0
Dean358

Why Pro and Anti-Gun Advocates Are Not Speaking The Same Language

Recommended Posts

I've never said guns are needed.
I only ask that MY PERSONAL OPTION to posses and use one should I fear for my life NOT be taken away.
I do still have that right as a citizen. You are also free to make that decision (or not) should you chose to.
I repeatedly offer valuable changes to our gun ownership and it's ignored or disregarded.


I'm sorry you've lost people violently. I still cannot comprehend the level of insanity one has to achieve to have such violent horrific hatred for fellow humans and life itself.

require background checks unless the person already possesses a CWP
require guns safes, purchase of or proof of ownership
lock up the loonies - they are a danger to society
let's work on specifying TRUE military style weapons - not handguns. the assault weapon title was wildly misused on the previous ban, much like it is this week and limit those accordingly

Of course the only ones of those that could have possibly helped in this recent shoot?
gun safe and/or locking that loony up


oh - and yes, of course your explanation of a study is quite accurate, albeit sometimes worlds apart from real life of those in or out of the study....those damn 'averages'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

require background checks unless the person already possesses a CWP
require guns safes, purchase of or proof of ownership
lock up the loonies - they are a danger to society
let's work on specifying TRUE military style weapons - not handguns. the assault weapon title was wildly misused on the previous ban, much like it is this week and limit those accordingly



Great suggestions.

I would add increased funding for mental health care and a program to try and reduce the stigma associated with mental health issues. I would also like to see better, independent studies on the side effects of (mental health related) prescription drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> However, for someone like myself who was trained by a professional gunsmith and
>shooter (my father) That won't apply.

Agreed; those are stats across a wide range of people, and definitely won't be true for every individual.

Quick story - when I was growing up I had a friend in high school who could break things by looking at them. He had a combination of clumsiness and bad luck that would put Murphy to shame. One day we were over at his house and he came downstairs with his father's 9mm. My other friend and I took one look at each other and ran. We then argued with him from down the street to put it away.

"Come on, guys, I'm not stupid, I took the clip out" he told us.

"Is there one in the chamber?" I asked. At this point all I had ever fired was a .22 rifle but at least I knew that.

"No, the clip is out, I told you," he said.

We refused to come back until he put it away. I was half expecting to hear the BANG and just hoped he wouldn't shoot himself. He was mad at us for weeks after that.

Keep in mind that there are a lot of people out there in the world like that, which is why, in general, having a gun can be more of a risk than a benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and if any of you had been trained and were responsible with guns, it would have been a simple matter of requesting the gun and "teaching" him what you meant by checking the chamber and why that's also part of safety in addition to removing the magazine

instead, you ran and left an idiot alone with a potentially loaded gun

I'd would state that this isn't right or wrong, I don't know your age at the time. But knowledge instead of ignorance is still better at any age on this topic - and there's just a lot of ignorance and they are in charge


the culture has moved from people with knowledge and experience teaching responsibility to their kids to just a culture of fear - maybe there's a part of the program

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah. Stupid people in the world = taking away guns.
Is that really what you mean?
That's how it reads.

I'm not that afraid of stupid people. It's all about risk mitigation. Reducing our options for tools to mitigate those risks do not help.

I know people that have no business in a driver seat of a car, on a motorcycle, in an airplane, under canopy...etc....
I'm still able to do all those things freely and responsibly.
B|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ah. Stupid people in the world = taking away guns.



my brother throws that one out all the time "half the people in the world are below average" and then he uses that as proof for discussions why others don't deserve rights

if you realize that like 90% of people actually 'believe' they are above average and thus gifted enough to make decisions for the 'stupid half' of the population, it becomes clear why legislation and rights violations are so popular and out of control

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Billvon I agree with you... I would have ran away too. However what I would do is ask my father. He would have his guns hidden and he would bring them and show them in a manner which the weapon was unloaded and instruct us how to operate it safely. He was always (and still is) under the premise that if you are afraid of a gun then you have a much higher chance of being hurt by one than if you are taught how to handle one safely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Stupid people in the world = taking away guns.
>Is that really what you mean?

Nope. Is that really what you take from that? Really?

>I'm not that afraid of stupid people.

I am. If I die skydiving, it will almost certainly be due to one of two things:

1) I do something stupid
2) Someone else does something stupid

Driving I fear the stupid people the most - the people driving without working brakes, or texting the girl they just broke up with, or trying to find the french fries on the back seat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.



Repeating post 39, it's no surprise. People who expect to be attacked are far more likely to carry, even if laws prohibit it. But if I chose to carry, my risks would not change at all....other than my risk at being arrested for carrying concealed and carrying a loaded weapon, two separate felonies in California. So I'm only going to do this if I have serious threats made against me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>But if I chose to carry, my risks would not change at all....

Not true. Your gun cannot be used against you if you don't have it; it CAN be used against you if you do. Conversely, there are situations where the gun would reduce your risk by being a deterrent or by killing someone who attacked you. So your risks would certainly change. Would they change in a way you wanted them to? That's up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>But if I chose to carry, my risks would not change at all....

Not true. Your gun cannot be used against you if you don't have it; it CAN be used against you if you do. Conversely, there are situations where the gun would reduce your risk by being a deterrent or by killing someone who attacked you. So your risks would certainly change. Would they change in a way you wanted them to? That's up to you.



In 2 decades of potential handgun ownership, I've had a single incident where it might even come up - I got cold cocked in a nightclub district by a drunk guy. Two cheap shots, and then some guys that drove by ran him off.

so not a single opportunity where someone could have used it against me. If you want to change my words from "not change at all" to change 1%, sure, fine. But it's irrelevant to the point at hand - people with guns are more likely to get victimized because people who are likely to get victimized carry guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Thats your problem. Youre still living off what some old crusty ass professor said about how YOU should live YOUR life. And you are still following the same mantra... just like a lemming.

How is it that ivy league professors think they know better than anyone else?



It was a FIREARMS instructor, not a professor:P:P:P
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>But if I chose to carry, my risks would not change at all....

Not true. Your gun cannot be used against you if you don't have it; it CAN be used against you if you do. Conversely, there are situations where the gun would reduce your risk by being a deterrent or by killing someone who attacked you. So your risks would certainly change. Would they change in a way you wanted them to? That's up to you.



If you are in a situation where it's likely that someone would attempt to disarm you then whether you have a gun or not it's a really bad situation.

I have my CHL and carry nearly all of the time. I still avoid bad areas of town and work to be even more aware of my surroundings. Having my weapon well concealed minimizes the likeliness of someone attempting to disarm me and use my weapon against me. It's very likely that I will never have to draw my weapon, but at least I have the option.

Quote

""Scholars engaged in serious criminological research into "gun control" have found themselves forced, often very reluctantly, into four largely negative propositions. First, there is no persuasive evidence that gun ownership causes ordinary, responsible, law abiding adults to murder or engage in any other criminal behavior—though guns can facilitate crime by those who were independently inclined toward it. Second, the value of firearms in defending victims has been greatly underestimated. Third, gun controls are innately very difficult to enforce." - Don Kates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>so not a single opportunity where someone could have used it against me.

Right, but you were talking about risk. You could buy a Velocity 69 to replace your Safire 149 and land it safely 10 times. You could then say "that canopy did not have a single opportunity to hurt me." But your risk would still be higher.

>But it's irrelevant to the point at hand - people with guns are more likely to get victimized

From the data I've seen that's true.

>people who are likely to get victimized carry guns.

I will take your word for that although I have not seen that data.

>because

There's the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>But it's irrelevant to the point at hand - people with guns are more likely to get victimized

From the data I've seen that's true.



I doubt that that is true. In the data that you have seen were they filtering out those that possessed the gun illegally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.



Magazine sizes should be on the table.

Easy access to large capacity semi-auto weapons makes mass murder just a little too convenient.


. . =(_8^(1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.



Magazine sizes should be on the table.

Easy access to large capacity semi-auto weapons makes mass murder just a little too convenient.



Doesn't make any difference. Ejecting an empty magazine and inserting a full one doesn't take much time at all and is especially irrelevant when attacking unarmed people.

Also there are so many high capacity magazines out there that banning future sales will make very little difference in the availability. It will only affect the cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.



Magazine sizes should be on the table.

Easy access to large capacity semi-auto weapons makes mass murder just a little too convenient.



I just bought a dozen 30 5.56 magazines

I dont own a 5.56 anymore but views like this are likely to make worth 10 times what I paid for them soon

BTW, the US's major shooting/gun suppliers just told thier distributors that they are completely sold out of all high cap mags and AR15 type weapons

I dont know how many that is but, you can bet it is a lot
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you seen how much AR style pieces have already gone up?
I have 10 co-workers and about 6 good friends that currently own at least one.

Everything that was covered under the previous gun ban will increase in price IMO. Won't really change the availability again, but at least prices will go up.
So again, it will really serve no purpose.
Criminals will steal or otherwise illegally obtain what they want.
The rest of us will just pay more.
Like always.
BOHICA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
***
Quote

Have you seen how much AR style pieces have already gone up?
I have 10 co-workers and about 6 good friends that currently own at least one.

Everything that was covered under the previous gun ban will increase in price IMO. Won't really change the availability again, but at least prices will go up.
So again, it will really serve no purpose.
Criminals will steal or otherwise illegally obtain what they want.
The rest of us will just pay more.
Like always.
BOHICA



About 6 weeks ago I sold a high end AR in 5.56 that I built

Wish I still had it

I still have an Alexander Arms (basicly) AR style rifle chambered in the 6.5 Grendel
3" targets at 400 yards are easy to hit
I love taking my sons out shooting it
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.



Magazine sizes should be on the table.

Easy access to large capacity semi-auto weapons makes mass murder just a little too convenient.



Doesn't make any difference. Ejecting an empty magazine and inserting a full one doesn't take much time at all and is especially irrelevant when attacking unarmed people.

Also there are so many high capacity magazines out there that banning future sales will make very little difference in the availability. It will only affect the cost.



I do understand the futility of bans, and am very much pro SA. But I am also distraught over all the mass killings lately.

What if it took a more thorough background check and/or justification to possess more than one magazine of an agreed to size for any given type of firearm, and a law making it illegal to possess otherwise?

How about some mid-road compromise along those lines, the goal being to eventually mitigate easy access to large magazines.


. . =(_8^(1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Criminals will steal or otherwise illegally obtain what they want.



No, they will steal or otherwise illegally obtain what is easy or cheap to.

Just look at how many crimes take place with full auto weaponry.



every one of them, if you listen to your kind talk about it. Brady likes to take advantage of fact that too many people only "know" about guns from watching action movies. Good thing they don't see too many Hong Kong movies - they'd think a single Beretta in the hands of Chow Yun Fat could kill 50 people before running out of bullets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0