguments are getting more and more pathetic as time goes on. As if anyone arguing about anything is going to change the fact that some idiots see the words "gun control" and immediately assume that the government is going to take their guns, while it's just a simple background check bill that won't be passed because of said idiots.

Oh please cry me a river. And here again we see a anti-gun nutjob downplaying the political agenda on guns. Don't want a gun? Don't buy one. taking away guns or downsizing or restrictions don't work.

Yes, clearly I'm an "anti-gun nutjob". Where did I suggest the government should be taking guns? I owned a Glock 17 for 13 years, I sold it about 4 years ago. I have no interest in taking anybody's guns (but of course you'd jump straight to that, wouldn't you?)

justin Wrote:The criminals don't give two shits about the law. Most gun violence happens in no gun zones but anti-guns keep repeating their mantra amongst themselves as if it makes it anymore true.

This thought process is exactly what makes gun legislation so damn difficult to pass, even light ones like heavier background checks. Background checks that are already in place have kept over 2.1 million firearms out of dangerous hands, but these checks are not even close to being mandatory everywhere. Why wouldn't you be in favor of legislation enacting mandatory background checks if they actually work?

Most of the nationally-recognized shootings in America are caused by gunmen who got their firearms legally. Take a recent example: the Sandy Hook shooting. The shooter took that firearm from his own home. it was his mother's, bought legally. If a rigorous background check had been in effect, the seller would have known that her son had a history of mental issues (which is true, and was recognized by the family) and she would never have been sold the gun. Rightfully so.

Brakeman Wrote:Secondly, giving the government records of every gun ownership tends to go badly when the government becomes totalitarian, so history minded gun owners are uneasy with that, but we make concessions on that for first sale.

Oh yes, I'm sure the United States will steal all of our guns and become a totalitarian state. This is an irrational fear.

Brakeman Wrote:The pro gun control advocates do not take the gun owner's concerns in mind when drafting the legislations, so little common ground is seen.

Concerns such as?

(November 3, 2013 at 11:58 am)CleanShavenJesus Wrote:

Brakeman Wrote:Secondly, giving the government records of every gun ownership tends to go badly when the government becomes totalitarian, so history minded gun owners are uneasy with that, but we make concessions on that for first sale.

Oh yes, I'm sure the United States will steal all of our guns and become a totalitarian state. This is an irrational fear.

I don't think you will get much agreement on that opinion, certainly not from the nation's founders. They spent a great deal of time crafting our current system of "checks and balances" for that very specific reason. When our "checks and balances" fail, the wrath of the people would be the only deterrent.

(November 3, 2013 at 1:57 pm)Brakeman Wrote:

(November 3, 2013 at 11:58 am)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: Oh yes, I'm sure the United States will steal all of our guns and become a totalitarian state. This is an irrational fear.

I don't think you will get much agreement on that opinion, certainly not from the nation's founders. They spent a great deal of time crafting our current system of "checks and balances" for that very specific reason. When our "checks and balances" fail, the wrath of the people would be the only deterrent.

Because they invisioned crackpots hording AR-15's and cocealable handguns with 20+ round clips, right? They could and did imagine a time when a militia could mean sepratist assholes with unsavoury agendas? They understood mental health, and the ramifications of a gun culture on those afflicted? All said, getting opinions from dead guys on unforeseen future events fails for multiple reasons.

Sandy hook was a no gun zone. Just made that point and what about the Hollywood case where they put on juggernaut suits and had the massive amount of firepower to slaughter people with? Think they give a shit if guns have better restrictions ( which I never said I was against well round precautions but you know I'm an "idiot" da derhh) or are banned? if it wasn't for the sales of armor peircing rounds our law enforcement would've been screwed.What about the massive gun trafficking which have guns imported, exported, stolen, even made? There ARE a lot of politicians that feed off the fear of guns in order to gain votes. Kind of like the republicans do with almost everything. Seems to me the left does the same shit when it comes to guns. And the government having the potential to become a totalitarian state is a irrational fear? Seriously? As much corruption there is in the government and in every government in history this is a irrational fear? As much as people try to install there religious doctrines in the government and constantly have to be checked and balanced in order to keep from being taken advantage of and this is an irrational fear? Have you seen the right wing nutjobs ? Do you know what they try ALL the time? Come on man, seriously?

Totalitarianism isn't a certainty with stiffer gun restrictions, so that argument is silly. But thank you for playing.

(November 3, 2013 at 2:14 pm)justin Wrote: Sandy hook was a no gun zone. Just made that point and what about the Hollywood case where they put on juggernaut suits and had the massive amount of firepower to slaughter people with? Think they give a shit if guns have better restrictions ( which I never said I was against well round precautions but you know I'm an "idiot" da derhh)

I'd only consider you an "idiot" if you fit into the group I described in my original post. And if you aren't against any sort of precaution, then you don't fit into that group.

justin Wrote:What about the massive gun trafficking which have guns imported, exported, stolen, even made?

That's a seperate debate, because I'm focusing on how simple it is for a gunman to gain access to a gun legally. That's the biggest issue for me. Think about it. Almost every nationally-recognized shooting in the last few decades came from legally-purchased firearms. I am not very knowledgable about illegal gun trafficking and won't try to defend or oppose anything I'm not well-informed about.

justin Wrote:And the government having the potential to become a totalitarian state is a irrational fear? Seriously? As much corruption there is in the government and in every government in history this is a irrational fear? As much as people try to install there religious doctrines in the government and constantly have to be checked and balanced in order to keep from being taken advantage of and this is an irrational fear? Have you seen the right wing nutjobs ? Do you know what they try ALL the time? Come on man, seriously?

Are you comparing politicians putting the word "God" in things to the government suddenly robbing millions of citizens of their guns and forcing the entire population into a totaliatarianship? Give me a break.

---

(November 3, 2013 at 1:57 pm)Brakeman Wrote:

(November 3, 2013 at 11:58 am)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: Oh yes, I'm sure the United States will steal all of our guns and become a totalitarian state. This is an irrational fear.

I don't think you will get much agreement on that opinion, certainly not from the nation's founders. They spent a great deal of time crafting our current system of "checks and balances" for that very specific reason. When our "checks and balances" fail, the wrath of the people would be the only deterrent.

Even if, for whatever reason, the United States government did do this, you think you could take on government forces? Maybe you could in 1776. Today? Not a chance.

(November 3, 2013 at 11:58 am)CleanShavenJesus Wrote:

(November 3, 2013 at 11:24 am)justin Wrote: Oh please cry me a river. And here again we see a anti-gun nutjob downplaying the political agenda on guns. Don't want a gun? Don't buy one. taking away guns or downsizing or restrictions don't work.

Yes, clearly I'm an "anti-gun nutjob". Where did I suggest the government should be taking guns? I owned a Glock 17 for 13 years, I sold it about 4 years ago. I have no interest in taking anybody's guns (but of course you'd jump straight to that, wouldn't you?)

Hey, Justin, maybe it isn't what he -CSJ- would do with a gun which motivates his gun control stance. I've already taken care of not having a gun by way of not buying one, but thanks for the advice. Now if we can just agree on where the line should be on what weapons you are allowed to own.

I'm saying no to bazookas, machine guns, surface to air missiles, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, hand granades, land mines, magazines with more than six shots and anything that fires more than one bullet at a time without reloading.

Would that work for you? If so then I think we are both being reasonable.

(November 3, 2013 at 3:00 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(November 3, 2013 at 11:58 am)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: Yes, clearly I'm an "anti-gun nutjob". Where did I suggest the government should be taking guns? I owned a Glock 17 for 13 years, I sold it about 4 years ago. I have no interest in taking anybody's guns (but of course you'd jump straight to that, wouldn't you?)

Hey, Justin, maybe it isn't what he -CSJ- would do with a gun which motivates his gun control stance. I've already taken care of not having a gun by way of not buying one, but thanks for the advice. Now if we can just agree on where the line should be on what weapons you are allowed to own.

I'm saying no to bazookas, machine guns, surface to air missiles, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, hand granades, land mines, magazines with more than six shots and anything that fires more than one bullet at a time without reloading.

Would that work for you? If so then I think we are both being reasonable.

What kinda fascist distopian nightmare are you trying to envisage, Whatevs?

(November 3, 2013 at 3:00 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(November 3, 2013 at 11:58 am)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: Yes, clearly I'm an "anti-gun nutjob". Where did I suggest the government should be taking guns? I owned a Glock 17 for 13 years, I sold it about 4 years ago. I have no interest in taking anybody's guns (but of course you'd jump straight to that, wouldn't you?)

Hey, Justin, maybe it isn't what he -CSJ- would do with a gun which motivates his gun control stance. I've already taken care of not having a gun by way of not buying one, but thanks for the advice. Now if we can just agree on where the line should be on what weapons you are allowed to own.

I'm saying no to bazookas, machine guns, surface to air missiles, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, hand granades, land mines, magazines with more than six shots and anything that fires more than one bullet at a time without reloading.

Would that work for you? If so then I think we are both being reasonable.

I Agree. Machine guns as in excessive force machine gun like .50 Cals. Everything except the clips and single shot. Reason I say that is it wouldn't work in the way of thinking of hurting the criminals that want to do serious damage. For example I recently volunteered at the PD for shooting scenarios. What we did is took real scenarios and played them out to train the officers. One in particular, though you could use any of them, was the one where the guy took a AK and walked into a coffee shop, lit up the group of cops sitting there, then killing other on the way out. It is already illegal to have a fully auto rifle right? Well didn't stop him. Even if it wasn't an AK the perps just SKS rifles and file down the firing pin making it an auto. Point is he worked outside the law to harm those within. Well then we have the officers training. The PD gave them standard issued handguns. Only thing is they were restricted on rounds. 8 Each. 15 Round capacity clips though. What played out was a team of 4 cops being shot by a banned weapon while trying resist with 8 rounds each. Didn't work as well they thought. So if civilians which are the first to be targeted are thrown in this situation how do you think it plays out? A slaughter. Look magazines a already restricted and it doesn't work. For example banana clips are notorious amongst criminals. They are a big thing with mass shootings as well. Hard to defend against this kind of thing already let alone restrictions that could harm that split second decision or moment needed for the civilians to defend themselves even before the cops arrive. Landmines, rockets, grenades, attachments similar to these are of excessive force. I am not against every gun control propersition just the ones that seem unreasonable.

---

I'm on my phone and it is difficult to work on the site. Please forgive the poor grammar.