THE Gun Thread

[brewer]

I wouldn't mind requirements for owning guns (need/use/proficiency/physical-mental status/ ..........), I meet those same requirements to drive a car. It might mean that I have to give up the the ones I consider 'toys' but I'm OK with that. Being denied the opportunity to put meat on the table and/or control predators just does not sit well with me.

I haven't been asked to come out and help reduce the coyote population during that last couple of lambing seasons. I blame covid.

Nobody sane would, or should fault anyone for saving money on food by hunting. And nobody sane would or should blame someone for wanting to protect their property from harm from wild animals. 

If I had a firearm, and a crock or hippo came after me, sorry, at that point it is them or me, and self preservation would kick in.

But with human on human violence with firearms we don't have an excuse. We know better, but it is just some don't want to face a very real epidemic.

Then you agree that some level of gun ownership should be allowed. Stricter regulation is acceptable.

BTW, I only own one pistol. They have only one purpose. Sometimes that is needed here in the sticks.

[onlinebiker]

And you apply this " fairness to the minority" equally - or only to causes you approve of???

Gunowners are a minority in the US. It you want to go with the rights of the majority of adult Americans, let's do that.

The majority of American adults do not own guns, nor do they live in a household where guns are present. The majority of Americans don't want to be shot. Let's accede to the wishes of the majority and try to arrange things so as to reduce the chances of getting shot.

Boru

You are missing that 80% of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Ammendment - as defined - as the right to own guns. The fact that they don' t own firearns is irrelevant.

A majority of US citizens also believe in a god. Should ALL be required to believe as the majority???

And I don' t see any answer to my question of do you apply this minority fairness doctrine to all or just the issues you agree with??

[onlinebiker]

Nobody sane would, or should fault anyone for saving money on food by hunting. And nobody sane would or should blame someone for wanting to protect their property from harm from wild animals. 

If I had a firearm, and a crock or hippo came after me, sorry, at that point it is them or me, and self preservation would kick in.

But with human on human violence with firearms we don't have an excuse. We know better, but it is just some don't want to face a very real epidemic.

Then you agree that some level of gun ownership should be allowed. Stricter regulation is acceptable.

BTW, I only own one pistol. They have only one purpose. Sometimes that is needed here in the sticks.

Only one purpose?

So my Erma Werks .22 is as suitable for bear hunting as my .480 Ruger SRH? 

Or

My Smith model 15 .38 Special is unsuitable for target shooting but is suitable for a beat cop to carry?

I think pistols can be used for whatever purpose the user decides to put it to.......

[onlinebiker]

Gack...
Dupe post

[Brian37]

Nobody sane would, or should fault anyone for saving money on food by hunting. And nobody sane would or should blame someone for wanting to protect their property from harm from wild animals. 

If I had a firearm, and a crock or hippo came after me, sorry, at that point it is them or me, and self preservation would kick in.

But with human on human violence with firearms we don't have an excuse. We know better, but it is just some don't want to face a very real epidemic.

Then you agree that some level of gun ownership should be allowed. Stricter regulation is acceptable.

BTW, I only own one pistol. They have only one purpose. Sometimes that is needed here in the sticks.

I have no problem with that. But say in the suburbs and urban settings housing, like town houses, are plentiful and buildings can be very close to each other, and in that setting firing in your back yard, or even in your own house, if you miss, that bullet could end up going through a window or drywall and hurt someone on the other side. So it isn't always wise to have them in every setting.

Most state houses and court houses in America ban firearms outside of security. I can remember as a kid there were no screenings at the airport and if you wanted to wait for a arriving loved one at the gate, you could. But I am glad today everyone including airport staff and ground crew and shop workers are all screened just like passengers and they cannot keep firearms inside the checkpoint. Nursing homes are another one where firearms are banned. They don't want someone to off themselves and get sued by the family members. 

I have no problem with what you are arguing, but our far right here in America want no rules whatsoever.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Gunowners are a minority in the US. It you want to go with the rights of the majority of adult Americans, let's do that.

The majority of American adults do not own guns, nor do they live in a household where guns are present. The majority of Americans don't want to be shot. Let's accede to the wishes of the majority and try to arrange things so as to reduce the chances of getting shot.

Boru

You are missing that 80% of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Ammendment - as defined - as the right to own guns. The fact that they don' t own firearns is irrelevant.

A majority of US citizens also believe in a god. Should ALL be required to believe as the majority???

And I don' t see any answer to my question of do you apply this minority fairness doctrine to all or just the issues you agree with??

The fact that some supporters of the right to own guns don’t own guns themselves is extremely relevant - you opened that door when you specified ‘the majority of gun owners’, not the majority of voters.

According to various studies, about 1/3 of American adults own at least one firearm. A majority of gun owners is therefore anything above 16%. If you’re a champion of majority rule, don’t you think it’s rather silly for 16.1% of the electorate to dictate terms to 83.1%?

Your point about God is just idiotic. There is a significant difference between a belief in God and the actual possession of a firearm.

I didn’t answer your question about minority fairness because my position has nothing to do with minority fairness. If anything, I’m advocating letting the majority run roughshod over the perceived rights of this particular minority (gun owners).

But I’m not even advocating removing guns. I’ve outlined some ideas that could help ensure that only trained, safety-conscious, stable, law abiding people get to own guns. I’d even go a bit farther and add a grandfather clause that current gun owners could keep their guns without going through the steps outlined earlier (someone who has owned firearms for years without serious violations is likely to be responsible enough to continue to do so).

Boru

[zebo-the-fat]

You said that before, but why?
Why would I, as an (almost) sane adult require a gun?

As a last ditch measure to protect yourself if someone was trying to hurt you.

I am 67 years old, never felt the need for that, can't imagine ever have to!

[onlinebiker]

As a last ditch measure to protect yourself if someone was trying to hurt you.

I am 67 years old, never felt the need for that, can't imagine ever have to!

I have never been saved by a seatbelt in a car.....

I guess we don' t need those either..

[onlinebiker]

You are missing that 80% of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Ammendment - as defined - as the right to own guns. The fact that they don' t own firearns is irrelevant.

A majority of US citizens also believe in a god. Should ALL be required to believe as the majority???

And I don' t see any answer to my question of do you apply this minority fairness doctrine to all or just the issues IIyou agree with??

The fact that some supporters of the right to own guns don’t own guns themselves is extremely relevant - you opened that door when you specified ‘the majority of gun owners’, not the majority of voters.

According to various studies, about 1/3 of American adults own at least one firearm. A majority of gun owners is therefore anything above 16%. If you’re a champion of majority rule, don’t you think it’s rather silly for 16.1% of the electorate to dictate terms to 83.1%?

Your point about God is just idiotic. There is a significant difference between a belief in God and the actual possession of a firearm.

I didn’t answer your question about minority fairness because my position has nothing to do with minority fairness. If anything, I’m advocating letting the majority run roughshod over the perceived rights of this particular minority (gun owners).

But I’m not even advocating removing guns. I’ve outlined some ideas that could help ensure that only trained, safety-conscious, stable, law abiding people get to own guns. I’d even go a bit farther and add a grandfather clause that current gun owners could keep their guns without going through the steps outlined earlier (someone who has owned firearms for years without serious violations is likely to be responsible enough to continue to do so).

Boru

And how is a guy going to be able to prove he has owned those guns for years????


I get 100 points if the word " registration" is in your answer......

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The fact that some supporters of the right to own guns don’t own guns themselves is extremely relevant - you opened that door when you specified ‘the majority of gun owners’, not the majority of voters.

According to various studies, about 1/3 of American adults own at least one firearm. A majority of gun owners is therefore anything above 16%. If you’re a champion of majority rule, don’t you think it’s rather silly for 16.1% of the electorate to dictate terms to 83.1%?

Your point about God is just idiotic. There is a significant difference between a belief in God and the actual possession of a firearm.

I didn’t answer your question about minority fairness because my position has nothing to do with minority fairness. If anything, I’m advocating letting the majority run roughshod over the perceived rights of this particular minority (gun owners).

But I’m not even advocating removing guns. I’ve outlined some ideas that could help ensure that only trained, safety-conscious, stable, law abiding people get to own guns. I’d even go a bit farther and add a grandfather clause that current gun owners could keep their guns without going through the steps outlined earlier (someone who has owned firearms for years without serious violations is likely to be responsible enough to continue to do so).

Boru

And how is a guy going to be able to prove he has owned those guns for years????


I get 100 points if the word " registration" is in your answer......

Registration. It’s like you’re psychic!

We register cars. We register appliances to take advantage of a warranty. We register trademarks and logos to protect business interests.

Why not register guns?

Boru