Another gun thread...

[Polaris]

I think all guns should be registered to a specific gun club and be shipped their directly. You would still be able to own it, but could not use it outside of shooting range...not sure about what would be done in move if you make the gun owner pay for the shipment to another gun club site.

[Shell B]

That would make it so that gun club owners had access to massive arsenals of weapons. Not sure I like that idea very much.

[Polaris]

That would make it so that gun club owners had access to massive arsenals of weapons. Not sure I like that idea very much.

They already do though.

[Napoléon]

Since when is agreeing with a law not an opinion?

It doesn't really get to why you agree with the law. Which is more what I'm interested in.

If someone thinks it is moral for the same reasons it is in the Constitution, then the document is a valid argument.

Well, I'd prefer to simply talk about the reasons, why bring up the constitution at all. The reasons are what are important.

Agreeing with the Constitution doesn't make it less valid an argument or crap. Therefore, it is a logical and valid answer to your query. That you are dismissive of it is telling.

I never said that it was less valid or crap, I'm just saying I ain't interested in it because I've heard it enough times and I'm wondering if there are other reasons people could give. What's wrong with that?

Telling of what exactly?

You asked people their opinions. You are only looking for specific opinions. That's fucking odd.

Again, because I've heard certain reasons enough times to understand them. It doesn't mean I'm dismissing them or ignoring them, I'm simply curious of other reasons. I don't think it's odd at all to ask that.

Oh, Napo, you know better than to think you can tell people where to respond and where not to respond, just as you should know you cannot tell people who to respond. This is not a puppet show.

Funny that, considering in the same breath you seem to be telling me I'm not allowed to ask the questions I want to ask. They're too 'fucking odd' apparently.

If people don't respond the way I wish them to, that's fine, I'm not under the illusion they should, I'm just asking for other reasons.

Well, good then. Now I know that you are not interested in hearing anything that you do not feel like arguing.

Great observation, I was wondering when you'd finally notice.

Your attitude is not conducive to the type of discussion you are looking for.

I guess I've gone about it the wrong way then. I've simply posted a thread on something I'd like to discuss, I wasn't ever under the impression people had to pay any attention to what I'd like to discuss, but hey, it's worth asking. Or isn't it?

If I gave, "So that spoiled bitches like you do not move here" as a reason, would that be good enough for you?

Was that insult really necessary? I haven't insulted anyone in this thread.

And it's not about what's good enough for me. I'm genuinely interested in hearing other arguments to what I've been trying to discuss this whole thread. It doesn't matter whether I agree or not, I'm just interested in finding out if there are other reasons at all.

Again, if you are not interested in discussing it at all, why start your masturbatory thread?

So, according to you, I've made a thread which I'm not interested in?

Seriously?

Some people do not have another argument.

Then I'll use your own logic and ask why they'd choose to comment in such a 'masturbatory thread'.

Well, since we are talking about rights, you do not have the right to be exclusionary.

Since I can talk about what I want, I'll ask whatever questions I want. Since when was that not my right? (predicting a forum rules lesson coming up)

I answered your question.

No you didn't. Feel free to re-read.

Your original post is an exclusionary piece of shit.

You're entitled to think so. Hell I'm not denying I've asked a specific question. I don't see why you feel the need to get so arsy about it though. Again, I can ask what I like can't I?

I did, but you only want to hear "other" answers, which is ludicrous and dismissive of answers many would give.

I'd only be repeating myself by addressing this.

Another answer from me would be so that I can shoot things if I so wish it. Those things include people who may try to hurt me. Yes, if someone tries to hurt me, I should be allowed to have a gun so I can shoot them. I assure you that I have very little hope against most attackers without a gun. Therefore, I would need a gun if I were interested in successful self defense.

FINALLY.

Was that so hard? Considering my question was so ludicrous and masturbatory you still found the willpower to answer it didn't you?


Well, as for that reason, I'd agree, you are entitled to defend yourself. I'd say that is a given. I am in disagreement however that a gun is needed. All I can do is give you my reasons for that. If you disagree then I'm more than happy to discuss it with you in a civil manner, which I personally think is quite a conducive attitude of the type of discussion I'm looking for

My reasons: having a gun does not automatically equal successful self defence, and there is no guarantee it will provide any defence at all. A gun can quite readily be turned against the person using it, and turned on other people as well. To me, a gun just escalates the danger of the situation. An instance where the chance of death is relatively low, can instantly become a situation where the chances of a death become quite likely, simply with the addition of a gun.


Apologies for the mammoth post everyone.

[Cinjin]

Regarding the Poll:

I voted No. I own several firearms. I think of it like a drivers license: It's a privilege, not a right and it should be infringed upon if you have proven yourself to be irresponsible behind the wheel.

The great majority of us who have no wish to harm anyone have earned that privilege.

As a gun owner and sport shooting enthusiast, I would encourage the following:
1. All firearms must be secured in a registered gun safe when not in use. (That's right, a gun owner would have to document the fact that he has a gun safe.)
2. Ammunition sales (outside of shooting ranges) cannot exceed X amount of shells per month/year.
3. Psych evaluations required on any one with intent to purchase a weapon capable of discharging more than 6 rounds without reload.
4. You can only purchase one firearm per year. (I once got a permit to buy a semi-auto pistol and they told me that I could buy three that day. )
5. If one of your guns is used to commit a crime, you will lose the privilege of owning any firearms for the remainder of your life.


Even with this legislation in place, atrocities by guns are going to happen, but maybe we could start seeing a lot less of them.

[downbeatplumb]

Do you have to give a valid reason why you need a gun or is "coz I wants one" enough?

[Cinjin]

Do you have to give a valid reason why you need a gun or is "coz I wants one" enough?

Me?

I buy a gun for the same reason I buy a fishing pole. Recreation. I enjoy sport shooting and a good goose shoot.

[The Grand Nudger]

Regarding the Poll:

I voted No. I own several firearms. I think of it like a drivers license: It's a privilege, not a right and it should be infringed upon if you have proven yourself to be irresponsible behind the wheel.

The great majority of us who have no wish to harm anyone have earned that privilege.

As a gun owner and sport shooting enthusiast, I would encourage the following:
1. All firearms must be secured in a registered gun safe when not in use. (That's right, a gun owner would have to document the fact that he has a gun safe.)
2. Ammunition sales (outside of shooting ranges) cannot exceed X amount of shells per month/year.
3. Psych evaluations required on any one with intent to purchase a weapon capable of discharging more than 6 rounds without reload.
4. You can only purchase one firearm per year. (I once got a permit to buy a semi-auto pistol and they told me that I could buy three that day. )
5. If one of your guns is used to commit a crime, you will lose the privilege of owning any firearms for the remainder of your life.


Even with this legislation in place, atrocities by guns are going to happen, but maybe we could start seeing a lot less of them.

It -is- a right, but that doesn't mean that you don't have to be responsible about it. Rights can be (and are) revoked for a variety of reasons. You don't have to do anything to avail yourself of that right, there's no "earning it" but you can do a great deal to harm it. Any of those numbered bits can be handled by state law (one is utterly horrifying though). We wont see "alot less" gun crime until something that addresses crime and criminals is proposed. If you want a 9mm in Tampa Bay - there is no waiting period, no background check, no nothing (it's cheaper too...btw). Not because it isn't the law, but because criminals don't give a fuck about the law. Kind of part of the job requirements.

[Napoléon]

Do you have to give a valid reason why you need a gun or is "coz I wants one" enough?

I'd like an ICBM but I doubt anyone will give it to me.

---

I have to say I agree with much of your post Cinj, some interesting law suggestions there as well.

[A Theist]

Better protection than a passive leftwing anti-gun male....