Gun Banning perspective... - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Diesel911 · #31 12-22-2012, 01:16 AM

Random thoughts and comments of a Gun owner:

All of our Freedoms in the USA are abused by Peoople. Should your freedom to do something be taken away because someone else abused it.

"Guns are only made to Kill"; none of mine have unless you claim Targets or Cans as Kills. I suppose that means that you can shoot without killing something else with them and still have a good time.

I can't remember the details but back in the 70s or 80s a Man lit a Night Cub on fire and killed over 200 people and there was no call for a ban on Gasoline Cans or Gasoline.

People are frequently Bludgeoned to death (beaten with a blunt object) and we don't try to ban the objects that People frequently use to do that.

Lots of Stabbings every year but We don't attempt to ban Knives over a certain size so they would be less deadly.

Banning Guns would give the Criminals another product to sell. If Criminals can smuggle in tons of Weed they can bring in tons of Guns.
Criminals need Guns to protect themselves From other Criminals as well as to ply their trade so some of them are always going to have Guns.

A Ban on Guns would remove part of the deterrent to Crime and Home Invasion type Robberies would escalate as well as other Crimes.

Do you want to count on the Police as your sole means of protection?

The Mother/Victim of the latest Mass Murder allowed Her Son who She knew was disturbed access to Her own Guns; at least I have not read that the Son broke in and took the Guns.

Lots of talk about Gun Bans but less about School Security; and that makes sense to many People.

Some of the People often quoted as "Our Founding Fathers" wrote in their various Papers that one of the reasons for the Right to Bear Arms (Guns/Firearms) was to prent the People from being opressed by the Government. Is this reason no longer valid?

Should a Country say I cannot own a Gun but require Me to carry one in the Military?

If a Gun Ban was declared and somehow enforced what real protection would it offer; meaning would you or your Loved Ones be better protected by a Gun Ban?

Who or what group would a benifit from a ban on Guns?

Like all safety related stuff it depends on the People. If People are willing to do unsafe things or go out and want to Kill other People they cannot always be stopped.
That is why that "Guns don't Kill People; People Kill People" comment has meaning because a Gun has no evil or will to it.

I could go on and on............

cmbdiesel · #32 12-22-2012, 01:25 AM

Please don't.

Unless you wish to speak with reason and research on your side, you will only make matters worse.

Dubyagee · #33 12-22-2012, 07:32 AM

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

Watch out for rule seven though,

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

iPhone 4

jplinville · #34 12-22-2012, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idle

They could have easily said they would move to restart gun training programs for Boy Scouts and that they would try to impress everyone that guns are a needed tool, but one that must be handled correctly.

As a former Scout Leader with the Dan Beard Council, I can state with certainty that the BSA and the NRA have had a very close relationship for the last 102 years. The NRA never ended any programs with the BSA, and the BSA still offers a Rifle Shooting badge.

However, all too often, parents petition the council to end the program, and less kids sign up for the badge, because their parents refuse to allow them to pursue the badge.

Quite often, it's the mothers that become troop leaders that steers the troops away from that badge...preferring sewing over the rifle.

Dubyagee · #35 12-22-2012, 09:16 AM

With bumbling Biden at the helm what could go wrong. He has a great relationship with law enforcement.

iPhone 4

t walgamuth · #36 12-22-2012, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubyagee

With bumbling Biden at the helm what could go wrong. He has a great relationship with law enforcement.

iPhone 4

Now that is a funny picture!

t walgamuth · #37 12-22-2012, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idle

If the gun folks do not get out in front of it, bans will be put into effect.

No problem is solved by ignoring it. A line once spoken by John Wayne went something along the lines of 'This is a problem and picking at it will not make it much better'. The NRA had a golden opportunity to get out ahead of this problem, but I think they blew it.

They could have easily said they would move to restart gun training programs for Boy Scouts and that they would try to impress everyone that guns are a needed tool, but one that must be handled correctly. This would have, in reality, accomplished little, but it would show the world the NRA was trying to offer their expertise to make the world a better place and that while they might be wrong in their thinking at least they were trying.

But instead they claim that more guns are the solution, and they want Congress to pay for it. This makes them look like they think the answer is to throw money at the problem.

And putting armed volunteers in schools? This would last a week or two before something went wrong. Hiring retired police officers might be a solution, but with the pension most retired police officers draw I doubt there would be many takers.

I, myself, have no answers, but then I am not expected to. The NRA could have taken the leadership position on this and controlled the conversation, but they did not and now likely never will.

I don't know who their PR firm is, but they need to start casting about for a new one.

Good thoughtful post. The NRA had a chance to do something positive but blew it with a statement that blatently promotes more gun sales...no credibility at all there.

Diesel911 · #38 12-22-2012, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Please don't.

Unless you wish to speak with reason and research on your side, you will only make matters worse.

"Please don't"; Please clerify what you mean by this.

Research verses common knowlege.
People kill or attack other People for reasons that are simple to multiple complicated reasons with an there is long list if items they used as weapons to do so.
This thread concerns the banning of one of the possible Weapons and if a ban on Guns would actually fix the above mentioned problems.

My own opinion is that the part in red above is not going to change if there was a ban on Guns and that we would lose the right to use a Gun to protect ourselves.

Added: The only possible thing that has any chance of preventing someone from getting into a School and comitting a mass murder is if the School Security was so tight that that it was not possible to do so.

Increasing Security at Schools also has a plus to it in that it might also decrease the the amount of Drugs in a School.

elchivito · #39 12-22-2012, 11:14 AM

This is an interesting perspective from the admittedly conservative judge who sentenced Gabby Giffords' shooter.

The conservative case for an assault weapons ban - latimes.com

So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That's why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.

I even say it as someone whose feelings about the NRA mirror the left's feelings about Planned Parenthood: It has a useful advocacy function in our deliberative democracy, and much of what it does should not be controversial at all.

And I say it, finally, mindful of the arguments on the other side, at least as I understand them: that a high-capacity magazine is not that different from multiple smaller-capacity magazines; and that if we ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines one day, there's a danger we would ban guns altogether the next, and your life might depend on you having one.

But if we can't find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure.

cmbdiesel · #40 12-22-2012, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel911

"Please don't"; Please clerify what you mean by this.

Research verses common knowlege.
People kill or attack other People for reasons that are simple to multiple complicated reasons with an there is long list if items they used as weapons to do so.
This thread concerns the banning of one of the possible Weapons and if a ban on Guns would actually fix the above mentioned problems.

My own opinion is that the part in red above is not going to change if there was a ban on Guns and that we would lose the right to use a Gun to protect ourselves.

You just trotted out every hackneyed, wore out, pathetic excuse which has been spouted by gun owners and the NRA for decades, then announced that you could go on and on...

So, please don't go on and on.

As a responsible gun owner, I see the need for us to collectively quit with the BS, knee-jerk, redirection talking points that have been beaten to death and proven to be disingenuous at best.

We need to speak about these things with reason and facts, all the while listening to the argument from the other side and actually responding directly to the points being raised. Screaming 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!' does not help our case.

My own opinion on what is in red is - Huh?? Could you rephrase the statement please?

cmbdiesel · #41 12-22-2012, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

This is an interesting perspective from the admittedly conservative judge who sentenced Gabby Giffords' shooter.

The conservative case for an assault weapons ban - latimes.com

So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That's why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.

I even say it as someone whose feelings about the NRA mirror the left's feelings about Planned Parenthood: It has a useful advocacy function in our deliberative democracy, and much of what it does should not be controversial at all.

And I say it, finally, mindful of the arguments on the other side, at least as I understand them: that a high-capacity magazine is not that different from multiple smaller-capacity magazines; and that if we ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines one day, there's a danger we would ban guns altogether the next, and your life might depend on you having one.

But if we can't find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure.

A voice of reason.

Thanks for the link!

Dubyagee · #42 12-22-2012, 11:35 AM

It is not the guns fault no matter how loud it is screamed. This angle is weakening your position.

Education and protection of the children is whats at hand. Access to the schools must be secured and personnel must be trained to do so. Its a brave new world and no amount of control laws will change that.

"Gloria: Do you know that sixty percent of all deaths in America are caused by guns?
Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?"

iPhone 4

davidmash · #43 12-22-2012, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel911

"Please don't"; Please clerify what you mean by this.

Research verses common knowlege.
People kill or attack other People for reasons that are simple to multiple complicated reasons with an there is long list if items they used as weapons to do so.
This thread concerns the banning of one of the possible Weapons and if a ban on Guns would actually fix the above mentioned problems.

My own opinion is that the part in red above is not going to change if there was a ban on Guns and that we would lose the right to use a Gun to protect ourselves.

Added: The only possible thing that has any chance of preventing someone from getting into a School and comitting a mass murder is if the School Security was so tight that that it was not possible to do so.

Increasing Security at Schools also has a plus to it in that it might also decrease the the amount of Drugs in a School.

That is why most of us are not talking about bans because we know they do not work. Most of us here are talking about holding gun owners responsible for their weapons, regulating the sale and resale of weapons and the storage of weapons.

Conveniently, seems most of the gun folks on this site do not seem to like that idea either. Go figure. Their solution is more guns but do not address the issue of the wrong people getting easy access to guns.

jplinville · #44 12-22-2012, 01:12 PM

My original post wasn't for those that are willing to come to some sort of reason, it was for those that say ALL guns should be banned.

Benz Dr. · #45 12-22-2012, 02:22 PM

Most of the guns that are available in the USA are also available here. You need a licence to own one or you are breaking the law. You need a special licence to own restricted weapons such as hand guns and the one used in the recent shooting, or you are really breaking the law. Full auto is banned here - there's no need for anyone in the general public to own one.

Self, or home defense, really isn't on the radar here because the average Joe isn't walking around packing a Glock. We have sensible regulations that both work and at the same time don't infringe upon the rights of hunters or sportsmen. Most of the guys I know who don't hunt also don't own guns which backs up my belief that people arn't worried about personal protection all that much.

For the most part, people here tend to trust, but not always like their current govenment. The Conservative majority that we have right now was elected with about 35% of the popular vote so that's understandable. However, there's none of this rabid '' I'm gonna be armed to the teeth just in case they try to take over '' kind of thinking here. There may be a few people like that around but they're quickly dismissed as being a bit crazy.

The 2nd Amendment has done more to screw up America than it's done to help. It hasn't made you free nor has it made you safe. If anything, it's turned some of the populace into paranoid and fretful victims that have to have a gun to protect themselves from others who have guns.
We have plenty of guns here but we never had a 2nd Amendment. Our gun deaths this year stand at 135. How are you doing?

Having said all of this, I feel very badly for those that lost those little kids. There will be no future for them - it's over.

My only child, who has mental problems, might have killed my wife one day during one of his '' episodes '' had he been able to access my firearms. They were safely locked up as were the ones next door at my parents. The police arrived very quickly. I was gone at the time and arrived home to find 6 police cars parked in my driveway and some parked in the front yard next door.
The cops asked me if I had any firearms and I said yes. After they found out everthing was locked up they relaxed a bit but were still on full alert.
Even though there had been a history of mental problems he was still charged with mischief, assult, uttering death threats, cruelty to animals and posssion of a controlled substance ( pot ) but at leat he wasn't charged with attempted murder or murder. He spent a month in hospital in a mental ward before being released to the police.

There was no free ride for him in court. It put me in a really awkward position of having to defend my son but protect my wife. ( not his mother ) In court, it became clear to me that close to half of the people charged with various things all had mental problems. Most of them breach their probation which is a criminal offense and land back in court again. None of them will ever own guns, like never!

My younger brother took his own life with a hunting rifle back in 1975. My father found him - he never got over it. He never touched a gun for ten years after that. He eventually got past it enough to hunt with me again. Last year he got a button buck at over 100 yards with a 12 gauge using 000 buck at age 85 - so he's a good shot.

So, I'm not anti gun........ I'm pro safety. It's where things should start. Be responsible with your stuff because if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.