The Perpetual Gun Control Thread - Page 9
Page 9 of 118 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112131415161959109 ... LastLast
Results 105 to 117 of 1528
  1. #105
    BamaNation All-American formersoldier71's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Jasper, AL
    Posts
    3,719

    Re: The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by crimsonaudio View Post
    Again, I'm open to discussing potential changes in the law, but when stories like this surface, it makes it more difficult to make the case that we need more laws - looks like in this case we need better law enforcement: FBI may have known months in advance that Florida shooting suspect had plans to be a “professional school shooter”
    I am not. I am not open to discussing criminalizing my legally owned possessions. I am not open to discussing having to register my legally owned possessions that didn't have to be registered when I legally purchased them. I am not open discussing turning in my legally owned possessions.
    Victory... does not depend entirely upon numbers or mere courage; only skill and discipline will insure it. - Vegetius

  2. #106

    Re: The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by CharminTide View Post
    Interesting piece from the NYT:
    Yah, that is interesting, thank you.

    But are we concerned with reducing mass shootings or reducing gun violence in general? I are more about the latter than the former - both are awful, but we lose a lot more people to everyday gun violence (~11,500 deaths per year) than to mass shootings (238 deaths in 2017).

    I'm not sure that the results would be the same if we're addressing gun violence in general.
    Oderint dum metuant - Lucius Accius

  3. #107

    Re: The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by formersoldier71 View Post
    I am not. I am not open to discussing criminalizing my legally owned possessions. I am not open to discussing having to register my legally owned possessions that didn't have to be registered when I legally purchased them. I am not open discussing turning in my legally owned possessions.
    Fair enough, and I understand where you're coming from completely.

    That's essentially where I always end up, because every time I try to engage people and try to dive deeper, they walk away, move the goalposts, etc. If people are unwilling to research and find out WHY gun violence is so prevalent here, then I'm not going to support curtailing our rights just because it makes them feel like they're doing something or it 'might' help.
    Oderint dum metuant - Lucius Accius

  4. #108
    BamaNation Hall of Fame 92tide's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    East Point, Ga, USA
    Posts
    36,480

    Re: The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by crimsonaudio View Post
    I guess I'll just throw this out here - fundamentally speaking, the discussion is essentially this - everyone I have ever spoken about this, from avid shooters to those who wish to ban firearms entirely, would like to see gun violence drastically reduced and is both angered and saddened by these mass shootings. That said, what gun restriction proponents are asking is essentially that may of us willingly curtail our own rights for the betterment of the whole. I own 'high capacity' magazines and AR pattern rifles. I also own pistols that carry more than 10 rounds (the typical cutoff when people discuss 'high capacity magazines'). Yet I've only ever enjoyed these in peace, target shooting, firearm safety drills, etc. I own these for my enjoyment and the protection of myself and my family - and I'm no different that about 99% of all legal firearm owners in that regard.

    Why we keep circling back to is this - discussing compromises of our rights without ensuring that we've solved any underlying problems is generally not going to fly with gun owners. While there are some gun owners who are unwilling to discuss any potential compromise, you'd likely be surprised at how many are open to at least discussing it intelligently - but it has to start with digging deep and researching where the problem comes from.

    We didn't just wake up in the mid-90s and suddenly have more guns around - this country has been stocked to the gills with firearms since it began. Something has changed - be it something in out society, something in our medicines or food, I have no idea. But something is fundamentally different now than it was 30 years ago. Unless / until we divine and figure that out, you're going find a lot of gun owners unwilling to compromise, as we know these things WILL continue.
    please don't take this the wrong way, but i don't see how restricting magazine capacity is automatically an infringement or compromise on your right to keep and bear arms.
    The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

    - George Orwell

    If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.

    — Thomas Pynchon

  5. #109
    BamaNation Hall of Fame CharminTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    6,583
    Thread Starter

    Re: The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by crimsonaudio View Post
    Yah, that is interesting, thank you.

    But are we concerned with reducing mass shootings or reducing gun violence in general? I are more about the latter than the former - both are awful, but we lose a lot more people to everyday gun violence (~11,500 deaths per year) than to mass shootings (238 deaths in 2017).

    I'm not sure that the results would be the same if we're addressing gun violence in general.
    Ideally both. You're right -- and the NYT piece indirectly acknowledges this -- that proposals like banning semiautomatic rifles or high-capacity magazines would likely curb mass shootings, but not overall gun violence that is largely driven by handguns. Proposals like banning sales to the mentally ill and increasing mental health diagnosis/care would probably affect both.

  6. #110

    Re: The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by 92tide View Post
    please don't take this the wrong way, but i don't see how restricting magazine capacity is automatically an infringement or compromise on your right to keep and bear arms.
    Well, it would literally infringe upon my right to use my legally purchased property. Maybe I didn't phrase it well, let try again - I bought something that's legal, use it in a perfectly legal manner, and now people (potentially) want me to surrender the right to use that despite my never having misused it and without proving that said compromise will actually reduce gun violence in the US.
    Oderint dum metuant - Lucius Accius

  7. #111
    BamaNation Hall of Fame CharminTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    6,583
    Thread Starter

    Re: The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

    Since we're on this topic now:

    I understand that folks who hunt or protect farmland from wild critters have specific firearm needs. The only times I've fired semiautomatic rifles have been at the shooting range for fun. Other than pure enjoyment (which, mind you, is a reasonable thing worth protecting), is there some practical need for a semiautomatic rifle or large-capacity magazines that I'm not aware of? I've heard the argument that one might need such a weapon and ammo capacity for home defense against 6 heavily armed intruders, but I don't find that to be a compelling reason. Is there a use-case I'm missing?

  8. #112
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Atlanta 'Burbs
    Posts
    10,888

    Re: The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by selmaborntidefan View Post
    I'm gonna go with "getting hit by a bullet" for $600, Alex.....
    but why did someone pull the trigger?

    Was it an accident and if so what circumstances led to the accident? How old was the victim? Was their a child safety lock? Had the gun owner been trained in firearm safety? If so what is the likelihood of firearm accident for different training programs versus none at all? Etc, etc, etc

    this again is explicitly forbidden

    why?

    Because the GOP and their masters in the NRA don't want anyone to know

    and that is a freaking joke

    and doesn't even scratch the dozens to hundreds of other valid data points that would could be collecting that could actually allow us to make some smart decisions about how we handle gun laws in the future

    again, explicitly forbidden from doing so
    "There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist." - Terry Pratchett

  9. #113

    Re: The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by CharminTide View Post
    Since we're on this topic now:

    I understand that folks who hunt or protect farmland from wild critters have specific firearm needs. The only times I've fired semiautomatic rifles have been at the shooting range for fun. Other than pure enjoyment (which, mind you, is a reasonable thing worth protecting), is there some practical need for a semiautomatic rifle or large-capacity magazines that I'm not aware of? I've heard the argument that one might need such a weapon and ammo capacity for home defense against 6 heavily armed intruders, but I don't find that to be a compelling reason. Is there a use-case I'm missing?
    To be honest, you're coming at the this from the wrong direction.

    What you're really asking is "why should the government curtail a citizens legal use of his 2A rights?"

    Remember, 2A limits the government, not the people. Somewhat trivial point to some, but not to everyone.
    Oderint dum metuant - Lucius Accius

  10. #114
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Tidewater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Hooterville, Vir.
    Posts
    16,130

    Re: The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by 92tide View Post
    correct, these continued shootings are just a price we pay.
    Then there's no time to lose.

  11. #115
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Bamaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Jacksonville, Md USA
    Posts
    21,045

    Re: The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by TIDE-HSV View Post
    So, you think that, if you take the cosmetics away, this type of shooter will just say "Aw shucks," and give up?
    Maybe, maybe not. Its no coincidence that type of weapon is used in these shootings so much.

  12. #116

    Re: The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamaro View Post
    Maybe, maybe not. Its no coincidence that type of weapon is used in these shootings so much.
    Err...

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Oderint dum metuant - Lucius Accius

  13. #117
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Tidewater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Hooterville, Vir.
    Posts
    16,130

    Re: The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by CharminTide View Post
    Since we're on this topic now:

    I understand that folks who hunt or protect farmland from wild critters have specific firearm needs. The only times I've fired semiautomatic rifles have been at the shooting range for fun. Other than pure enjoyment (which, mind you, is a reasonable thing worth protecting), is there some practical need for a semiautomatic rifle or large-capacity magazines that I'm not aware of? I've heard the argument that one might need such a weapon and ammo capacity for home defense against 6 heavily armed intruders, but I don't find that to be a compelling reason. Is there a use-case I'm missing?
    I think that a reasonable argument could be made to limit firearms to something that can discharge something like 7 times a minute, something bolt-action like an '03 Springfield.
    It is just not among the enumerated federal powers (yet). States could outlaw them now, except centralizers have nationalized every contentious issue so that it can only be solved at the federal level. If California were to adopt a state constitutional amendment outright banning every firearm whatsoever from private hands, how long do you think it would take for that state constitutional amendment to be challenged in a federal court?

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

TideFansStore.com Bama Gear