Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The Gun Control Debate Thread

Dont Taze Me Bro

By Dont Taze Me Bro
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

(Using kid gloves) I get the desire to have the NRA pay for it but how exactly would you accomplish that?  You really think you could mandate something like that ten force a private group to fund it.  I'm sure if you put a little more thought into it, you would realize that isn't realistic. 

As for location, I think you underestimate just how much time people spend hunting, especially people in rural areas.

Take a minute and collect all the thoughts you have about the NRA.  Now think again about who would run the lockers.  Would you really want the NRA running them?

I'm not sure you are right, but if you are. I suspect that we could create a federal superstructure (like I'm suggesting), but then fine tune it with local laws.

 

Maybe, we need to have a different structure for these "lockers" in the Dakotas than we would in New York. I'm not opposed to that idea or opposed to addressing that reality. That's where we would need people who understand the good side of the gun culture to be a part of building this law or the infrastructure of this plan. You don't want me doing it except in a global way because I am naive, idealistic, well-meaning, and in my own way stupid when it comes to this subject.

 

Still, I think there's something cool in this idea and at least it isn't a rehash of "ban the gun" vs. "More guns! More guns! More guns!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

(

 

Do you notice how many people here when trying to make a point for "their side", acknowledge mistakes, provide details, and explain why they feel a certain result would take place?  And you notice how you don't?  You fail to provide anything even close to quality addition to the discussion.  You don't think it will reduce mass shootings?  Great!  Explain why it is a bad idea then.  There are not many gun rights people here so it would be helpful if the few that were here could participate in a discussion like, you know.......an adult.

 

I'm sorry for assuming the posters here had a functioning brain.....my mistake

 

For those that don't....the times rifles were used were most all planned in advance(plenty of time for a "hunting trip/range time") and legally acquired.

Most suicides and accidental discharges are from handguns and the burden of checking rifles out of storage would not prevent those either.(in most cases)

 

I'm not a gun rights person,nor a member of ANY gun group......I leave that to the adults.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I'm not sure you are right, but if you are. I suspect that we could create a federal superstructure (like I'm suggesting), but then fine tune it with local laws.

 

Maybe, we need to have a different structure for these "lockers" in the Dakotas than we would in New York. I'm not opposed to that idea or opposed to addressing that reality. That's where we would need people who understand the good side of the gun culture to be a part of building this law or the infrastructure of this plan. You don't want me doing it except in a global way because I am naive, idealistic, well-meaning, and in my own way stupid when it comes to this subject.

 

Still, I think there's something cool in this idea and at least it isn't a rehash of "ban the gun" vs. "More guns! More guns! More guns!"

I would be more inclined to require certain in-home storage requirements.  Something like "all guns capable of being loaded with 6 rounds must me in a storage container that meets X specifications (like a gun safe) and must be locked in a manner that meets Y specifications".  Then hold people a lot more accountable (like accessory to murder level accountable) when their gun is taken to do something bad.

 

It won't stop the crazy guy that legally buys a gun but neither will your solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I would be more inclined to require certain in-home storage requirements.  Something like "all guns capable of being loaded with 6 rounds must me in a storage container that meets X specifications (like a gun safe) and must be locked in a manner that meets Y specifications".  Then hold people a lot more accountable (like accessory to murder level accountable) when their gun is taken to do something bad.

 

It won't stop the crazy guy that legally buys a gun but neither will your solution.

That only helps if our vetting, mental health, background, and other mechanisms are up to snuff which the powers that be work their hardest to make sure that they aren't. We're in a loop where the NRA and the government are in cahoots and cheering for gun violence because gun violence means more gun profits and more gun profits means more political donations.

 

Therefore, the powers that be have no incentive and nearly every possible incentive to not address the problem... which is why they don't. In very real terms, the NRA and the elected members of the GOP right now are pro murder. In fact, they are probably much more pro murder than they are pro gun or pro Second Amendment. Murder makes them all money.

 

Edit: To take a step backwards, I am in favor of gun safes and that families lock up their firearms. If for no other reason than too many children are killed each year because of accidental handling and gun safety negligence.

Edited by Burgold
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Sorry, Burg, but I've got a problem with requiring every legitimate recreational rifle user to go to a police station (or other official government building), (during business hours?), and ask the government if the written documentation they've brought with them constitutes a good enough reason for them to have access to their own property. 

 

Too much imposition on too many legitimate users, for not enough public risk reduction. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

@Burgold I get what you are saying but what sounds more realistic, fixing the issues you stated or setting up these "militia gun lockers?"

Heh. I think what I'm proposing doesn't sound realistic at all. I don't think it has much chance of being adopted. Heck, I don't think there's much chance of passing a law demanding that agencies share information on people diagnosed with violent mental illnesses.

 

I do think it might do some good. Can it get passed? I have no faith that anything can get passed on a Federal level. Unless that something is designed to further increase access and gun proliferation. For example, if I suggested that mandatory gun education classes be  taught in all schools wherein every child was taught to shoot and take care of a gun. I think that would receive a receptive audience. People would cheer the idea of demystifying guns and giving everyone a skill set in the case of danger. Hell, 25% of America would run out and buy a pistol to put in their child's pencil box.

 

But suggest anything that might prevent violence and you have almost zero chance at the Federal level even if 90% of the  public wants it.

 

And Larry, I have no problem with you having problems with this idea. It'd be a pretty big change and .while there would be no "rights" taken away. There would be "rights" intruded on or made more cumbersome. Still, I think the offset would be good if we could do this and if we could get "responsible" gun owners to buy in.

 

For example, in at least three school mass shooting cases I can think of off the top of my head, the mentally ill murderer stole their guns from a parent or guardian, executed them, and then went on their merry way to massacre as many innocent lives as they could. In this scenario, the perpetrator could be blocked in two ways. First, if it's not their weapon, so they can't sign it out. Second, they would need to the legitimate purpose which they probably could get, but at least would take a little effort. Third, the very idea that there is a paper trail might dissuade some.

 

I do want to point out that your use of the phrase "legitimate recreational rifle" is again one of the big cognitive stumbling blocks. A favorite past time of the gun rights group (which I don't necessarily put you in) is trying to complicate and make impossible what is legitimate, what is recreational, and what is not. They try to make the distinction so blurry that any attempt to limit weapons of mass destruction, register them, or put any restriction of any sort on them becomes not only difficult but a practical impossibility.

 

So, I reject your usage of "legitimate recreational rifle" There's no such thing. There are rifles. There is no such thing as a rifle that can solely be used for legitimate recreational purposes and immediately cease functioning or become inoperative for illegitimate or non recreational purposes. Great Buzz has argued the opposite. He has argued that certain calibers or high capacity weapons are best for hunting even though we laymen think they're only good and primarily designed for hunting humans. So, to add another chapter where I've lost faith, I have no faith that we could ever come to an agreement on what a "legitimate" fire arm might be and what a "recreational" one might be. I have some small hope that we could agree on what weapons are designed for self defense, but Tshile is working on squelching that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Burgold said:

And Larry, I have no problem with you having problems with this idea. It'd be a pretty big change and .while there would be no "rights" taken away.

 

Tell you what.  

 

Pretend that California has decided that there's too many people driving big SUVs with only one person in them.  So they come up with a plan.  All SUV owners must turn in their SUVs to the police.  They'll still own them.  But if they want to use them, they'll have to go to the impound lot and provide written evidence that they have a "good enough" reason to justify taking their SUV out of impound for a few days.  

 

No "rights" have been taken away, right?  

 

2 hours ago, Burgold said:

So, I reject your usage of "legitimate recreational rifle" There's no such thing. There are rifles. There is no such thing as a rifle that can solely be used for legitimate recreational purposes and immediately cease functioning or become inoperative for illegitimate or non recreational purposes.

 

I don't believe that I've ever use that phrase.  And I'm absolutely certain that I have never even hinted at such an imaginary weapon.  So feel free to reject what I haven't said all you want.  

 

Now, I have made reference to legitimate uses.  I've tried to always put that term in quotes, because I'm well aware that the word doesn't really fit all that well.  I just can't think of a better term to refer to all of the various users of weapons that I don't think we want to prohibit.  

 

 

Edited by Larry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Tell you what.  

 

Pretend that California has decided that there's too many people driving big SUVs with only one person in them.  So they come up with a plan.  All SUV owners must turn in their SUVs to the police.  They'll still own them.  But if they want to use them, they'll have to go to the impound lot and provide written evidence that they have a "good enough" reason to justify taking their SUV out of impound for a few days.  

 

No "rights" have been taken away, right?  

 

 

 

I actually like that plan. Even better if they can only check them out if they arrive with multiple passengers. Further, let's put a camera in the car so that if the passengers exit and it becomes a solo vehicle we get to fine the hell out of the driver. :)

 

As for lyou never using the term egit recreational rifle you got to start reading what you wrote

6 hours ago, Larry said:

Sorry, Burg, but I've got a problem with requiring every legitimate recreational rifle user to go to a police station (or other official government building), (during business hours?), and ask the government if the written documentation they've brought with them constitutes a good enough reason for them to have access to their own property. 

 

Too much imposition on too many legitimate users, for not enough public risk reduction. 

--

 

 

Edited by Burgold
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

You notice the ford "user" following those adjectives?  

 

Yeah, but to me it is wordplay. Most people who see "LEGITIMATE" and "RECREATIONAL" and "user" will feel you have justified their opinion. I get what you're saying, but the terms Legitimate and recreational are leading. If you want to be specific, be specific. Say hunter and target shooter.I did. 

 

By applying those adjectives you also apply the meanings they connote. You are extending the value of legitimate and recreational to the gun as well as the user with your choice of phrasing. After all,  gun users would agree that the guns they hunt with are recreational and legitimate. We've heard them make that argument again and again when decrying the folly of gun bans. They have argued in this very thread that the reasons gun bans don't make sense is because you sweep into it legitimate guns or deny hunters guns useful for recreational purposes.

 

So no, adding the word "user" doesn't help. At least not in my book. And yes, I realize this is a petty rhetorical point, but so much of the "gun debate" like getting  the name wrong  when speaking about a semi automatic weapon means you don't have the knowledge to discuss gun control... is about rhetorical trickery.  So, we have to be careful with our words because if we are not it legitimizes an illegitimate position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scruffylookin

scruffylookin

Posted
Posted

Look, this whole gun control thing will never happen as long as we as a society accept one thing as a "right" and that is the "right" to go murder a non-human for "recreation"/"sport" whatever. It all stems from there. You see it even from those who allegedly support gun control but are quick to "defend the rights of sportsmen". Where in the 2nd amendment does it state you have a right to go kill another living being? The right is to bear arms for a well regulated militia, which has then been broadly expanded to the right to defend yourself. That is it. So under that definition, a standard weapon (perhaps a powerful pistol of some sort............sorry I have a life so I don't exactly get off on knowing the variety of guns) would suffice and be housed and legal to use on your property. Period. That should be the end of it.

 

But then enter those that want the right to buy whatever weapon they want so they can go out and murder a deer or rabbit or squirrel or elephant or lion. Then all of sudden we get the "Trump effect", a marriage between the rich elites and rural people who "don't want their rights trampled" and a pathetic majority who want to somehow appease these people while still trying to get some sort of gun control legislation to pass. The appeasers are fools. It will never happen. This country has bowed down to those who worship the gun and killing. As seen with other issues, these people will never give an inch. Nor should they. They always win.

 

Gun restriction is just another battle that needs to be waged between the majority (urban folks) and the very loud but shrinking minority (rural people). Also when I say "urban" vs. "rural" I don't always mean literally. I mean the mentality too (I have a right to do whatever I want and not you or the government can say otherwise). We as a society are just not ready to fight it. I think the "rural" types are and have been. But the "urban" folks are living in some state of denial thinking that a compromise (on anything not just guns) is possible still. Hate to break it but it is not. Certainly not in the last 25 to 30 years and not in the future.

 

So here people like me sit and just watch after a mass shooting and the initial cries for gun restrictions are made,  we start our countdown as to  when will the narrative shift to not infringing on the "rights" of "responsible" gun owners which then leads to the "debate" just going away. A responsible gun owner is someone who knows how to use a gun but never does (unless in self defense). Anyone else is just a gun nut. They want to use their guns. They enjoy shooting it and as much of a variety of them  as possible and some of those enjoy killing defenseless animals. By definition, gun nuts. Can we try and stop catering to the gun nuts?

 

Oh Nevermind, that's right I forgot, people like me are the nuts. We are the "extremists" . I mean how can we not be? We are all about not worshipping weapons of murder and view it as nothing more than as a tool for home defense like a security camera or alarm system. We actually care about our fellow living beings and see no reason murder them. I mean for sure we are crazy.

 

If the only thing you agree with in this long ass post is the previous paragraph, let that sink in for a moment and think about it. You think it is normal to own a variety of weapons and to kill fellow living beings but it's not normal to not own any weapons (or just one for home defense) and not use said weapon to go out and murder a deer. That is the state we are in right now and that explains why things are so awful.

 

My plan? If anyone really cares, ban all weapons except a designated caliber of hand gun for home defense. Anyone found with a gun outside of their property, there is a fine that leads to jail time for repeat offenses. If the gun is found not to be legal, it is confiscated and again you are fined. If you commit a crime with a gun, any crime, life sentence. You have to give guns the weight and severity they deserve. It's not a toy. It's not a recreational item. It is a weapon to maim and kill. It serves no other purpose than that. Respect it as such. Oh and I would not have a problem with having armed security (properly trained professionals) in places of business, schools etc. to deal with a stray nut who somehow gets their hands on a gun.

 

Well that was fun and a bit cathartic to write. Probably not to read :) but don't worry. I know that nothing will change. Not in my lifetime anyway. But it should be something to strive for and fight for. Anything less means you really don't want things to change, no matter how often you may say otherwise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
visionary

visionary

Posted
Posted

 

6 minutes ago, scruffylookin said:

Look, this whole gun control thing will never happen as long as we as a society accept one thing as a "right" and that is the "right" to go murder a non-human for "recreation"/"sport" whatever. It all stems from there. You see it even from those who allegedly support gun control but are quick to "defend the rights of sportsmen". Where in the 2nd amendment does it state you have a right to go kill another living being? 

People would still be hunting and trapping animals even if guns were entirely banned....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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