Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Gun Control and Liberals? Help me here...


21KO

Recommended Posts

I hadn't seen this thread before, but I'll chime in now.

I don't have a gun in my home. So I won't be able to shoot an intruder and "defend my family." But I also won't kill any family members, which happens more often than homes are defended anyway.

So I'll call it a truce. :D

i'm sorry, but the reports you heard about that claim this are heavily biased, unscientific, and inacurate. i've done a lot of research and came across the "kellerman report" and it has been thoroughly ripped apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own a few rifles and 1 handgun (though I dont have it with me in AZ).

I dont usually keep ammo unless I just bought a couple hundred rounds at a gun show or something. The only thing I use my ammo for is target shooting and I go out to a place in the desert sanctioned by law enforcement where you can shoot for free and dont have to bother cleaning up the glass bottles you exploded.

I dont pass it off as home defense, the crime rate in Coconino County, AZ is so low it isnt funny. We had like 1 or 2 homicides last year and that was a big year apparently, 1 was a stabbling, 1 was a shooting.

I own rifles because of their historical value...I have started a collection of rifles from WW2. My favorites are the bolt action ones such as the Mosin-Nagant, Enfield, Mauser, and Springfield...

I dont know why someone who collects rifles for their historical significane, and takes them target shooting would be a bad thing. Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, there is a very significant distinction and nothing FLEW over our heads.

The distinction is not whether the item may be dangerous, the distinction is whether the item may be dangerous to ME.

You + marijuana = you stoned, me unaffected

you + gun = you armed, me potentially affected in a very negative way

I'll put it another way using your personal responsibility line... if you fail to have personal responsibility with your pot, you will be a stoner and lose your job andmaybe even get cancer. If you fail to have personal responsibility with your gun, I might get a bullet in my ear. That's why I care.

The number of people killed by individuals with guns is tiny compared to the number of people killed by drivers under the influence, so that is a pretty weak argument.

Both guns and drugs should be legal and the penalties severe for lapses in personal responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own a few rifles and 1 handgun (though I dont have it with me in AZ).

I dont usually keep ammo unless I just bought a couple hundred rounds at a gun show or something. The only thing I use my ammo for is target shooting and I go out to a place in the desert sanctioned by law enforcement where you can shoot for free and dont have to bother cleaning up the glass bottles you exploded.

I dont pass it off as home defense, the crime rate in Coconino County, AZ is so low it isnt funny. We had like 1 or 2 homicides last year and that was a big year apparently, 1 was a stabbling, 1 was a shooting.

I own rifles because of their historical value...I have started a collection of rifles from WW2. My favorites are the bolt action ones such as the Mosin-Nagant, Enfield, Mauser, and Springfield...

I dont know why someone who collects rifles for their historical significane, and takes them target shooting would be a bad thing. Oh well.

man, i would love to get my hands on some WWII weapons. recently i've grown very fond of bolt-actions, i would love to shoot an old WWII rifle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, there wouldn't be any powerful lobbies interested in debunking reports of gun violence. lol

Nevermind, carry on, gun nuts. :cheers:

if you actually read the stuff, you'd see its a very legitimate rebuttal.

the report makes it seem that you are in more danger of getting shot if you own a gun. but some of the things it failed to take into account is that gang members are gonna get shot regardless if they have a gun or not, but a high percentage of gang-members are gun owners. if you are not a gang member, then having them in the pool to determine the effects of owning a gun and your chances of getting shot is skewed.

for example: say there was a pool of 50 gun owners and 50 non-gun owners. of the gun owners, say 20 are gang members and 30 are civilians. of the non-gun owners, there are 2 gang members and 48 civilians. now assuming that 50% of all gang-members get shot, and 2% of all civilians get shot you have 10 gun-owning gang-members shot and 1 non-gun-owning gang member shot, you then also have about 1 gun-owning and one non-gun-owning civilian shot. so a total of 11 gun-owners are shot and a total of 2 non-gunowners are shot. while this would look like a scarey statistic, but you need to take into account the fact that you are a civilian and not a gang-member. the statistics are gonna make it look like owning a gun is dangerous, but really, its just that more people who own guns happen to live dangerous life-styles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont pass it off as home defense, the crime rate in Coconino County, AZ is so low it isnt funny. We had like 1 or 2 homicides last year and that was a big year apparently, 1 was a stabbling, 1 was a shooting.

The area I live in has a very low crime rate as well. I don't WANT to ever have to use these firearms for home or personal defense; and probably never will. However, if that grave extreme were to present itself, I would be prepared to do so. That's also the reason I CARRY a handgun as often as I do. I don't ever WANT to have to use it, but if the situation arises where one is necessary I don't want to be cursing myself under my breath that I don't have it with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The area I live in has a very low crime rate as well. I don't WANT to ever have to use these firearms for home or personal defense; and probably never will. However, if that grave extreme were to present itself, I would be prepared to do so. That's also the reason I CARRY a handgun as often as I do. I don't ever WANT to have to use it, but if the situation arises where one is necessary I don't want to be cursing myself under my breath that I don't have it with me.

Oh yea I wasnt saying there is anything wrong with that, I was just saying its not my priority, theres nothing wrong with a weapon for home or self defense imo as long as the person who has it isnt the Yosemite Sam type.

I cant carry the pistol with me because I dont have it, I would look pretty dumb walking down the street with a rifle slung over my shoulder everywhere I go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you actually read the stuff, you'd see its a very legitimate rebuttal.

the report makes it seem that you are in more danger of getting shot if you own a gun. but some of the things it failed to take into account is that gang members are gonna get shot regardless if they have a gun or not, but a high percentage of gang-members are gun owners. if you are not a gang member, then having them in the pool to determine the effects of owning a gun and your chances of getting shot is skewed.

for example: say there was a pool of 50 gun owners and 50 non-gun owners. of the gun owners, say 20 are gang members and 30 are civilians. of the non-gun owners, there are 2 gang members and 48 civilians. now assuming that 50% of all gang-members get shot, and 2% of all civilians get shot you have 10 gun-owning gang-members shot and 1 non-gun-owning gang member shot, you then also have about 1 gun-owning and one non-gun-owning civilian shot. so a total of 11 gun-owners are shot and a total of 2 non-gunowners are shot. while this would look like a scarey statistic, but you need to take into account the fact that you are a civilian and not a gang-member. the statistics are gonna make it look like owning a gun is dangerous, but really, its just that more people who own guns happen to live dangerous life-styles.

Gotcha -

So what your saying is that since more gang memebers have guns, that is a reason Guns should remain legal.... To protect the Gang memebers rights....

You know - This is a dumb argument. You could ban ALL guns tommrow - But since there are 120 million guns in America today, it wouldn't change anything.

Studies mean nothing - DC has Strict gun laws but had no decrease in violance when first passed - And why would it. After all, VA had very lax gun laws and one study showed 30% of guns used in DC came from VA.

Of course once MD passed strict Gun Control and VA passed strict enforcement of current gun laws along with a 1 gun per month law, DC violance did drasticly get reduced -

Of course by that time the Crack wars were over and the economy was up - So it's hard to tell what was what.

NRA is nuts. Not because they don't have some good points, but because they have adopted a policy of 0 tolerance. They are covinced that if 1 gun law passes, all can pass, so - as policy, they fight EVERY gun law.

They fought against the ban of cop killing bullets for god sake. Why? They sued a town outlawing weapons at a community center where there was a after school program (Lost).

How crazy is the NRA? They helped pass the gun shield law that prevents federal authorties from sharing data with the states and cities about gun violence! The states can't even look to the goverement to give them gun stats anymore!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/26/politics/main1546880.shtml

How about you make a personal responsbility law. You can buy a gun, but you have to have a license and registar it (Why should buying a car be eaiser).

More so - You are now responsbile for that gun. Study was recently done in Compton that showed a majorty of guns that were used in crimes, were, at some point, bought legally. They were strawman purchases. Bought legaly and then resold with no record.

No. Buy a gun - YOU are responsbile for it. You sell it, you better report who you sold it to and when. It gets stolen, you better report it ASAP why it got stolen. You don't do this, and it's used in a crime - It's your ass on the line.

It's about being responsbile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotcha -

So what your saying is that since more gang memebers have guns, that is a reason Guns should remain legal.... To protect the Gang memebers rights....

you know what i'm saying and purposefully misrepresented it. do you know how to debate a topic on its own merits and not made up BS?

my argument is that criminals will have guns whether they're legal or not. if they cared about the law, they wouldn't be criminals in the first place. if you actually comprehended my post (which now i'm not quite sure you have the capacity to do so) you would have seen my post had nothing to do with legality, but a rebuttle for the supposed statistics making guns appear to be dangerous to own.

now a couple reasons for guns to be legal:

1. it is an expressed right to keep and bear arms in our very own constitution. making them illegal would be unconstitutional.

2. if they're illegal, the only people who own guns will be criminals, i don't know about you, but that doesn't make me feel safe at all.

3. places where guns are outlawed have a track record of having worse crime than those that have gun ownership legal.

4. guns don't kill people, people kill people

there are many reasons for guns to remain legal, and it is guarunteed by the constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you know what i'm saying and purposefully misrepresented it. do you know how to debate a topic on its own merits and not made up BS?

my argument is that criminals will have guns whether they're legal or not. if they cared about the law, they wouldn't be criminals in the first place. if you actually comprehended my post (which now i'm not quite sure you have the capacity to do so) you would have seen my post had nothing to do with legality, but a rebuttle for the supposed statistics making guns appear to be dangerous to own.

now a couple reasons for guns to be legal:

1. it is an expressed right to keep and bear arms in our very own constitution. making them illegal would be unconstitutional.

2. if they're illegal, the only people who own guns will be criminals, i don't know about you, but that doesn't make me feel safe at all.

3. places where guns are outlawed have a track record of having worse crime than those that have gun ownership legal.

4. guns don't kill people, people kill people

there are many reasons for guns to remain legal, and it is guarunteed by the constitution.

First - Go ahead and breath....

2nd - before you go all name calling, re-read my post. Where did I call for guns to be illegal. I simply said pass a law that says if you buy a gun, your responsible for it. What's the problem.

3rd - I took your arguement to it's logical conculsion. Stats are misleading because gangs members are more likely to have guns and therefore raise the stats of people that own guns being killed by guns. Logic would then say if gang memebers are more likely to own guns, then we should stop allowing them to own guns.

(this whole arguement that criminals that have guns didn't get them legally doesn't hold up. Most of the guns used in crimes were, at some point, sold legally. So if they were never sold at all, they would never have ended up in a crime).

Now - You did a great job of quoting the lines from the NRA web site (Guns don't kill people, people kill people.... WITH GUNS) but you did nothing to answer the argument.

Keep guns legals. BUT make sure everyone knows if you buy a gun, you are responsbile for it. Don't want the responsbility? Don't buy one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First - Go ahead and breath....

2nd - before you go all name calling, re-read my post. Where did I call for guns to be illegal. I simply said pass a law that says if you buy a gun, your responsible for it. What's the problem.

3rd - I took your arguement to it's logical conculsion. Stats are misleading because gangs members are more likely to have guns and therefore raise the stats of people that own guns being killed by guns. Logic would then say if gang memebers are more likely to own guns, then we should stop allowing them to own guns.

(this whole arguement that criminals that have guns didn't get them legally doesn't hold up. Most of the guns used in crimes were, at some point, sold legally. So if they were never sold at all, they would never have ended up in a crime).

Now - You did a great job of quoting the lines from the NRA web site (Guns don't kill people, people kill people.... WITH GUNS) but you did nothing to answer the argument.

Keep guns legals. BUT make sure everyone knows if you buy a gun, you are responsbile for it. Don't want the responsbility? Don't buy one.

will you be lobbying for this strategy in your own state? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First - Go ahead and breath....

2nd - before you go all name calling, re-read my post. Where did I call for guns to be illegal. I simply said pass a law that says if you buy a gun, your responsible for it. What's the problem.

3rd - I took your arguement to it's logical conculsion. Stats are misleading because gangs members are more likely to have guns and therefore raise the stats of people that own guns being killed by guns. Logic would then say if gang memebers are more likely to own guns, then we should stop allowing them to own guns.

(this whole arguement that criminals that have guns didn't get them legally doesn't hold up. Most of the guns used in crimes were, at some point, sold legally. So if they were never sold at all, they would never have ended up in a crime).

Now - You did a great job of quoting the lines from the NRA web site (Guns don't kill people, people kill people.... WITH GUNS) but you did nothing to answer the argument.

Keep guns legals. BUT make sure everyone knows if you buy a gun, you are responsbile for it. Don't want the responsbility? Don't buy one.

you implied they should be illegal when you made attacked me with a sarcastic reason of why they should remain legal.

"taking [my] argument to its logical conclusion" is bull****. you took it to the conclusion you wanted and then ripped that. classic straw-man. if you can't tear apart my comments, why not make comments for me and rip up those?:rolleyes:

i have done research, and came across an article about a prison where the inmates were asked how they got their weapons to commit the crimes they did. over 80% got them illegally.

oh, and while logic dictates we should "stop letting gang-members have guns", that is EXACTLY MY POINT! you CAN'T prevent them from getting guns. its not that we allow them to have 'em, its that they get their hands on 'em anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, a lot of misinformation floating around when it comes to firearms.

BTW, aren't some Maryland legislators trying to pass some sort of state "assault weapons" ban that would make owning anything deemed an "assault weapon" to be illegal?

Assault weapon bans are stupid, merely because they are based upon misinformation and knee-jerk reactions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, a lot of misinformation floating around when it comes to firearms.

BTW, aren't some Maryland legislators trying to pass some sort of state "assault weapons" ban that would make owning anything deemed an "assault weapon" to be illegal?

Assault weapon bans are stupid, merely because they are based upon misinformation and knee-jerk reactions.

so true...

once I read an article on the Brady's (gun control nutz) that saidntheir primary tactic is a long term drive to demonize certain aspects of firearms via nomenclature.

Thats why we see terms like "Assault Weapons" and "Gun Crime", "Gun Violence".

We never see terms like "Car Crime" or "Knife Violence" or maybe "Fat Related Death" or cool stuff like that, do we?

I think thats really interesting that they go about in in a Psych Ops methodology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so true...

once I read an article on the Brady's (gun control nutz) that saidntheir primary tactic is a long term drive to demonize certain aspects of firearms via nomenclature.

Thats why we see terms like "Assault Weapons" and "Gun Crime", "Gun Violence".

We never see terms like "Car Crime" or "Knife Violence" or maybe "Fat Related Death" or cool stuff like that, do we?

I think thats really interesting that they go about in in a Psych Ops methodology.

****s!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NRA is nuts. Not because they don't have some good points, but because they have adopted a policy of 0 tolerance. They are covinced that if 1 gun law passes, all can pass, so - as policy, they fight EVERY gun law.

How about because we've already got over 10,000 gun laws here in the United States and THEY AREN'T WORKING!!!!! Largely because of two reasons... First they're generally the WRONG laws. Secondly the few decent, useful laws out there in this regard go largely unenforced. We could probably take 90% of the gun laws in the United States off the books, never write a new one, and through simple enforcement of that remaining 10% reduce gun crime in this country by 75% (my guess). THAT'S what the NRA has been trying to say for decades. Unfortunately, that message has gotten lost in a lot of crap from the media and other sources.

They fought against the ban of cop killing bullets for god sake. Why? They sued a town outlawing weapons at a community center where there was a after school program (Lost).

How about because that ammunition is much more likely to be used by a law abiding citizen against a criminal than it is to ever be used against a law enforcement officer. How about because unless that community center happens to be government property, they really have no place telling people whether they can or cannot carry a firearm on the property?

How crazy is the NRA? They helped pass the gun shield law that prevents federal authorties from sharing data with the states and cities about gun violence! The states can't even look to the goverement to give them gun stats anymore!

How about because the statistics show only one side of the issue. How about because the information taken down by these agencies is generally skewed, incomplete, and rarely, if ever, worth the paper they're printed on.

How about you make a personal responsbility law. You can buy a gun, but you have to have a license and registar it (Why should buying a car be eaiser).

More so - You are now responsbile for that gun. Study was recently done in Compton that showed a majorty of guns that were used in crimes, were, at some point, bought legally. They were strawman purchases. Bought legaly and then resold with no record.

No. Buy a gun - YOU are responsbile for it. You sell it, you better report who you sold it to and when. It gets stolen, you better report it ASAP why it got stolen. You don't do this, and it's used in a crime - It's your ass on the line.

How about the fact that there are already a myriad of 'personal responsibility' laws on the books for gun owners. Show me a drivers license where you need to provide PERSONAL REFERENCES and are at the mercy of the opinion of a police chief or other government official as to whether they THINK you're an appropriate person to hold that license. A TON more people are killed with motor vehicles a year than firearms. Yet I'll renew my DRIVER'S LICENSE this July in 15 minutes. My roommate is into the second WEEK of the process to renew her License to Carry.

When I purchase a firearm, I am legally responsible for it from cradle to grave. From the moment that dealer puts it in my hand, until the moment that firearm is sold or destroyed. In either of those cases, I am legally responsible to report the removal of that firearm from my inventory to the proper authorities. There are no new laws needed in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep guns legals. BUT make sure everyone knows if you buy a gun, you are responsbile for it. Don't want the responsbility? Don't buy one.

THE RESPONSIBILITY IS ALREADY THERE!!!! What you want is some piece of paper whose only use is to ensure that some jack-booted thug with a different piece of paper and a badge knows which door to kick in when the government decides that they don't want me to have that firearm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about because we've already got over 10,000 gun laws here in the United States and THEY AREN'T WORKING!!!!! Largely because of two reasons... First they're generally the WRONG laws. Secondly the few decent, useful laws out there in this regard go largely unenforced. We could probably take 90% of the gun laws in the United States off the books, never write a new one, and through simple enforcement of that remaining 10% reduce gun crime in this country by 75% (my guess). THAT'S what the NRA has been trying to say for decades. Unfortunately, that message has gotten lost in a lot of crap from the media and other sources..

BS - The NRA was against all these laws they now say they want to enforce. But no complaints. I'm all for enforcing the laws that are on the books.

How about because that ammunition is much more likely to be used by a law abiding citizen against a criminal than it is to ever be used against a law enforcement officer. How about because unless that community center happens to be government property, they really have no place telling people whether they can or cannot carry a firearm on the property?

the community center IS goverment property. That's why it's called a Community center and not not chuck E cheese.

And if it wasn't, then wouldn't the owners get to decided?

How about because the statistics show only one side of the issue. How about because the information taken down by these agencies is generally skewed, incomplete, and rarely, if ever, worth the paper they're printed on.

They are stats. They don't have a view point. They are simply stats reported. X amount of people were killed with guns. That's it. Now you want to censor speach?

How about the fact that there are already a myriad of 'personal responsibility' laws on the books for gun owners. Show me a drivers license where you need to provide PERSONAL REFERENCES and are at the mercy of the opinion of a police chief or other government official as to whether they THINK you're an appropriate person to hold that license. A TON more people are killed with motor vehicles a year than firearms. Yet I'll renew my DRIVER'S LICENSE this July in 15 minutes. My roommate is into the second WEEK of the process to renew her License to Carry.

When I purchase a firearm, I am legally responsible for it from cradle to grave. From the moment that dealer puts it in my hand, until the moment that firearm is sold or destroyed. In either of those cases, I am legally responsible to report the removal of that firearm from my inventory to the proper authorities. There are no new laws needed in that regard.

No - You are not. You are allowed to sell that gun at will in most states with no info. I said nothing about needing a reference. I said that if you want to own a gun, you should have to get a license. As long as you are not a convict, commited a felony, or have a restraining order against you - You should have the right to buy one. But if you do, and you sell it, you better make sure that other person ALSO has a permit. And the punishment of not reporting a gun that is loss or stolen is minor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BS - The NRA was against all these laws they now say they want to enforce. But no complaints. I'm all for enforcing the laws that are on the books.

You might want to go back and check your research. Then again, DON'T. Your bias has already been made clearly evident.

the community center IS goverment property. That's why it's called a Community center and not not chuck E cheese.

And if it wasn't, then wouldn't the owners get to decided?

Not all of them. If that's the case in that particular city, then so be it. Personally, I think the idea that a law abiding citizen can't carry a firearm on government property is absurd. Where do you need protection more than from the government?

They are stats. They don't have a view point. They are simply stats reported. X amount of people were killed with guns. That's it. Now you want to censor speach?

They're incomplete stats. They're stats that show only one side of the issue. They don't include the number of times an armed citizen, either by simply being there, or by using a firearm, prevents or ends a crime in progress. They don't calculate the number of criminals who don't even try to commit a crime because their potential target may be armed. I don't want to censor speech, but I don't believe that a one-sided coin is worth much.

No - You are not. You are allowed to sell that gun at will in most states with no info. I said nothing about needing a reference. I said that if you want to own a gun, you should have to get a license. As long as you are not a convict, commited a felony, or have a restraining order against you - You should have the right to buy one. But if you do, and you sell it, you better make sure that other person ALSO has a permit. And the punishment of not reporting a gun that is loss or stolen is minor.

In every state in the Northeast you have to report sale of a firearm. The reference issue has to do with your 'perfect solution' licensing idea. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts requires everything short of a DNA sample for a license application, and then if the Police Chief doesn't like the way you spell your name he can deny you the permit anyway; just because he wants to.

I have no serious issue with requiring a license to own a firearm. What I have a problem with is unnecessary requirements to that licensing process, a total lack of due process in the system, and inconsistant standards.

My issue with the transfer (and purchase) paperwork is that it has no value if it isn't recorded and kept on file. Unfortunately, history has shown that those records serve only one purpose. Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, and others all used those records very well in their seizure of private firearms from the public when they chose to take control of their countries away from the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too often, with the aforementioned cases of Hitler and Stalin, as well as California (with the AWB) and Australia, firearm licenses simply makes it easier for the State to seize private firearms.

Once again, there is never a colloration between strict firearm laws and a decrease in crime. The anti-gun crowd always has to distort statistics to prove their cause, because they realize that the truth does not support their position.

The last thing we never are MORE and STRICTER firearm laws. What will do that? How will that prevent crime, when the issue involves citizens who use firearms in *criminal* actions? Has anyone ever actually looked at the amount of violent crime, such as stabbings, blunt trauma, etc., that is caused without firearms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite quote from this thread?

You seem to think liberals don't want guns, I like guns and I am a liberal. I also think that mandatory wait times are a good thing, I don't like the fact that Ackmed Muhammad can go to a local gun shop and buy a .50cal rifle which can take out a target from 2mi away.

I'll say this...

Guns are like anything else. Create all the laws, regulations, restrictions, whatever you want, people who want them will still find a way to get them. Look at the drug laws in this country and how many people still do them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite quote from this thread?

I'll say this...

Guns are like anything else. Create all the laws, regulations, restrictions, whatever you want, people who want them will still find a way to get them. Look at the drug laws in this country and how many people still do them.

Yep.

Plus, just like the War on Drugs, the issues and debates surrounding firarms is full of hyperbole, dis and misinformation, and inaccuracies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...