Started By
Message
re: Sensible arguments for gun control
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:28 am to heartbreakTiger
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:28 am to heartbreakTiger
quote:
I find it funny that spleen considers himself reasonable and not to the extreme when debating gun control. He is reasonable in other positions but thinking exec. orders are reasonable places him in the extremist camp when talking gun control.
I don't think I've said I think I'm reasonable, that's for other people to decide. If I did, I was mistaken. I've said I do think the bulk of the Executive Orders were reasonable suggestions on addressing a gun violence in this country. And I only brought them up to support my point that neither side is capable of reasonable debate. This whole thread kind of proves that as well.
I'm actually not even in favor of drastic gun control measures. I don't think gun violence is as big of a problem as the extreme gun control folks portray it to be. I do think it is a problem that needs addressing though. What needs to be done, I don't know.
1
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:28 am to The Spleen
quote:
Okay.
If you can provide me with info on programs like:
Mayors against illegal guns
Moms against guns
Everytown for gun safety
Coalition to stop gun violence
Moms demand action
Law Center to prevent gun violence
Children's defense fund
or any other number of gun control groups are proactive like:
NSSF
NRA
I'd be all ears. But I'm betting the vast majority will simply be alluding to less gun ownership or restrictions, rather than actual safety.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:30 am to WheelRoute
quote:
Serious question: where do you people live who are so terrified of having to protect yourselves against violent criminals?
I'm going to answer with a question of my own.
Since when did gun ownership become about crime?
The 2nd Amendment was put into place, not for fear of crime. But for fear of Gov't overreach. Which there is plenty of nowadays.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:30 am to MIZ_COU
You could, but I am not doing that.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:32 am to CheeseburgerEddie
You are not really doing anything
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:34 am to Rebelgator
This
Functions no differently than these
Being black, having a bipod and having a pistol grip or collapsible stock doesn't make it function any differently.
And, fwiw.. that duck killer, would be more effective to kill people, than the one above, in close quarters or in home evasions.
Functions no differently than these
Being black, having a bipod and having a pistol grip or collapsible stock doesn't make it function any differently.
And, fwiw.. that duck killer, would be more effective to kill people, than the one above, in close quarters or in home evasions.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:34 am to Alahunter
quote:
If you can provide me with info on programs like
Nah, those are all extremist groups that only muddy the waters to reasonable debate. I don't support any of them, nor care enough to provide you with any info on them.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:35 am to Alahunter
RG just wants to have all the cool tools and the citizens to have nothing. 
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:37 am to MIZ_COU
And what are you doing?
I was simply saying that we rarely heavily legislate based on the possiblity that someone could cause harm in order to remove that potential. And that we shouldn't change that policy just because guns are guns.
I was simply saying that we rarely heavily legislate based on the possiblity that someone could cause harm in order to remove that potential. And that we shouldn't change that policy just because guns are guns.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:38 am to The Spleen
quote:
I've said I do think the bulk of the Executive Orders were reasonable suggestions on addressing a gun violence in this country. And I only brought them up to support my point that neither side is capable of reasonable debate
And I pointed out why the majority are not. You haven't provided reasons as to why you believe they are. Simply stating they are, doesn't mean they are. You're not even debating. You're just giving an opinion that others are unreasonable for stating their reasons, without offering anything in return.
quote:
I don't think gun violence is as big of a problem as the extreme gun control folks portray it to be
Agree.
quote:
I do think it is a problem that needs addressing though.
Also agree.
quote:
What needs to be done, I don't know.
A start, would be to address the areas the problems are occurring, instead of a mass infringement on everyone. Usually, crime is a result of poor socio/economic situations. But that can't/won't be addressed in a real way, because it would mean talking about race issues, education issues and entitlement issues and that's taboo in today's political world we live in.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:38 am to heartbreakTiger
I, personally, don't see a need to remove every non military or LEO citizens right to own a gun. I do however see a great need to control the type of guns being made available to the general public (both legally and through loopholes) and the number of guns in a household. There is no valid reason that any regular citizen should have an assault rifle or a gun capable of firing a stupid amount of bullets in the smallest amount of time possible. And if someone could give me a reason that there has to be more than, say, five guns in any one house then I would like to hear it.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:40 am to Alahunter
quote:O f course it does. One is designed to shoot a lot of people quickly in a combat situation, the others are designed for hunting.
Functions no differently than these
quote:Then why do you need the assault rifle?
nd, fwiw.. that duck killer, would be more effective to kill people, than the one above, in close quarters or in home evasions.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:41 am to heartbreakTiger
quote:
well I live in Baton Rouge so protection is needed at all times
It is? I used to live in southeastern DC and my roommate in Harlem. Never once felt like we needed a weapon. Different strokes for different folks, of course... I'm just trying to understand the NEED to be armed at all times. Did you grow up in a rural area? Currently, in BR, do you live in the area where the majority of violent crime takes place?
quote:
I also have a issue with the government limiting freedoms. I don't think it is a good idea to limit gun ownership to military and police. Have we not seen enough police acting out videos? You want them to be the only people that can save you from a criminal?
1) I don't think there is any danger of a bill passing congress outlawing firearms. Most people are trying to regulate them to some modest degree, which seems entirely sensible.
2) I have seen police acting out videos, I don't think I've ever personally witnessed something like that. And for the record, if I did witness a police officer acting out or if I were the victim of a police officer acting out, the last thing I would want is to be in possession of a firearm w/ a mind to use it against him. You will absolutely only make matters worse.
quote:
Also as I said earlier I don't think over regulation is the way to solve problems, regulation usually hurts the honest people. The ones legislation is aimed at will find other ways around it or it causes a problem that wasn't intended.
Well another name for a regulation is a law, and if you criminalize the possession of certain types of firearms then you can imprison those who possess them. Regulation may impact honest people, but that's part of the trade off living in a society as opposed to setting up camp on your own private island. The real question is is the trade off of limiting the purchase of certain types of weapons worth the restriction to "freedom" that a small segment of the population will feel when they can't legally purchase an assault rifle? I say yes.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:41 am to heartbreakTiger
Know what's awesome?
This. This is.
And it keeps increasing.
This. This is.
And it keeps increasing.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:41 am to Alahunter
quote:
Being black, having a bipod and having a pistol grip or collapsible stock doesn't make it function any differently.
No, but the fact you can attach this does.
quote:
And, fwiw.. that duck killer, would be more effective to kill people, than the one above, in close quarters or in home evasions.
Wut?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:44 am to MIZ_COU
Should we legislate against everything that could be dangerous as long as someone doesn't "need" it?
If not, why are only guns open to that line of argument?
ETA: I think some minor regulation is likely warranted. I think other avenues would be more effective for the end goal of increased safety.
If not, why are only guns open to that line of argument?
ETA: I think some minor regulation is likely warranted. I think other avenues would be more effective for the end goal of increased safety.
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 11:45 am
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:44 am to Loathor
what if I have six people in my house? why should one be left without a gun? also whose business is it on how much money I want to spend on guns? For the record I don't have any guns but I think it is silly to try and limit how many I can own. Should we limit the number of cars you can own? who needs seven cars? I can at least see limiting types of guns that can be owned, but if we do that then people need to learn what each is and not just some stupid generic term like assault weapon. If you want to limit the types of ownership then it needs to be strictly and narrowly defined, which I agree with. I also think using great need is silly, but that is just being picky on wording.
FWIW i would rather no restrictions or too loose of restrictions than over restricting.
FWIW i would rather no restrictions or too loose of restrictions than over restricting.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:44 am to MIZ_COU
quote:
One is designed to shoot a lot of people quickly in a combat situation, the others are designed for hunting.
The civilian version is not an automatic weapon. It doesn't even fire on burst. It's a semi automatic weapon. It's not designed for combat.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:44 am to Rebelgator
I'm all for banning these.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:45 am to CheeseburgerEddie
quote:No. Plus I'm not in favor of absolute statements. What did you have in mind?
Should we legislate against everything that could be dangerous as long as someone doesn't "need" it?
quote:There are others. Let me give you an example. At one time there was an epidemic of people getting fingers and hands blown off with m80s. Then they were made illegal, and now it almost never happens.
If not, why are only guns open to that line of argument?
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 11:49 am
Page 5 of 15
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News