1 1
kallend

More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, riggerrob said:

Dear Phil 111,

with the shift away from hunting, why are so many "Mericans buying military-style rifles, which are little more than "range toys?"

Is it because of all the "Merican soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I got the impression that the majority of these poorly-regulated "militias" never served a day - in uniform in their lives.

I haven't hunted for quite a while and I know there are a few B&C whitetails within 3-5 miles of where I farm.Not one, a few.  I don't think you need to be a hunter to buy guns. IMO merely liking guns and wanting to shoot them is enough. As long as they are stored and not used compromise any one else's safety. My favorite range toys are the G3 and HK91. I understand the appeal of a day at the range and lots of ammo.

A problem with the gun debate is the moderates in the middle applauding the extreme. Those who know better applauding the "knife", or "colt dragoon" equivalency argument. Its imperative that the most deadly of the range toys be kept away from people that should not own any guns.

In mass shooting after mass shooting a AR is the weapon of choice. The mere absence of a felony is a green light to buy. The threshold for purchase should be higher.The AR used in mass shootings by young, usually white, men using lawfully purchased guns of this type. Results in no ideas, no proposals from the pro gun right. BIGUN excepted.

No ideas but the parroting of there are enough laws, slippery slope, etc. If gun laws were a slippery slope why have purchases exploded. Yet had no effect on reducing the mass shootings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

This is a big part of the problem. Maybe were approaching the problem the wrong way. Rather than addressing law abiding gun owners maybe we should work on the law breakers. Let's find ways to take guns from criminals. 

image.png.6c9f828e09cbb2b95757972787861448.png

Same stupidly lame arguments re-surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

No ideas but the parroting of there are enough laws, slippery slope, etc. If gun laws were a slippery slope why have purchases exploded.

Well, there are too many gun laws, but not many are effective. 

Gun laws/regulations are not the slippery slope; fucking with the second amendment is the slippery slope. 

Not trying to be rude, just stating a fact; gun sales always go up for the following reasons, 1) the Dems win (perceived threat of government intervention regarding ownership or banning certain types of guns or LCMs), or 2) perception that Armageddon is coming and we'll all have to become survivalists.  Not saying any of this is rational - it is what it is.

And, the republicans seem to forget that democrats are just the same when it comes to their enthusiasm for guns - well, at least in rural areas.  

You wanna know the real kicker right now - go buy all the guns you want and fill up your house with them - then try to go buy ammo. You can't find it, unless you're willing to pay ten times what its worth. You can't reload right now - primer shortage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You wanna know the real kicker right now - go buy all the guns you want and fill up your house with them - then try to go buy ammo. You can't find it, unless you're willing to pay ten times what its worth. You can't reload right now - primer shortage. 

Well, at least around here that's a "Yes & No."

Guns have gotten a lot harder to find.
There's still some on the shelves, but the selection is a LOT less that normal.

Ammo? Pfft. Try to find any. 

Which is pretty funny. 
I keep hearing 'background checks on all purchases'.
I keep hearing 'ban AR-15s' (not any other military style semi-auto by name - apparently the AK-47 isn't as scary anymore).

Pistols? Zip.
Other rifles (AK, M1A, Mini-14)? Nada.

Regulate ammo? Zilch.

But the paranoia of the 'gun nuts' isn't rational, as you pointed out.

We went through this sort of thing in 08, when Obama was likely to win. Again right after the Sandy Hook shooting. Again in 12 when Obama was re-elected.

If what I'm reading/hearing is correct, there are a couple Ds in the Senate who aren't going to support this. Without that support, this is unlikely to go anywhere. Again.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2021 at 9:05 AM, gowlerk said:

 

Yes, and that means that you would rather accept all the gun deaths that to give up your right. And that is the selfishness at the heart of the problem. You are simply unwilling to give up that right. And you think that you can solve the problem without making the sacrifice. And that is blindness. Not even America can have her cake and eat it too.

 

You alluded to what I believe is the meat of the issue.  How many deaths is acceptable for the freedom?

“According to the Gun Violence Archive, a total of at least 19,223 people lost their lives due to gun violence in 2020.”

according to a report from the National Safety Council (NSC). More than 42,000 people are estimated to have died on U.S. roadways last year”

We accept 42,000+ because we want our western standard of living;

“No western industrial nation has shown itself able to function without motor vehicles.”

If you didn’t need or want a car and didn’t own a car, it would be very easy to say we should ban all cars.  Or require breathalyzer ignition systems, gps speed governors, airbags, etc. in all vehicles.  And no vehicles older than 10 years.  We could get that 42,000+ number to less than half.  But we feel the cost is worth it.  So we don’t.

That is the gun argument.  Is the cost (19,223 last year) worth the freedom?  Some believe it is, some believe it isn’t.  Both sides have valid points to justify why they believe they way they do.  I do not believe increasing restrictions will have much, if any impact on the cost.  
 

If we require vehicle tires to be no older than 6 years and minimum 1/8” tread (and enforced this requirement), yes, some lives would be saved.  But we do not do that.  Because it is a relatively large restriction for a relatively small reduction in fatalities.  For example, the universal background check and magazine limit laws from July of 2013 in Colorado have done nothing.

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
10 minutes ago, Hooknswoop said:

According to the Gun Violence Archive, a total of at least 19,223 people lost their lives due to gun violence in 2020.”

And most of those are suicides, which many people look at differently from other deaths, rightly or wrongly. Large numbers of the others affect marginalized populations. Overall, the chance of the average voter getting shot is rather low. But not as low as it should be. All these are factors in why Americans are mostly more willing to accept the damage. It is someone else’s problem.

 

edit, that number does not include suicides. There were 38000 gun suicides in 2018 alone.

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2021 at 10:25 AM, BIGUN said:

And that, is not a "gun problem" that is a "people (mental health) problem."

If the most if us are either bum fuck crazy, delusional or open to believing the most absurd propositions, and I dare you to argue otherwise, would it still be a people problem? We don't let kids drive for a reason, right? I mean surely there are quite a few who could handle it at 10 years old, yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, BIGUN said:

From February 24th 2018:

1. License the person (training, use, care, transfer, storage, transport).
2. Background Check (Criminal & Mental – defined as one who has a condition that makes them dangerous) MENTAL ILLNESS: I don't know if a simple yes or no from a healthcare professional would violate HIPPA
3. Waiting Period – 25 weekdays (if waiting period ends on a Friday – Monday pickup).
4. Training
a. 8 days - training, use, care, transfer, storage, transport.
b. 6 Days - CQB in a MOUT environment (automatic (2), revolver (1) shotgun (1), rifle @ the range (2). (*) = days.
5. Gun Show Loophole
a. All new weapons recorded/logged from cradle to grave (manufacturer to each new owner).
b. Existing weapons require
i. Individual sales to have a bill of sale.
ii. [strike}All weapons to be logged/recorded & kept with the owner – failure to produce equals minimum of three years.[/strike] TO BE WRITTEN AS: All guns in existence have one year to be entered into a national database. Any guns not in the database shall be confiscating by local authorities and smelted.  
6. Schools
a. Each school to have a minimum of one armed uniform police officer & one armed uniform security guard (onsite during school hours).
i. Each to carry an assault rifle, automatic pistol, taser, handcuffs, radio/cell).
ii. Both to train in CQB at their specific day w/ the local police department twice a year when class is not in session).
b. Teachers may carry if they choose and adhere to items 1-4
i. Teachers who carry receive $5,000-year special duty pay and must attend the twice a year training (6.a.ii)
c. Random & sporadic locker inspections.
i. Parents & students must sign an acknowledgement to allow.
ii. All students must carry their learning materials in the open (no book bags).

NOTES:
1. Items 1- 5: Cost of gun ownership.
2. Item 6: Both Left & Right have to cut their respective budgets equally at 50% of cost to protect schools. (i.e., Right – military budget. Left – social programs).

Special Notes:
1. Thanks to those that sent me information in a PM (both sides).
2. Everyone has to be receptive to giving up something.

 

 

Here in the UK things progress in this order:
1) You join a gun club
2) The gun club gives you the training needed to safely handle firearms
3) You apply for a firearms licence with the assistance of the gun club
4) In order to complete your application, you provide references from unrelated professional people and give consent for the Firerarms Licencing Officer (a local LEO who mainly deals with Firearms Licencing) to contact your Doctor and obtain a medical report as to your fitness to possess firearms.
5) You also consent to your Doctor having mandatory reporting powers with regard to your fitness to own firearms. If you develop an illness (mental or physical) which would affect your ability to safely possess firearms he is required by law to inform the FLO immediately.

On two occasions I have had episodes of depression and, following discussions with my FLO, have voluntarily restricted my access to my firearms by lodging them at my gun club for the duration of my illness. They were not confiscated, just moved to a secure place where I could still have access to them for shooting.

In the UK you may possess any weapon you like (with the  exception of fully automatic weapons) provided you can show good cause [being a member of a gun club/hunting/pest control] to possess it. The only exception to this rule is semi automatic rifles. You may possess a semi auto rifle but irrespective of its exterior appearance (AR, H&K or AK) it may only be chambered to fire .22LR. Shotguns are limited to a maximum of 3 rounds (1 chambered, 2 in magazine). Suppressors are not a problem and for bolt action rifles any calibre up to and  including .50BMG is acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:
On 3/23/2021 at 9:25 AM, BIGUN said:

And that, is not a "gun problem" that is a "people (mental health) problem."

If the most if us are either bum fuck crazy, delusional or open to believing the most absurd propositions, and I dare you to argue otherwise, would it still be a people problem? We don't let kids drive for a reason, right? I mean surely there are quite a few who could handle it at 10 years old, yes?

It was an admittedly poor attempt at sarcasm. 

My daughter was driving our street legal golf cart, then the cops showed up at my house. I'm all puffed up right, because I made sure with the Police Chief that it was all legal - right down to her taking a golf cart safety course. I'm thinking someone reported her and they were WRONG!. 

She'd busted through a stop sign WHILE on her phone. Damn criminals.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Well, there are too many gun laws, but not many are effective.

You wanna know the real kicker right now - go buy all the guns you want and fill up your house with them - then try to go buy ammo. You can't find it, unless you're willing to pay ten times what its worth. You can't reload right now - primer shortage. 

At a local Cabelas the shelves are full of guns and the floor covered with pallets of ammo. I recently bought some new federal .40 S&W for $17USD a box of 50. One effect that the restrictions of Canadian laws have held is that many handguns will sell for 1/2 of what they sell in the US for. Those being "collectable" type guns. When i was 16 i bought a S&W .357 magnum. I remember going out to the pasture and shooting for hours. Now an "approved range" with a permit to transport your restricted gun to and from that range is required.

New sporting rifles sell for more than US retail. Ammo has always been available usually its more than US retail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hooknswoop said:

You alluded to what I believe is the meat of the issue.  How many deaths is acceptable for the freedom?

 

“According to the Gun Violence Archive, a total of at least 19,223 people lost their lives due to gun violence in 2020.”

according to a report from the National Safety Council (NSC). More than 42,000 people are estimated to have died on U.S. roadways last year”

. . . .

More of the usual diversionary rubbish

 

Derek V

Last time I checked they had cars, trucks, knives and mentally ill people in Germany, France, UK, Australia, Canada, etc. too,

165005036_10159871077131800_1664229920856189759_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Hooknswoop said:

https://people.com/human-interest/4-year-old-boy-identified-as-among-those-killed-after-plane-crashed-into-car/
 

How many more kids have to die so you can continue fly around in your Mooney pretending to Maverick?

Derek V

"People die of other causes and therefor mass shootings aren't a problem" is really one of the more stupid arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

"People die of other causes and therefor mass shootings aren't a problem" is really one of the more stupid arguments.

Not what I’m saying at all.

Firearm fatalities are a problem.  Vehicle fatalities are a problem.  We must balance freedom and cost.  This is the basis of the 2 sides of the argument. One side says the freedom is not worth the cost and other side says it is.  One side says 42,000+ fatalities in a year is worth it for the standard of living cheap privately owned vehicles provide.

Is the freedom to own and fly an airplane worth even one child’s life?

Freedom of speech comes at a cost.  People are slow to say hateful, hurtful, and even untrue things.  This is the price of the freedom of speech.  Is allowing hateful, hurtful untrue speech worth everyone having the freedom of speech?  Or do we remove that freedom to stop the speech we don’t like?

Derek V

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Hooknswoop said:

Firearm fatalities are a problem.  Vehicle fatalities are a problem.  We must balance freedom and cost.  This is the basis of the 2 sides of the argument. One side says the freedom is not worth the cost and other side says it is.  One side says 42,000+ fatalities in a year is worth it for the standard of living cheap privately owned vehicles provide.

Yep.  And that same side accepts the requirement to have car insurance,  get a driver's license, and get the vehicle registered.  They are OK with a whole raft of safety requirements on cars, from bumper specs to noises to warn pedestrians they are coming to airbag requirements to brake light requirements to crash testing.  They are OK with not being allowed to drive wherever they want (into a classroom for example.)  They are OK with laws that prohibit drunk driving and driving without a license.  They are OK with laws that limit speeds and certain maneuvers and certain behaviors in cars.  They are OK with entire police forces dedicated to enforcing those laws.   They accept this because they know that these reduce (not eliminate) deaths caused by vehicles, and are willing to give up some of their freedom to reduce the death toll.

The other side . . . is not OK with those things.

One side seems more reasonable than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hooknswoop said:

Not what I’m saying at all.

Firearm fatalities are a problem.  Vehicle fatalities are a problem.  We must balance freedom and cost.  This is the basis of the 2 sides of the argument. One side says the freedom is not worth the cost and other side says it is.  One side says 42,000+ fatalities in a year is worth it for the standard of living cheap privately owned vehicles provide.

Is the freedom to own and fly an airplane worth even one child’s life?

Freedom of speech comes at a cost.  People are slow to say hateful, hurtful, and even untrue things.  This is the price of the freedom of speech.  Is allowing hateful, hurtful untrue speech worth everyone having the freedom of speech?  Or do we remove that freedom to stop the speech we don’t like?

Derek V

And cars have been upgraded, reviewed, redesigned, legislated, regulated etc etc etc in response.

The gun lobby has resisted everything along those lines.

But, we understand you are fine with kids dying as long as you get to keep your guns.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hooknswoop said:

https://people.com/human-interest/4-year-old-boy-identified-as-among-those-killed-after-plane-crashed-into-car/
 

How many more kids have to die so you can continue fly around in your Mooney pretending to Maverick?

Derek V

OK, now you agree to the same level of regulation as applies to aviation?

Mandatory instruction, written test, practical test with government approved examiner, competency review every other year, medical requirement by govt. approved doctor,  medical,  license and equipment registration posted on publicly available database.  Annual inspection of equipment.  All machines individually registered. 

Fine with me.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billvon said:

Yep.  And that same side accepts the requirement to have car insurance,  get a driver's license, and get the vehicle registered.  They are OK with a whole raft of safety requirements on cars, from bumper specs to noises to warn pedestrians they are coming to airbag requirements to brake light requirements to crash testing.  They are OK with not being allowed to drive wherever they want (into a classroom for example.)  They are OK with laws that prohibit drunk driving and driving without a license.  They are OK with laws that limit speeds and certain maneuvers and certain behaviors in cars.  They are OK with entire police forces dedicated to enforcing those laws.   They accept this because they know that these reduce (not eliminate) deaths caused by vehicles, and are willing to give up some of their freedom to reduce the death toll.

The other side . . . is not OK with those things.

One side seems more reasonable than the other.

Right and we could do more, but we don't.  The result is 42,000+ fatalities.  Society has accepted the current level of freedom (and cost).  

The current per year firearm fatalities and level of freedom balance is at the point where it will take extreme restrictions for decrease in the fatalities per year rate.

One side loses nothing if there are more extreme restrictions to the current level of freedom and the other loses a lot.

Imagine if someone was proposing the same types of requirements and restrictions on freedom of speech as you describe for vehicle ownership and driving?  It would be a non-starter.

Derek V

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kallend said:

OK, now you agree to the same level of regulation as applies to aviation?

Mandatory instruction, written test, practical test with government approved examiner, competency review every other year, medical requirement by govt. approved doctor,  medical,  license and equipment registration posted on publicly available database.  Annual inspection of equipment.  All machines individually registered. 

Fine with me.

 

 

That is not what I agreed to.  I was suggesting that even one child's life was not worth your freedom to fly around in your Mooney.

Would you be OK with applying those restrictions to the Freedom of Speech?  Of course you wouldn't.

The 2nd Amendment is just as important as the 1st.

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hooknswoop said:

The current per year firearm fatalities and level of freedom balance is at the point where it will take extreme restrictions for decrease in the fatalities per year rate.

Car companies made exactly the same arguments.  If the "EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down."  CAFE will "outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars-or even smaller ones-within five years."  It will result in "in a Ford product line consisting of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles."  Those were 30 years ago.

So all those restrictions you put in the "reasonable because it's a car" basket were called extreme and impossible by people with a vested interest in making money off cars.  And the gun lobby is now calling any new gun restrictions extreme.  Forgive me if I take them less than seriously.

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.

1 1