Gun Banning perspective... - Page 6 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #76 12-23-2012, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

And a lot of tools own weapons.

Lol!

Mike Murrell · #77 12-23-2012, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idle

A Probation Officer I know says that 50% of all crime could be eliminated if this product were banned, at least in the rural Texas area he worked in.

The govt. tried this in the 30s. A whole new class of criminal emerged. One willing to provide what the govt. had taken away.

Banning anything is not going to curtail the desire to have and the willingness of some to provide what's been banned.

Drugs are banned in most areas. How's that ban working out?

Botnst · #78 12-23-2012, 11:54 AM

OTOH, silencers are practically banned (special permits and very expensive). Same with full-auto. So there is a way. You just have to make the permitting process so onerous that it isn't worth the trouble.

I'd love to own a sound suppressor but I don't want the gov to know what I have. Let's just say that history teaches that all good things must end.

Diesel911 · #79 12-23-2012, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

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?

This goes back to the ridicule instead of argument that the other member posted. Please notice that in My arguments I don't riducual Folks.

Facts:
I was born in1952. Growing up some People owned Guns and some did not.
Up until the President JFK assassination you could order Hand Guns and other Guns by Mail.

On the Back Page of every Gun Magazine were Mail Order Guns.
Yet, there was little violence of any kind period.
As the 1960s progressed there was increasing Violence and Crime.
In My opinion after the "Drug Culture" took a good hold the Violence started to rise faster.

Things like serial killing and Child Molestation also shot up.
Part of the above is due to what I call an increase in Criminal Rights; meaning that the Law has a difficult time prosecuting Criminals due to the stricter interpretation of the Laws of evidence.

Simply put the violence is being caused because the gernearl population is simply more immoral and selfserving than then people in the past were and there is too many of them for the Law to police.

In fact much of the population sees any sort of representation of the Law; even a STOP sign as an affront to their personal freedom.

The tragic and irresponsible use of Guns is just a tiny part of the above.
Now; I snap My Fingers and magically all of the Guns in the US owned by non-criminals other than authorized government agencies disappear from the Face of the Earth.
After that what has changed; except that the non-criminals are more defenseless than they were before. Who does that help?

My comment on the Switzerland who's Soldiers bring their real Assault Rifles and Ammo Home with them was meant to show that they can do that without rampent Gun Violence because they have a better society then We do here.

You are not going to fix Our Society by trying to regulate or ban Guns.

As an example I was trying to make goes sort of like this.
Because somepeople think that you cannot use a so called Assult Weapon for Hunting or for Home defence; what they just has to believe must be true.
(So called Assault Weapons are supposed to be able to kill legions of innocent People and Enemy Soldiers that might be wearing Body Aromor but are not able to effectively be used to Kill a Deer; is considered a sound argument; if you believe what you want to.)

People belive what the want and ignore or don't care about the truth. And, that is OK till they try to make it the Law.

I have this on My Bullitun Board:
Title;Thinking Problems Through
Understand the cause of the Problem
Understand the Goal
Plan a Sloution
Act on the Plan
Do the Results match your Goal

A ban on Guns fails in the "Understand the Problem" (People who want to kill other Pople) area and the "Do the Results Match your Goal" areas (after the Gun ban the People who want to Kill are still there).

732002 · #80 12-23-2012, 01:57 PM

Ironic that there was a time that you could legally own automatic guns but alcohol was illegal.

USA 5% of world population 50% of worlds guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

This is a historical list of countries by firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year.

Country Total firearm-related death rate Homicides Suicides Unintentional Undetermined Year Sources and notes
El Salvador 50.36 50.36 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011[1]
Jamaica 47.44 47.44 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011[1]
Honduras 46.70 46.70 NA NA NA 2007 OAS 2011[1]
Guatemala 38.52 38.52 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011[1]
Swaziland 37.16 37.16 NA NA NA 2004 UNODC 2006[1]
Colombia 28.11 27.10 0.87 0.14 NA 2009 UNODC 2011 [2]
Brazil 19.01 18.10 0.73 0.18 NA 2008 UNODC 2011[3]
Panama 12.92 12.92 NA NA NA 2010 OAS 2011[1]
Mexico 11.14 10.00 0.67 0.47 NA 2010 UNODC 2011[4]
United States 10.2 3.7 6.1 0.2 0.1 2009 OAS 2012[5][6]
Philippines 9.46 9.46 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002[7]
South Africa 9.41 NA NA NA NA 2012 UNODC 2012[8] & Stats SA[9]
Montenegro 8.55 2.06 6.49 NA NA 2009 WHO 2012[10]
Paraguay 7.35 7.35 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[11]
Nicaragua 7.14 7.14 NA NA NA 2007 OAS 2011[1]
Argentina 5.65 3.00 2.01 0.64 NA 2001 2008 UNODC 2011[12]
Canada 4.78 0.76 3.72 0.22 NA 1992 Krug 1998[13]
Zimbabwe 4.75 4.75 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[11]
Serbia 3.90 0.62 2.81 0.18 0.29 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Finland 3.64 0.26 3.34 0.02 0.02 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Switzerland 3.5 0.52 3.15 0.10 0.07 2010 OAS 2011[1]
Costa Rica 3.32 3.32 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002[7]
Uruguay 3.24 3.24 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002[7]
Croatia 3.01 0.57 2.35 0.07 0.02 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Barbados 3 3 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[11]
France 3.00 0.22 2.33 0.05 0.41 2009 WHO 2012[10]
Austria 2.94 0.18 2.68 NA 0.08 2010 WHO 2012[10]
New Zealand 2.66 0.17 2.14 0.09 NA 1993 Krug 1998[13]
Estonia 2.54 0.30 1.57 0.07 0.60 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Slovenia 2.44 0.05 2.34 NA 0.05 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Belgium 2.43 0.29 1.96 0.01 0.16 2006 WHO 2012[10]
Malta 2.16 0.48 1.68 NA NA 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Peru 1.87 1.87 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011[1]
Israel 1.86 0.94 0.71 0.03 0.19 2009 WHO 2012[10]
Republic of Macedonia 1.04 0.45 0.42 0.08 0.08 2011 WHO 2012[10]
Luxembourg 1.81 0.60 1.00 NA 0.20 2009 WHO 2012[10]
Norway 1.78 0.04 1.72 0.02 NA 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Portugal 1.77 0.48 1.09 0.02 0.18 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Czech Republic 1.76 0.12 1.39 0.10 0.15 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Slovakia 1.75 0.18 0.94 0.39 0.24 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Lithuania 1.61 0.24 1.00 0.03 0.33 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Georgia 1.54 0.23 0.09 1.00 0.23 2009 WHO 2012[10]
Greece 1.5 0.59 0.84 0.04 NA 1994 Krug 1998[13]
Sweden 1.47 0.19 1.20 0.06 0.01 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Denmark 1.45 0.22 1.16 0.04 0.04 2006 WHO 2012[10]
Latvia 1.43 0.18 0.94 0.04 0.27 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Bulgaria 1.35 0.23 0.87 0.14 0.11 2011 WHO 2012[10]
Italy 1.28 0.36 0.81 0.08 0.03 2009 WHO 2012[10]
Kuwait 1.25 0.36 0.06 0 NA 1995 Krug 1998[13]
Iceland 1.25 NA 1.25 NA NA 2009 WHO 2012[10]
Germany 1.10 0.06 0.94 0.02 0.08 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Moldova 1.04 1.04 NA NA NA 2011 WHO 2012[10]
Australia 1.05 0.09 0.79 0.02 0.15 2008 UNODC 2011[14]
Ireland 1.03 0.36 0.56 0.04 0.07 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Kyrgyzstan 1.01 0.53 0.07 0.28 0.13 2010 WHO 2012[10]
India 0.93 0.93 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[11]
Hungary 0.85 0.13 0.72 NA NA 2009 WHO 2012[10]
Cyprus 0.83 0.24 0.48 NA 0.11 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Uzbekistan 0.68 0.58 0.03 NA 0.08 2005 WHO 2012[10]
Spain 0.63 0.15 0.42 0.05 0.01 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Netherlands 0.46 0.20 0.24 0.01 0.01 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Taiwan 0.42 0.13 0.12 0.11 NA 1994 Krug 1998[13]
Belarus 0.38 0.38 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002[7]
Ukraine 0.35 0.35 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[11]
United Kingdom 0.25 0.04 0.17 0.01 0.02 2011 WHO2012 [10]
Poland 0.26 0.02 0.12 0.02 0.09 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Singapore 0.24 0.07 0.17 0 NA 1994 Krug 1998[13]
Romania 0.20 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.01 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Hong Kong 0.19 0.12 0.07 0 NA 1993 Krug 1998[13]
Mauritius 0.19 0 0.09 0.09 NA 1993 Krug 1998[13]
Qatar 0.18 0.18 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[11]
South Korea 0.13 0.04 0.02 0.05 NA 1994 Krug 1998[13]
Japan 0.07 0.02 0.04 0 NA 1994 Krug 1998[13]
Azerbaijan 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.02 NA 2007 WHO 2012[10]
Chile 0.06

Diesel911 · #81 12-23-2012, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Murrell

The govt. tried this in the 30s. A whole new class of criminal emerged. One willing to provide what the govt. had taken away.

Banning anything is not going to curtail the desire to have and the willingness of some to provide what's been banned.

Drugs are banned in most areas. How's that ban working out?

I agree; the government in a sense created organized Crime.

Ban Guns and the Criminals will sell them and make even more money; and, use them on the now defensless Public.

Diesel911 · #82 12-23-2012, 02:23 PM

[QUOTE=greazzer;3071505]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Geez... what did pot ever do to anybody??

In the big picture, pot is no different than booze and vice versa. I am not sure that pot is addictive whereas booze is or at least can be. Also, I really don't know if excessive long term pot smoking can cause terminal disease whereas booze can. BUT, I really think folks would be better off not using either or just using them every blue moon if that.

I have mixed feelings concerning Pot. Having spent time in Hospital Emergency Rooms People who drink Alcohol to excess clearly often maim and kill themselves and others. And, there is also domestic Alcoholic issues that harm families.
Pot does not have that direct of a connection to those things.

But, Pot smokers may also drink and often due other Drugs.

But, Pot has a connection to this thread because Gun Violence is often associated with Drugs and when someone buys Pot it is very likely helping to support that Violence.

Diesel911 · #83 12-23-2012, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Neither one of those is an assault rifle.

Once in for all, you are Mercedes guys so I expect you to know this!

This is an assault rifle, its capable of fully automatic fire.
It costs $20k+, and is an NFA item on a form 3.

This is a semi automatic sporting rifle, with a lot of useless Gucci gear on it, and cheap crap ammo in the mag.
$900 plus gear, and a few permits depending on where you live.

Their is a vast difference between these rifles.

I know that but People who want to Ban Guns want all of them gone.

Diesel911 · #84 12-23-2012, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 732002

It is not possible to have gun and alcohol deaths reach zero, the goal it to reduce the numbers while maintaining reasonable levels of freedom. For me semi-auto and high capacity magazines should go. The drinking age of 21 seems reasonable, I would like longer sentences for DUI.

Due to the High Capacity Magzine laws in some States some Revolvers are have 8-10 shots depending on the Caliber.

Both a Revolver and an old Cowboy type Winchester are nearly as fast as a Semiautomatic Rifle or Piston (Hand Gun).
There is also Pump type Rifles and Shotguns that are slightly faster than the Winchester.
So if the goal is to slow a killer down by not having Semiautomatic Weapons that is not going to work.

In the old West when People needed more shots in a hurry they carried more than one Gun so they would not need to spend time reloading.

If a Person like the recent Mass Murder decided they wanted to Kill they clearly would not have any issues buying illegal semiautomatic or fully automatic weapons.

Diesel911 · #85 12-23-2012, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 732002

Ironic that there was a time that you could legally own automatic guns but alcohol was illegal.

USA 5% of world population 50% of worlds guns.

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a historical list of countries by firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year.

Country Total firearm-related death rate Homicides Suicides Unintentional Undetermined Year Sources and notes
El Salvador 50.36 50.36 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011[1]
Jamaica 47.44 47.44 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011[1]
Honduras 46.70 46.70 NA NA NA 2007 OAS 2011[1]
Guatemala 38.52 38.52 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011[1]
Swaziland 37.16 37.16 NA NA NA 2004 UNODC 2006[1]
Colombia 28.11 27.10 0.87 0.14 NA 2009 UNODC 2011 [2]
Brazil 19.01 18.10 0.73 0.18 NA 2008 UNODC 2011[3]
Panama 12.92 12.92 NA NA NA 2010 OAS 2011[1]
Mexico 11.14 10.00 0.67 0.47 NA 2010 UNODC 2011[4]
United States 10.2 3.7 6.1 0.2 0.1 2009 OAS 2012[5][6]
Philippines 9.46 9.46 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002[7]
South Africa 9.41 NA NA NA NA 2012 UNODC 2012[8] & Stats SA[9]
Montenegro 8.55 2.06 6.49 NA NA 2009 WHO 2012[10]
Paraguay 7.35 7.35 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[11]
Nicaragua 7.14 7.14 NA NA NA 2007 OAS 2011[1]
Argentina 5.65 3.00 2.01 0.64 NA 2001 2008 UNODC 2011[12]
Canada 4.78 0.76 3.72 0.22 NA 1992 Krug 1998[13]
Zimbabwe 4.75 4.75 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[11]
Serbia 3.90 0.62 2.81 0.18 0.29 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Finland 3.64 0.26 3.34 0.02 0.02 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Switzerland 3.5 0.52 3.15 0.10 0.07 2010 OAS 2011[1]
Costa Rica 3.32 3.32 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002[7]
Uruguay 3.24 3.24 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002[7]
Croatia 3.01 0.57 2.35 0.07 0.02 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Barbados 3 3 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[11]
France 3.00 0.22 2.33 0.05 0.41 2009 WHO 2012[10]
Austria 2.94 0.18 2.68 NA 0.08 2010 WHO 2012[10]
New Zealand 2.66 0.17 2.14 0.09 NA 1993 Krug 1998[13]
Estonia 2.54 0.30 1.57 0.07 0.60 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Slovenia 2.44 0.05 2.34 NA 0.05 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Belgium 2.43 0.29 1.96 0.01 0.16 2006 WHO 2012[10]
Malta 2.16 0.48 1.68 NA NA 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Peru 1.87 1.87 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011[1]
Israel 1.86 0.94 0.71 0.03 0.19 2009 WHO 2012[10]
Republic of Macedonia 1.04 0.45 0.42 0.08 0.08 2011 WHO 2012[10]
Luxembourg 1.81 0.60 1.00 NA 0.20 2009 WHO 2012[10]
Norway 1.78 0.04 1.72 0.02 NA 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Portugal 1.77 0.48 1.09 0.02 0.18 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Czech Republic 1.76 0.12 1.39 0.10 0.15 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Slovakia 1.75 0.18 0.94 0.39 0.24 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Lithuania 1.61 0.24 1.00 0.03 0.33 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Georgia 1.54 0.23 0.09 1.00 0.23 2009 WHO 2012[10]
Greece 1.5 0.59 0.84 0.04 NA 1994 Krug 1998[13]
Sweden 1.47 0.19 1.20 0.06 0.01 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Denmark 1.45 0.22 1.16 0.04 0.04 2006 WHO 2012[10]
Latvia 1.43 0.18 0.94 0.04 0.27 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Bulgaria 1.35 0.23 0.87 0.14 0.11 2011 WHO 2012[10]
Italy 1.28 0.36 0.81 0.08 0.03 2009 WHO 2012[10]
Kuwait 1.25 0.36 0.06 0 NA 1995 Krug 1998[13]
Iceland 1.25 NA 1.25 NA NA 2009 WHO 2012[10]
Germany 1.10 0.06 0.94 0.02 0.08 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Moldova 1.04 1.04 NA NA NA 2011 WHO 2012[10]
Australia 1.05 0.09 0.79 0.02 0.15 2008 UNODC 2011[14]
Ireland 1.03 0.36 0.56 0.04 0.07 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Kyrgyzstan 1.01 0.53 0.07 0.28 0.13 2010 WHO 2012[10]
India 0.93 0.93 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[11]
Hungary 0.85 0.13 0.72 NA NA 2009 WHO 2012[10]
Cyprus 0.83 0.24 0.48 NA 0.11 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Uzbekistan 0.68 0.58 0.03 NA 0.08 2005 WHO 2012[10]
Spain 0.63 0.15 0.42 0.05 0.01 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Netherlands 0.46 0.20 0.24 0.01 0.01 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Taiwan 0.42 0.13 0.12 0.11 NA 1994 Krug 1998[13]
Belarus 0.38 0.38 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002[7]
Ukraine 0.35 0.35 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[11]
United Kingdom 0.25 0.04 0.17 0.01 0.02 2011 WHO2012 [10]
Poland 0.26 0.02 0.12 0.02 0.09 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Singapore 0.24 0.07 0.17 0 NA 1994 Krug 1998[13]
Romania 0.20 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.01 2010 WHO 2012[10]
Hong Kong 0.19 0.12 0.07 0 NA 1993 Krug 1998[13]
Mauritius 0.19 0 0.09 0.09 NA 1993 Krug 1998[13]
Qatar 0.18 0.18 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[11]
South Korea 0.13 0.04 0.02 0.05 NA 1994 Krug 1998[13]
Japan 0.07 0.02 0.04 0 NA 1994 Krug 1998[13]
Azerbaijan 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.02 NA 2007 WHO 2012[10]
Chile 0.06

Clearly our society is in trouble.

One of the things that I don't like about statistical stuff-Total firearm-related death rate- is that this sort of statistic includes Firearms accidents, People that Citizens shot to defend themselves from a Crime, Criminals that the Police shot and suicides where the Person killed theselves with a Gun.

I would think that Murders committed with Fire Arms would be a better statistic and also a comparison of Firearm Murders to Murders committed by other means.

I am going to speculate that the US would score high in both Murders committed by other means and Fire Arm Murders.

Diesel911 · #86 12-23-2012, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TylerH860

My goodness, I wasn't trying to make an argument. You'll always think differently and nothing I say will change your mind. Same with me. There's no point in arguing about it.

I was really looking for a good reason to own one of these guns to make the side effects seem justifiable. You believe the type of gun makes no difference. The majority of the country seems to think otherwise. Bad argument, I know, since the majority of the country is.. well... you know...

You could not answer my question. You could only argue that my logic is flawed. I understand that very well, but sorry, you're not going to change my mind. I really don't think the carnage would been as bad with a pair of hand guns in both instances. I don't feel comfortable with the general public owning assault weapons. Most people feel the same. You disagree. That's fine.

Rather than making the standard gun rights argument you could have given me a little insight so maybe I could understand. Oh well.

"You could not answer my question. You could only argue that my logic is flawed."

It is impossible to give a satisfactory answer to questions when the idea behind the question might not be correct and the Person asking the question will not validate the answer (I don't mean the person has to agree with the answer but at least accept a chance of it being possible answer).

Sort of like a Lawyer in a Divorce Trial who asks a Man who has never beaten his Wife "When did you stop beating your Wife." The question does not match the circumstances it cannot be answered.

The bottom line for Me is that I grew up in a different time and lived in an area where people were more responsible. Some owned Guns like My Family did some did not.

No matter what type of Guns or Magazine Capacity their Guns had no one did anything that I can remember remotely illegal with their Guns let alone went out and shot someone.

Yet, modern though seems to be that the above described situation that was part of My Real Life must have been some illogical fantasy.
After, all the Modern Majority of the People believe that Guns motivate people to commit crimes.
I don't believe that is true.

kmaysob · #87 12-23-2012, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TylerH860

Gun people help me understand...

Why do you want to have assault rifles and high capacity magazines? Should your desire to own these guns trounce safety concerns with all the nut jobs?

I'm honestly having a hard time wrapping my head around this. I am not interested in second amendment arguments like, "because I can" or "because 'Merica", nor am I interested in the cars, drugs, people kill people argument or somesuch. Just wondering what is your motivation to own one of these killing machines, despite them being so easy to fall into the hands of crazies.

Unlike a handgun you can't use it for defense, unless its in your home, but I'd think you'd do lots of damage to your house or risk hitting a family member should you unload a magazine when the adrenaline is pumping. I have some experience with guns and would think a pistol would be much better for protection and home defense. Its not a practical gun for hunting either; the only use I can see is for fun at the shooting range.

All assault weapons are good at is killing large amounts of people, plain and simple. Is it just fun to have that kind of power in your hands, are you preparing for a zombie apocalypse, or what?

Banning Assault weapons and high capacity magazines makes perfect sense. The nutties can still get guns but they won't be able to kill as many people.

its no different than any other gun. they all shoot bullets, alot of them are semi auto as well. the difference is, they dont take hi cap mags and they dont look scary to the general public. High capacity mags, i have no use for, ammo goes quick when you dont have to load a magazine. the question is, at how many rounds do you consider high capacity?

an ar15 is actually one of the most common used for varmint hunting. if youve never tried it, how can you draw that conclusion?

btw what exactly is your def. of assault weapon?

cjlipps · #88 12-23-2012, 08:16 PM

I didn't read all the posts so please forgive if this is redundant or trite, but where do the wackos go to shoot innocents in large numbers? They go to places where they know nobody will be armed.
Why are we talking about the possibility of increasing the number of places where nobody will be armed?

Diesel911 · #89 12-23-2012, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benz Dr.

So why do a lot of people have to get killed before it seems to be so upsetting? What's the right number before it's not OK? 20? 10? 1? You tell me when it tarts to bother you?

Besides, you aren't going to ever get rid of guns in America. It's as American as mom and apple pie. Problem is, there's a gun for every man, woman, and child - apparently over 300 million. Hell, why not 500 million?
You see, it doesn't matter at this point. Guns have become such a part of American culture that everyone simply accepts the fact that they are here and they're not going to go away. Ban certain types and there's still going to be 250 million left to go around. Even if not one more was made and no more were introduced into the huge amount already out there, there would still be millions of them. So, don't worry. You will always be able to get one.

However, there are two sides developing which is hardly a surprise. Isn't everything getting split down the middle these days? One side is black and the other side is white. One side R's the other side D's. The new fight is and will be over guns and there's more than just a small potential for the really hard line gunners to go after someone and take them out - they feel that strongly about their rights. Even if any new laws that are passed come watered down and useless as far as makiing any real changes, there will be those who will violently oppose them.

What's wrong with safe/safer storage? What's wrong with having meaningful back ground checks on buyers? What's wrong with having some stuff restricted - you can own it but you have to cross all the T's to get one first? If it's going to make everyone feel safer having a certain limit on mag size why fight that? No one is saying you can't have any of these things - only saying that some sensible limits need to be considered. Why? Why fight this tooth and nail?

There is regulations on some of the above items; at least I CA.

Unfortunately the definition of "Feeling Safer" is left to be defined by Who?

The environment I feel safe in is going to be different from the one someone else feels safe in.

If I managed go get the Law to make an environment I feel safe in that would impose on someone else’s feeling of safety.

For Myself I did not hear our President come out and say that our Country is going to increase Security in Schools. Instead the President has gone for an attempt at the less effective Feel Good aspect of Gun Control.
Diverting resources away from something that actually might help.

Where is the Public outcry to have an X-ray Machine and a Magnetic Walk Through like at the Air Port in every School in the Country?

Diesel911 · #90 12-23-2012, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjlipps

I didn't read all the posts so please forgive if this is redundant or trite, but where do the wackos go to shoot innocents in large numbers? They go to places where they know nobody will be armed.
Why are we talking about the possibility of increasing the number of places where nobody will be armed?

Exactly.

My opinion there is to rush into decision because "something has to be done" and there is a highly vocal portion of the Public (I assume potential Voters) that simply don't like or understand People who own Guns and are determined cause the Law abiding Gun owners all the trouble they possibly can.
They certainly don't focus on School Security.

In this case it plays into the hands of the Politicos (who have no coherent idea of what to do) giving them an easy way to appeasement and making it appears like they actually did something instead of coming up with a real solution.

If it does not work the Politicos scapegoat and say they did what the Public wanted.

In the mean time no effort and recourses are being spent on finding a real solution or solutions. The tragic part is that it does not only apply to Gun Issues.