Jump to content

So Very Sad....


Recommended Posts

There are clearly cultural and philosophical differences regarding this subject. 

The main reasons for individual ownership of firearms are self defense and preventing the state from having a monopoly on force.  With all freedoms comes risk.  That is the price of a free society.  

I for one was never taught willingness to shoot somebody is a condition of ownership.  I never heard that anywhere til now.

Depends on who is interpreting the data/statistics and what their motivations are.  One can look up statistics from govt sources that show rifles of all kinds, with AR15's being in that category, are the least used weapons in homicide.  But it really doesn't matter does it?

Ever hear the old saying "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 515
  • Created
  • Last Reply

^^ Wait, preventing the state from having a monopoly on force? You're advocating an urban militia? Man I hope you're not going there.

I though we were making some progress in this thread,  earlier, talking about what compromises might be agreeable or workable, in the effort to limit the ready availability of certain types of guns or modifications or to whom they are available.

Now you guys are saying guns aren't meant to kill. I understand feeling the need to stand one's ground in a discussion, but this is really counterproductive, isn't it? Of course guns are meant to kill, people or animals. That is their purpose, other than target shooting/competitive shooting. Not agreeing on that just ends credibility and makes this entire discussion pointless, doesn't it? Sure protection -- by having the ability to shoot someone. It's also an unnecessary position, because no one here is disagreeing with the general right to buy/own a gun, for protection of the home, or hunting (or I guess target practice).

Can we get back to where this thread once was, reasonable limitations on ready availability, or to whom? If not, maybe it's time to close this one out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

There are clearly cultural and philosophical differences regarding this subject. 

The main reasons for individual ownership of firearms are self preservation and preventing the state from having a monopoly on force.  With all freedoms comes risk.  That is the price of a free society.  

I for one was never taught willingness to shoot somebody is a condition of ownership.  I never heard that anywhere til now.

Depends on who is interpreting the data/statistics and what their motivations are.  One can look up statistics from govt sources that show rifles of all kinds, with AR15's being in that category, are the least used weapons in homicide.  But it really doesn't matter does it?

Ever hear the old saying "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics"?

How is a gun going to help you self-preserve or prevent government take over? Is it going to tickle someone into submission?

I find it hard to believe you've never been taught you need to be willing a gun on someone if you have one; it's part of the self-preservation you just argued for...unless you really did just mean to tickle someone. Even if you weren't taught it, it's clearly implied; if you pull a gun on someone without being willing to use it you are exponentially increasing your, and everyone around you, likelihood of death. 

Of course I've heard that saying; it's up to all of us to interpret data with as little bias as possible. I'll still take data and object evidence over any other form of "proof" every day of the week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My intent was merely to offer a counterpoint to firearms only purpose is for killing. Not trying to redirect. 

And highlight the philisophical differences this debate deals with.

This discussion has led me to think more in depth about my positions and I have learned a bit . 

Back to compromise.  

In exchange for age limits, waiting period, bump stock ban (I wouldnt own one and don't know anyone who does btw), what would gun control advocates agree to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said you were taught not to have a gun unless you were willing to kill someone . 

I was never taught that because most of what I own (rifles, muzzloaders, shotguns) were gifted or bought for target practice/hunting, well before I bought a pistol for my wife when I worked nights.  I do carry occasionally but obviously never want to use it. It is a last resort if descalation of force fails. 

I am from a rural area so maybe you were brought up in an area where gun ownership wasnt a part of growing up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

My intent was merely to offer a counterpoint to firearms only purpose is for killing. Not trying to redirect. 

And highlight the philisophical differences this debate deals with.

This discussion has led me to think more in depth about my positions and I have learned a bit . 

Back to compromise.  

In exchange for age limits, waiting period, bump stock ban (I wouldnt own one and don't know anyone who does btw), what would gun control advocates agree to?

I have yet to see anything proposed other than reciprocity which has been addressed. I'm open to things besides that if they are presented. 

I've also addressed the "compromise" is getting to have a say in what reform comes versus not having a say if the GOP forces this to be tabled until 2018 or 2020. I can promise if 2018 or 2020 turns into a referendum election on this issue it will be much more restrictive than if something is passed now in a bipartisan nature. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

You said you were taught not to have a gun unless you were willing to kill someone . 

I was never taught that because most of what I own (rifles, muzzloaders, shotguns) were gifted or bought for target practice/hunting, well before I bought a pistol for my wife when I worked nights.  I do carry occasionally but obviously never want to use it. It is a last resort if descalation of force fails. 

I am from a rural area so maybe you were brought up in an area where gun ownership wasnt a part of growing up. 

Never wanting to use it and being willing to are much different things. Short of target shooting or shooting a clay pidgeon, when do you shoot a gun without the intention of causing harm?

I'm all for hunting (well I'm not for different reasons, but don't think it should be outlawed) but when we are talking consitutional rights that isn't about hunting. I understand the importance of that, especially in rural areas, but that's not what our founders were talking about when they said well regulated militia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rescind George H W Bush 1989 executive order banning imports of some semi-auto rifles. They are already being replicated. Collectors would like original production models.

Open up NICS database to private sellers to enable them to do background checks. 

You don't really seem open to compromise though.  It seems you are waiting for a power change so gun control can be forced on gun owners.

Did you experience the period during the clinton ban? It is largely responsible for where we are today.

 Democrats own guns too.  Women are the fastest growing segment of gun owners right now. I don't think it will go how you want it to go. 

Also, the feds need the support of county sheriffs to enforce their laws.  Just look at the attempt on magazine restrictions after the movie theatre shooting for an example of refusal to comply.

It also seems you think gun owners are just waiting to kill someone. It is just not true if that is the case.

Most just want to be left alone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

Rescind George H W Bush 1989 executive order banning imports of some semi-auto rifles. They are already being replicated. Collectors would like original production models.

Open up NICS database to private sellers to enable them to do background checks. 

You don't really seem open to compromise though.  It seems you are waiting for a power change so gun control can be forced on gun owners.

Did you experience the period during the clinton ban? It is largely responsible for where we are today.

 Democrats own guns too.  Women are the fastest growing segment of gun owners right now. I don't think it will go how you want it to go. 

Also, the feds need the support of county sheriffs to enforce their laws.  Just look at the attempt on magazine restrictions after the movie theatre shooting for an example of refusal to comply.

It also seems you think gun owners are just waiting to kill someone. It is just not true if that is the case.

Most just want to be left alone. 

I am fairly certain I've not said or implied anything remotely close to all gun owners wanting to do harm. I've said the purpose of a gun is to do harm and that is true. Saying otherwise is like saying the purpose of a book isn't reading because it can be used for a paperweight or a fire. 

I am well aware Democrats and women own guns despite the fact that I am neither of those. I also have a pretty good grasp on what to reasonably expect in the coming elections based on today's polling. Based on every poll and every election since November 2016 I'm not sure how you extrapolate anything other than a big shift in power by 2020. There's variables that could change that sure the 2018 election obviously (and even before but that seems extremely unlikely). 

I'm also familiar with the Clinton gun ban, what do you think it proves? 

I'm not very familiar with the 1989 ban but I would be happy to look into it. If it's only going to enable collectors as you say then I don't have a problem with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didnt. It was my interpretation and incorrect. I apologize. 

You are also most likely aware of power shifting the oopposite of the party of the president or party in power. So in 2020 it is very likely there will be a 2-4 year period similar to Obama's first term. Then probably another power shift in the opposite direction. 

I bring up the 1994 ban because it is believed to be the primary reason for the proliferation and popularity of "assault rifles" we see today. And the reason Clinton lost the house and most likely repsonsible for bush 2.  

So any ban proposal will be more restrictive and  met with a massive increase in sales before passage and if passed a thriving black market.  I do believe there is a good chance at it happening.  Then a shift in power and a supreme court ultimately ruling on whatever may be passed. 

This is just how I see things most likely happening. 

I don't identify with either party either so my point of view is something I came to on my own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

You didnt. It was my interpretation and incorrect. I apologize. 

You are also most likely aware of power shifting the oopposite of the party of the president or party in power. So in 2020 it is very likely there will be a 2-4 year period similar to Obama's first term. Then probably another power shift in the opposite direction. 

I bring up the 1994 ban because it is believed to be the primary reason for the proliferation and popularity of "assault rifles" we see today. And the reason Clinton lost the house and most likely repsonsible for bush 2.  

So any ban proposal will be more restrictive and  met with a massive increase in sales before passage and if passed a thriving black market.  I do believe there is a good chance at it happening.  Then a shift in power and a supreme court ultimately ruling on whatever may be passed. 

This is just how I see things most likely happening. 

I don't identify with either party either so my point of view is something I came to on my own. 

Fair enough, no need to debate what will happen with regards to black markets as we would both be speculating. 

I'll agree to disagree on the power shift. You're correct that traditionally it plays out in that manner, I jus think there's a lot of good reasons to think it won't going forward. 

High level overview would be because we didn't really see a post Obama shift in votes to begin with; GOP has control because of gerrymandering and the electoral college, not because they're actually the majority opinion on anything. Gerrymandering is likely to be going away via SCOTUS soon. We also are seeing a trend with college educated voters to the left in ways we have never seen; combining that with the Democrats having a stronghold with minority votes doesn't leave much of a base for the GOP. I can certainly expand on this if someone wants me to, I'm just not trying to detail the thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is probably a topic for another discussion but your last post is what I believe to be accurate and I may be wrong but I truly believe in the not too distant future, America will Balkanize in a way similar to what Bosnia/Yugoslavia did in the early 90's.  It might be 50-100 years from now but this is what I think may happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

Also, I think a thread discussing what you brought up in your last paragraph would be interesting. 

The only reason I keep posting in this thread is because it is only place I have found on the internet,  discussion to be resonable and cordial. 

I think we could have a very interesting thread about the American electorate and how it may or may not be shifting. Not sure how the mods feel with that being political, but as long as we kept it to that and left our own personal views out of it maybe it would be okay? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

I think we could have a very interesting thread about the American electorate and how it may or may not be shifting. Not sure how the mods feel with that being political, but as long as we kept it to that and left our own personal views out of it maybe it would be okay? 

In this Animal House forum we're trying to open it up a bit more to discussion that gets close to the line, but we are going to draw the line when we believe it's being crossed. It is, admittedly, a difficult line to draw. This isn't a political forum, but talking about how the electorate may be shifting, without getting into partisan discussion and peoples' own political views, or taking sides, sounds ok on its own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

In this Animal House forum we're trying to open it up a bit more to discussion that gets close to the line, but we are going to draw the line when we believe it's being crossed. It is, admittedly, a difficult line to draw. This isn't a political forum, but talking about how the electorate may be shifting, without getting into partisan discussion and peoples' own political views, or taking sides, sounds ok on its own. 

Echoing off my friend here:

If people can talk dispassionately, in an almost academic sense, about their view on what is happening in this country -- that's great and worthy of all of our time!

If it becomes "I'm right because I believe X, you're wrong because you believe Y," that's a bit tougher to defend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rico said:

So I guess we need tighter restrictions on bombs?  Hmmmmmmm.

I'll be as nice as I can, and I'm glad you brought it up. We have tight restrictions on bombs and they freaking worked. A guy that knew what he was doing, who set off numerous bombs over many weeks only was able to kill two people; a guy with no training who legally bought a gun killed 17 people in a matter of minutes. 

If you can't see how regulations made this a lot more difficult and saved many lives I'm not sure what to tell, but the proof is in the pudding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HoosierFaithful said:

Echoing off my friend here:

If people can talk dispassionately, in an almost academic sense, about their view on what is happening in this country -- that's great and worthy of all of our time!

If it becomes "I'm right because I believe X, you're wrong because you believe Y," that's a bit tougher to defend.

You have a low bar for friends :coffee:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I'll be as nice as I can, and I'm glad you brought it up. We have tight restrictions on bombs and they freaking worked. A guy that knew what he was doing, who set off numerous bombs over many weeks only was able to kill two people; a guy with no training who legally bought a gun killed 17 people in a matter of minutes. 

If you can't see how regulations made this a lot more difficult and saved many lives I'm not sure what to tell, but the proof is in the pudding. 

And Timothy McVeigh says hello.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this was a discussion on school shootings and what could be done to prevent more? 

Obviously, guns have a role in the discussion, but lets not forget about the FBI, school administrators, the "jail to school pipeline" , lack of police response / preparedness that made Parkland a much worse trajedy. Why is no one concerned about anything other than guns?

I continue to bring up the MD HS shooting and TX church shootings as examples where guns saved lives. Just seems to fall on deaf ears. 

There was talk of the students rallying on their own. I'm sorry, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Doing some digging, I found this-

A meeting between Parkland students and anti-gun activists mobilizing for the highly anticipated March For Our Lives event in Washington, D.C. this weekend was captured on hidden audio Tuesday evening in Broward County, Florida. The meeting, which was described as a non-partisan briefing for students, parents, and staff members from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who are attending the #MarchForOurLives, was quickly exposed as being hijacked by Democratic Party top brass and fraught with extreme anti-conservative bias, misappropriation of school resources, and heavy-handed coaching for students when dealing with the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

You didnt. It was my interpretation and incorrect. I apologize. 

You are also most likely aware of power shifting the oopposite of the party of the president or party in power. So in 2020 it is very likely there will be a 2-4 year period similar to Obama's first term. Then probably another power shift in the opposite direction. 

I bring up the 1994 ban because it is believed to be the primary reason for the proliferation and popularity of "assault rifles" we see today. And the reason Clinton lost the house and most likely repsonsible for bush 2.  

So any ban proposal will be more restrictive and  met with a massive increase in sales before passage and if passed a thriving black market.  I do believe there is a good chance at it happening.  Then a shift in power and a supreme court ultimately ruling on whatever may be passed. 

This is just how I see things most likely happening. 

I don't identify with either party either so my point of view is something I came to on my own. 

Very interesting. Never heard that but it makes sense. I know gun sales surged under Obama as gun stores pushed that narrative. 

Speaking for Chicago, nearly all the gun crimes are committed by gangs using black market guns. How is any law going to change that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Reacher said:

Very interesting. Never heard that but it makes sense. I know gun sales surged under Obama as gun stores pushed that narrative. 

Speaking for Chicago, nearly all the gun crimes are committed by gangs using black market guns. How is any law going to change that?

It's easy to buy and sell guns on the black market when you can easily buy a gun legally elsewhere and sell it illegally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

It's easy to buy and sell guns on the black market when you can easily buy a gun legally elsewhere and sell it illegally. 

Why does law enforcement not crack down on that. There are straw buyer laws. I see local examples where charges are not even brought. The police do their job and get an arrest. The state decides not to prosecute and or the county releases them from jail. 

A quick Google search found this- http://www.guns.com/2017/04/17/straw-purchaser-with-4-felony-gun-charges-will-not-get-jail-time/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...