Apple
Junior Associate
Always travel with a sense of humor
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:51:04 GMT -5
Posts: 9,938
Mini-Profile Name Color: dc0e29
|
Post by Apple on Dec 14, 2012 22:57:58 GMT -5
Would it help if I changed "sole" purpose to "primary"? Or is shooting for fun really the primary purpose of those weapons? If it is shooting for fun, is there something that can be done to make them safer/non-lethal? (or does that destroy the fun?) I'm not trying to be snarky - I don't like loud noises, so generally try to avoid guns. So I really have no idea. I don't know if non-lethal "bullets" would work in a full auto gun, but I'm sure if they were cheaper and produced the same result, many would go for them. Yeah, half the fun is getting to watch a target explode, but you could build flimsier targets. Problem is, the people who obtain the guns illegally are going to have the real bullets. There are large gatherings of people who go and shoot full-auto. My son has gone a couple years in a row. All those guns and the only injury was a guy who had an unrelated heart attack, and one guy burnt his hand when he touched a still-hot barrel. The legal guns, the responsible gun owners, the shooters are not the issue, it's the criminals. Taking the guns away from the responsible people is not going to stop them. Just as not doing meth will not stop a meth head from breaking into your car or house to steal to go buy more meth. Or trying to steal the copper from a substation. Trust me, gun owners cringe every time someone commits a gun crime, because it does make everyone look bad. When I got my concealed carry license the instructor made a point that if we are going to go commit a crime, please don't do it with a gun, just makes it harder for everyone. I'd love to see harsher penalties for gun crimes. Eta: primary/sole purpose... The people I know who own them have absolutely no intention of ever using them on anyone, and some of them shoot every weekend. So, for them, the primary purpose is for fun. If put in a position of self defense, would they use one? Yeah, if it's the closest one to them at the time, but they do not have them for the purpose of killing. You don't go hunting with full-auto, they don't have them for their jobs, and they have never even pointed one at another person. If the sole purpose is to kill with it, they are seriously misusing them
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:21:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2012 23:03:37 GMT -5
Anne81 says "I'd love to see better prosecution of gun owners whose guns are stolen. If you gun is so easy to steal then you weren't taking proper care of it and your irresponsibility helped kill someone." I am sorry but that is the most ridiculous thing I have read today. Protect the criminal at all cost? Someone breaks into my home steals from me and I go to jail? You darn well better report it when it happens, or face consequences.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Dec 14, 2012 23:57:59 GMT -5
I'm in the camp that gun control laws only affect law biding citizens willing to follow them.
I'm confused as to people who argue that the war on drugs is a failure and we should legalize drugs since we can't stop the flow of drugs, but think we'll be more successful at controlling guns.
Really, if any criminal wants to get a gun they will. The question is how much do we want to hinder law biding citizens in obtaining firearms?
I'm fine with common sense gun control laws, waiting periods, background checks and the like. But I'm not naieve enough to think that controlling guns will keep them out of the hands of people who want them, like we can't keep drugs out of the hands of people who want them.
In the end, criminals will have guns and bullets, the question is, do you want a responsible law biding citizen able to shoot back?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Dec 15, 2012 0:01:14 GMT -5
And lonewolf is right, blame the shooter not the gun.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Dec 15, 2012 0:34:53 GMT -5
You don't know what you're missing. Shooting an M16 is a ton of fun. I only shot them in the military so they weren't full auto. They can fire a three round burst with each trigger pull though, which would be some middle ground between a semi auto and full auto. To me that would still qualify it as an assault weapon. I mean, it's a standard issue military weapon. Point is, I can totally understand somebody wanting one just for target shooting at the range. It's a really sweet rifle. Easy to strip and clean. Accurate. Reliable. Huge market of accessories like optics, laser sights, and whatnot.
All the reasons that make it a good battlefield weapon make it a good weapon for range shooting too.
|
|
daisylu
Junior Associate
Enter your message here...
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 6:04:42 GMT -5
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by daisylu on Dec 15, 2012 3:07:46 GMT -5
I'm in the camp that gun control laws only affect law biding citizens willing to follow them.
I'm confused as to people who argue that the war on drugs is a failure and we should legalize drugs since we can't stop the flow of drugs, but think we'll be more successful at controlling guns.Really, if any criminal wants to get a gun they will. The question is how much do we want to hinder law biding citizens in obtaining firearms? I'm fine with common sense gun control laws, waiting periods, background checks and the like. But I'm not naieve enough to think that controlling guns will keep them out of the hands of people who want them, like we can't keep drugs out of the hands of people who want them. In the end, criminals will have guns and bullets, the question is, do you want a responsible law biding citizen able to shoot back?
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Dec 15, 2012 8:47:28 GMT -5
What I do not and can not understand is why gun owners prioritize their "fun" over the lives of others, and are not held responsible for it. Drunk drivers kill more people than massacres, because they prioritize their "fun" over everyone else, but at least we see them for what they are - irresponsible selfish assholes.
|
|
Apple
Junior Associate
Always travel with a sense of humor
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:51:04 GMT -5
Posts: 9,938
Mini-Profile Name Color: dc0e29
|
Post by Apple on Dec 15, 2012 8:52:45 GMT -5
What I do not and can not understand is why gun owners prioritize their "fun" over the lives of others, and are not held responsible for it. Drunk drivers kill more people than massacres, because they prioritize their "fun" over everyone else, but at least we see them for what they are - irresponsible selfish assholes. Because responsible gun owners are not the ones causing the problems. Their fun is not harming anyone.
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Dec 15, 2012 8:54:51 GMT -5
What I do not and can not understand is why gun owners prioritize their "fun" over the lives of others, and are not held responsible for it. Drunk drivers kill more people than massacres, because they prioritize their "fun" over everyone else, but at least we see them for what they are - irresponsible selfish assholes. Because responsible gun owners are not the ones causing the problems. Their fun is not harming anyone. What I am saying is that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner, just as there is no such thing as a responsible drunk driver.
|
|
Apple
Junior Associate
Always travel with a sense of humor
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:51:04 GMT -5
Posts: 9,938
Mini-Profile Name Color: dc0e29
|
Post by Apple on Dec 15, 2012 9:06:52 GMT -5
And anyone who wants to compare a LEGAL hobby enjoyed by RESPONSIBLE people to a drunk asshole who drives and puts himself above the law and truly does endanger others for selfish reasons, well, I'd get banned if I put in words what I think about ignorant people like that.
|
|
Apple
Junior Associate
Always travel with a sense of humor
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:51:04 GMT -5
Posts: 9,938
Mini-Profile Name Color: dc0e29
|
Post by Apple on Dec 15, 2012 9:08:17 GMT -5
holy shit, I'm just like Santa Clause.
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Dec 15, 2012 9:13:36 GMT -5
And anyone who wants to compare a LEGAL hobby enjoyed by RESPONSIBLE people to a drunk asshole who drives and puts himself above the law and truly does endanger others for selfish reasons, well, I'd get banned if I put in words what I think about ignorant people like that. It may not be the best analogy I've ever constructed, but thanks for calling me ignorant for disagreeing with your selfishness.
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Dec 15, 2012 9:17:17 GMT -5
How do you figure there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner? In my opinion, the act of owning a gun is in and of itself an irresponsible act. Therefore, there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner. Period. I am referring to handguns and semiautomatic/automatic guns specifically, but could be convinced to extend my opinion to shotguns and bolt-action rifles as well.
|
|
Apple
Junior Associate
Always travel with a sense of humor
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:51:04 GMT -5
Posts: 9,938
Mini-Profile Name Color: dc0e29
|
Post by Apple on Dec 15, 2012 9:36:51 GMT -5
Well, having been called a selfish asshole as selfish and bad as a drunk driver, I'd say using the term ignorant was quite polite. If owning a gun, legally, is what makes me a selfish asshole, I can live with that, I'm sure I've been called worse, hell, hoops called me a shitty mom (unrelated topic) and I survived that...
I'll just continue to do a I've always done. And when I send my child out on his next full auto assault weapon shooting trip I'll give him the same lecture I always do: listen to your uncle and the others, don't point the gun at anyone, even if it's open, don't put your finger on the trigger until you're cleared and ready to shoot. Wear you ear protection and safety glasses and have fun.
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Dec 15, 2012 9:37:02 GMT -5
In my opinion, the act of owning a gun is in and of itself an irresponsible act. Therefore, there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner. Period. Using that logic, wouldn't you also say it's irresponsible for us to own cars, which kill far more people? Please do not give me the cars vs gun argument. The intentions and utility of the two things are completely different.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Dec 15, 2012 9:49:40 GMT -5
I am a gun owner. I do NOT have guns for "fun". I have them for defense. Thank goodness I live in a Castle Law and Stand Your Ground Law state. You break into my house in the middle of the night, you are not leaving.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Dec 15, 2012 9:57:27 GMT -5
This morning 28 people including 20 kindergartners are dead because a woman kept a bunch of guns, that she bought legally, in her house whith her son who she knew was mentally unstable. I don't know how that could be called any but irresponsible and selfish.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Dec 15, 2012 10:08:23 GMT -5
This morning 28 people including 20 kindergartners are dead because a woman kept a bunch of guns, that she bought legally, in her house whith her son who she knew was mentally unstable. I don't know how that could be called any but irresponsible and selfish. Agreed. They should have been secured so the crazy son could not get at them.
|
|
damnotagain
Well-Known Member
Joined: Oct 19, 2012 21:18:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,211
|
Post by damnotagain on Dec 15, 2012 10:25:51 GMT -5
Anne81 says "I'd love to see better prosecution of gun owners whose guns are stolen. If you gun is so easy to steal then you weren't taking proper care of it and your irresponsibility helped kill someone." I am sorry but that is the most ridiculous thing I have read today. Protect the criminal at all cost? Someone breaks into my home steals from me and I go to jail? You darn well better report it when it happens, or face consequences. Lol, ok thanks I am a gun owner so naturally I am stupid. You mean like taking pictures of the guns and writing the serial number on the back of the picture and putting them in a safety deposit box at a bank ..... For insurance purposes. We have been broken into before . No guns were found or taken. However some of the bling laying around was taken. Caught the kid. Cops son ,Trying to sell it at a local pawn shop. Now that is stupid .
|
|
DVM gone riding
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:04:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,383
Favorite Drink: Coffee!!
|
Post by DVM gone riding on Dec 15, 2012 10:43:29 GMT -5
Hoops, we're entering the territory where this agnostic generally feels the an overwhelming need to cross herself. I just hope you never have to know what one of hose parents feels like... Why? Because I said it was a tragedy whenever it happens, but that tragedy doesn't equate to "epidemic"? Frankly, I'm not going to freak out even if the government decides to ban all guns, i don't really care. You should care. Bans of all guns/weapons through out history have lead to tyranny. That was why the founding fathers insisted on it. The Revolution actually started when the british marched in force to remove gun catches in Lexington and Concord. What would the US history be if they hadn't illegally had those guns to start with? Further more this horrible tragedy in Conn. was carried out with small arms and 100% legal weapons. The real discussion should be how do we fix our mental health system so this mom could have turned over her son for care and trusted that he would get it and be basically housed fed clothed.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Dec 15, 2012 10:45:07 GMT -5
This morning 28 people including 20 kindergartners are dead because a woman kept a bunch of guns, that she bought legally, in her house whith her son who she knew was mentally unstable. I don't know how that could be called any but irresponsible and selfish. Agreed. They should have been secured so the crazy son could not get at them. Or just get rid of them. I know it makes me a commie, but if you have a mentally unstable person living in your house there is no way you should have guns there. There is no way they could have been secured enough to keep an adult from getting to them that lived with you. there are lots o things that you don't get to do when you have a family member who has physical or mental problems and having these weapons in the home should be one of them. In this case both parents were also killed so for them it becomes a moot point. I just wish people would think through things like what could happen if their mentally unstable family member goes crazy one day and they have guns in the house.
|
|
doxieluvr
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 11:28:59 GMT -5
Posts: 5,458
|
Post by doxieluvr on Dec 15, 2012 10:46:41 GMT -5
Would it help if I changed "sole" purpose to "primary"? Or is shooting for fun really the primary purpose of those weapons? If it is shooting for fun, is there something that can be done to make them safer/non-lethal? (or does that destroy the fun?) I'm not trying to be snarky - I don't like loud noises, so generally try to avoid guns. So I really have no idea. I don't know if non-lethal "bullets" would work in a full auto gun, but I'm sure if they were cheaper and produced the same result, many would go for them. Yeah, half the fun is getting to watch a target explode, but you could build flimsier targets. Problem is, the people who obtain the guns illegally are going to have the real bullets. There are large gatherings of people who go and shoot full-auto. My son has gone a couple years in a row. All those guns and the only injury was a guy who had an unrelated heart attack, and one guy burnt his hand when he touched a still-hot barrel. The legal guns, the responsible gun owners, the shooters are not the issue, it's the criminals. Taking the guns away from the responsible people is not going to stop them. Just as not doing meth will not stop a meth head from breaking into your car or house to steal to go buy more meth. Or trying to steal the copper from a substation. Trust me, gun owners cringe every time someone commits a gun crime, because it does make everyone look bad. When I got my concealed carry license the instructor made a point that if we are going to go commit a crime, please don't do it with a gun, just makes it harder for everyone. I'd love to see harsher penalties for gun crimes. Eta: primary/sole purpose... The people I know who own them have absolutely no intention of ever using them on anyone, and some of them shoot every weekend. So, for them, the primary purpose is for fun. If put in a position of self defense, would they use one? Yeah, if it's the closest one to them at the time, but they do not have them for the purpose of killing. You don't go hunting with full-auto, they don't have them for their jobs, and they have never even pointed one at another person. If the sole purpose is to kill with it, they are seriously misusing them Well said. Thank you
|
|
doxieluvr
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 11:28:59 GMT -5
Posts: 5,458
|
Post by doxieluvr on Dec 15, 2012 10:49:26 GMT -5
And anyone who wants to compare a LEGAL hobby enjoyed by RESPONSIBLE people to a drunk asshole who drives and puts himself above the law and truly does endanger others for selfish reasons, well, I'd get banned if I put in words what I think about ignorant people like that. Exactly... Smh
|
|
doxieluvr
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 11:28:59 GMT -5
Posts: 5,458
|
Post by doxieluvr on Dec 15, 2012 10:59:55 GMT -5
Why? Because I said it was a tragedy whenever it happens, but that tragedy doesn't equate to "epidemic"? Frankly, I'm not going to freak out even if the government decides to ban all guns, i don't really care. The real discussion should be how do we fix our mental health system so this mom could have turned over her son for care and trusted that he would get it and be basically housed fed clothed. Exactly. Normal, sane people do not go on killing rampages. Personally, my selfish ass would like these people removed from society at the first inkling of bizarreness. I have zero tolerance for anyone that is cruel towards animals, children or adults. Many of these nut jobs are cruel to animals as children. Get them help then, before they go on killing sprees. If there is no help for them, permanently remove them from society. Execute the crazy if necessary. But stop blaming guns for crimes that nut cases perform. Before anyone jumps on the hunting being cruel to animals, that is not the case. My DH and brother both hunt. They eat what they hunt. Hunting is necessary for population control. They both will take down deer that have mutations or injuries before healthy deer. Frankly they would rather have healthy deer reproducing.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Dec 15, 2012 11:01:53 GMT -5
"What I am saying is that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner, just as there is no such thing as a responsible drunk driver." in my opinion there's no comparison between a responsible gun owner and a drunk driver. A better compression would be a responsible gun owner and a professional race car driver. And an irresponsible gun owner and a drunk driver. I was going to point out how hundreds of times more people die every year due to cars, yet we don't scream to ban cars, but others beat me to it . "You should care. Bans of all guns/weapons through out history have lead to tyranny. That was why the founding fathers insisted on it. The Revolution actually started when the British marched in force to remove gun catches in Lexington and Concord. What would the US history be if they hadn't illegally had those guns to start with? " *nods* I was about to make this point as well. Removing guns from the citizenry is considered an oppressive act, similar to burning books and search without a warrant. Our founders specifically wrote in the second amendment to keep power with the people against the government. An unarmed populace is easier to control.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Dec 15, 2012 11:02:59 GMT -5
I recently visited a house where the owner had so many guns, I seriously doubt her would even know if 5 or even 10 guns disappeared. I am talking hundreds. He is a prepper. Many gun owners own multiple guns, so they might not notice if one goes missing.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Dec 15, 2012 11:10:59 GMT -5
Really, if anything beyond the shooter is to blame it's mental illness. No sane person does that. If as a society we really want to "fix" violance like this we need to address mental health.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:21:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 12:56:57 GMT -5
We need to treat mental health issues and make it more difficult for crazy people to get guns.
Gun advocates don't seem to want to compromise on anything - they should be able to buy all the guns they want, not have to secure have them, and shoot people they consider dangerous anywhere under the stand your ground law.
A recent series of articles pointed out that the NRA is a paper tiger - it has no effect on congressional elections at all. Their current stance on gun laws makes them more and more irrelevant every day.
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Dec 15, 2012 13:02:08 GMT -5
Please do not give me the cars vs gun argument. The intentions and utility of the two things are completely different. How so? A car is designed to...........transport people from one place to the other. A gun is designed to..........destroy things. What those things are varies, but the point of a gun is destruction. It provides no other utility.
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Dec 15, 2012 13:03:08 GMT -5
Really, if anything beyond the shooter is to blame it's mental illness. No sane person does that. If as a society we really want to "fix" violance like this we need to address mental health. !!!! And child abuse. While we do need to address child abuse, as a society, where did this come from and how does it relate to gun control?
|
|