The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

NationalTitles18 · Sep 9, 2019

BamaJama17 said:
You don’t need to shoot 3 arrows per second. One or two people who know what their doing could easily kill a handful with them.

And who has to know what they're doing to kill even more with a gun? No one past simply knowing how to reload and pull the trigger and point it at someone. The skill required to even do 1/10 of the damage a firearm would do with very little skill would narrow the list of people who would be considered a serious threat with a bow and arrow to a relatively few people in the entire world.

BamaJama17 said:
Why do you care, you’re just anti-gun.

And now you're just talking out of your backside.

G-VilleTider said:
What drives me crazy is how the narrative is spun that there is this huge threat from mass shootings when they account for less than 0.5% of the victims that are killed annually by guns.

You are more than 100 times more likely to be killed by a handgun in an isolated incident.

You are more than 1000 times more likely to be killed in a traffic accident.

Overdoses account for more than 4 times the people killed per year than all the homicides of any type combined.

Over 50 million students enrolled k-12 per year in the US. If we count all the kids/teachers impacted by a mass shooting event @ + 1000 (even though less than 1% of those would be injured directly), then we get 0.00002% of kids will be impacted.

If you actually want to save lives, fix the horses first and then worry about the zebra.

I love you, brother, but the difference is the randomness of being in a movie theater or wally world or in the street or school or wherever and someone just begins shooting. I can choose to drive carefully or not use drugs. No, I can't account for all variables or other people. I can't stop someone with a personal grudge from deciding to act.

But someone just walks in a random area and starts shooting? If I'm in the wrong place I'm gone. Statistically, the fear is not 100% rational compared to the chances of it happening, but we are not statistics - we are humans. And all it takes to be dead is to be that person in the wrong place when someone gets a wild hair to begin shooting.

I'm reminded of the statisticians who went hunting: one shot to the right of the deer, the next to the left, the third exclaims "On average we got it!". Except this time it's "on average we aren't in danger!" Doesn't matter if you're the unlucky dead kid at school or mother and father at walmart who likely never thought that would be your last day on Earth.

This is a problem which should no longer be ignored. How we deal with it is a good question. I do think it's time for serious discussions that aren't simply "take the guns" or "from my cold dead hand". Can't we, as rational human beings, move beyond those polar extremes to find some things that will help?

NationalTitles18 · Sep 9, 2019

G-VilleTider said:
In football, would you spend 99% of each practice session going over only guarding against a fake field goal attempt (somewhat similar %s)? It's not wrong at all to address it, its just that this is a tiny mole hill. I said in my original post, "If you actually want to save lives," but perhaps I should have worded it "If you want to save the most lives".

Resources are finite so I find it absurd to spend an inordinate amount of them on such a fractional % of a "problem" when there are 1,000,000's of poor, homeless, addicted people in this country alone that could be greatly benefited by these resources.

1. We can all walk and chew gum at the same time. Addressing one issue does not mean ignoring another.

2. If we really care about violence then why not address it on multiple levels?

3. It would not cost extraordinary levels of money to prevent some of these events and also reduce "normal" violence. End the war on drugs, develop robust red flag laws that preserve due process, possibly remove some types of weapons to the realm of heavily regulated and licensed like already has happened with automatic weapons, and so forth would together be revenue neutral at worst and the lives saved would each be priceless.

formersoldier71 · Sep 14, 2019

Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47, and we're not going to allow it to be used against your fellow Americans anymore.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ambles-dems-gun-message/ar-AAHguk0?li=BBnbcA1

If I'm not mistaken, all of the Democratic candidates are for an assault weapon ban. This is just a logical extension.

CharminTide · Sep 14, 2019

formersoldier71 said:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ambles-dems-gun-message/ar-AAHguk0?li=BBnbcA1

If I'm not mistaken, all of the Democratic candidates are for an assault weapon ban. This is just a logical extension.

Well that's just obviously untrue.

When we banned fully automatic rifles, did we go door-to-door and confiscate them?

Bamaro · Sep 15, 2019

formersoldier71 said:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ambles-dems-gun-message/ar-AAHguk0?li=BBnbcA1

If I'm not mistaken, all of the Democratic candidates are for an assault weapon ban. This is just a logical extension.

It is not a logical extension.

Beto has said he is for a mandatory buy back but that does NOT include going door to door.
This whole thing though obscures the real problem of the daily carnage caused mostly by hand guns on our streets.

formersoldier71 · Sep 15, 2019

CharminTide said:
Well that's just obviously untrue.

Bamaro said:
It is not a logical extension.

What is the goal of an assault weapons ban? What do supporters of such a ban hope to accomplish? To stop the massacre of innocent people, right?

What will a ban do? It depends on the version passed, of course, but at a minimum it would ban the future sale and possession of whatever weapons are designated. It will probably grandfather possession of current legally owned weapons. It may provide for legal methods of transferring ownership of existing weapons. It may require registration of existing weapons. It may do other things. What it won't do, probably, is make the millions of existing weapons disappear.

So, it won't stop someone from using their grandfathered weapon from killing people. Or, taking a family member's weapon. Or taking someone else's. Or buying one, even if the only market left is the black market. And, after a ban, people will still be killed with assault weapons. Maybe the frequency of mass shootings goes down. But, even if it does, it won't stop, and it will make the news, and it will provoke calls for further common-sense action.

So what further action is taken after a ban doesn't stop deaths from assault weapons? Voluntary buybacks? Mandatory buybacks? Something else? Is confiscation of assault weapons really not a logical extension? It is if you want to stop mass shootings with assault weapons. Or, is the goal just to get to an acceptable level of mass shootings? Or, is there another goal?

Bamaro · Sep 16, 2019

Ban the sale and institute a mandatory buyback. That does NOT entail going door to door.

Toddrn · Sep 17, 2019

So if they don't go door to door and someone reports me because I own a AR-15 will they come to my home and demand that I turn it in for payment? Everyone has an opinion on this and yes something has to be done to stop mass shootings. For me mandatory buy back equals confiscation. I fear, as many do, that once we start this it will not stop. This is a huge slippery slope.

Bamaro said:
Ban the sale and institute a mandatory buyback. That does NOT entail going door to door.

CharminTide · Sep 17, 2019

If you're going down this road, it seems more reasonable to ban future sales and institute a voluntary buyback program with large incentives. I believe New Zealand did something similar, and it seems like a more measured response than Beto advocated.

Bamafaninco1 · Sep 17, 2019

Bamaro said:
Ban the sale and institute a mandatory buyback. That does NOT entail going door to door.

What happens if you don't want to sell your gun back to the government whom never owned it in the first place? FYI, I don't own an AR I am just wondering what happens if the 'mandatory buy back" doesn't have the desired goal.

Crimson1967 · Sep 17, 2019

I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other but the notion the government can “buy back” what they didn’t own to begin with amuses me. Classic government speak.

A few years ago Wal-Mart built a big store where I lived. The city said as an incentive, they would “refund” sales tax to them for ten years.

I commented on my community Facebook group that this wasn’t a refund as it wasn’t Wal-Mart’s money to begin with and they should be honest and just say they get to keep all the sales tax money shoppers spend.

Sadly, nobody got my point.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chukker Veteran · Sep 17, 2019

After the mandatory buyback, if someone decides to keep the weapon, they won't have their home searched to see if they have a gun that is illegal to own...
But in the event of a fire, or whatever...if an illegal gun is discovered in someone's possession, they will pay the penalty (whatever it might be) for possessing something the general public is not allowed to own.

From a personal viewpoint, I'm tired of these clowns wagging their military weapons around in public to show how tough they are and to prove they can do it.

92tide · Sep 17, 2019

Chukker Veteran said:
After the mandatory buyback, if someone decides to keep the weapon, they won't have their home searched to see if they have a gun that is illegal to own...
But in the event of a fire, or whatever...if an illegal gun is discovered in someone's possession, they will pay the penalty (whatever it might be) for possessing something the general public is not allowed to own.

From a personal viewpoint, I'm tired of these clowns wagging their military weapons around in public to show how tough they are and to prove they can do it.

but what about the slippery slope. this will incentivize the government to set fires in peoples houses

Chukker Veteran · Sep 17, 2019

formersoldier71 said:
What is the goal of an assault weapons ban? What do supporters of such a ban hope to accomplish? To stop the massacre of innocent people, right?

What will a ban do? It depends on the version passed, of course, but at a minimum it would ban the future sale and possession of whatever weapons are designated. It will probably grandfather possession of current legally owned weapons. It may provide for legal methods of transferring ownership of existing weapons. It may require registration of existing weapons. It may do other things. What it won't do, probably, is make the millions of existing weapons disappear.

So, it won't stop someone from using their grandfathered weapon from killing people. Or, taking a family member's weapon. Or taking someone else's. Or buying one, even if the only market left is the black market. And, after a ban, people will still be killed with assault weapons. Maybe the frequency of mass shootings goes down. But, even if it does, it won't stop, and it will make the news, and it will provoke calls for further common-sense action.

So what further action is taken after a ban doesn't stop deaths from assault weapons? Voluntary buybacks? Mandatory buybacks? Something else? Is confiscation of assault weapons really not a logical extension? It is if you want to stop mass shootings with assault weapons. Or, is the goal just to get to an acceptable level of mass shootings? Or, is there another goal?

I don't think there is an acceptable level of mass shootings.

We are seeing so many mass shootings because gun advocates have absolutely flooded our country with military weapons. A mandatory buyback would reduce the number in circulation. It's a pretty simple concept.

Chukker Veteran · Sep 17, 2019

Chukker Veteran said:
After the mandatory buyback, if someone decides to keep the weapon, they won't have their home searched to see if they have a gun that is illegal to own...
But in the event of a fire, or whatever...if an illegal gun is discovered in someone's possession, they will pay the penalty (whatever it might be) for possessing something the general public is not allowed to own.

From a personal viewpoint, I'm tired of these clowns wagging their military weapons around in public to show how tough they are and to prove they can do it.

I hope rightwingers will forgive me, I have used one of their favorite words, (illegal) but was referencing guns and not people. :smile:

uafanataum · Sep 17, 2019

Chukker Veteran said:
After the mandatory buyback, if someone decides to keep the weapon, they won't have their home searched to see if they have a gun that is illegal to own...
But in the event of a fire, or whatever...if an illegal gun is discovered in someone's possession, they will pay the penalty (whatever it might be) for possessing something the general public is not allowed to own.

From a personal viewpoint, I'm tired of these clowns wagging their military weapons around in public to show how tough they are and to prove they can do it.

I have heard of people not going to the hospital because they were harmed during illegal activity. I could see the policy you are talking about keeping some people from calling the fire department.

BamaInCummingGA · Sep 17, 2019

I agree that the people out there waving around weapons of any type is just ignorant.
However, I have a slight problem with any law that the gvt passes: "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it". Anyone remember that quote? What's to keep them from doing that in this case, too?
Also, I'm kind of tired of the asault weapon/military style weapon argument. Again, as I have stated before, any weapon used to ASAULT someone (to do harm or kill) is by definition an assault weapon. With the term being used so loosely who's to say what the gvt will consider an assault weapon? Plus, if I want to go and kill a lot of people and don't have an AR15 I just simply use a 30 .06 or simular type weapon and cary more clips and kill as many as I can (I wouldn't do this personally and don't cary a weapon with me outside of my house unless it's to shoot sporting clays or target practice at a range) so one way or the other if someone wants people dead they are going to find a way to do it.
You outlaw steak knives and I use a butter knife. You outlaw butter knives and I use a spoon, etc. Plus, you make guns illegal (which, let's face it, that's what most dyed in the wool liberals want) you just create a whole bunch more criminals and you find that the true criminals with intent to do harm will get weapons from the black market and still do harm.
You simply cannot legislate evil/hatred out of people.
Yes, killings (whether mass killings or killings of single individuals) is certainly a tragedy. On that I wholeheartedly agree. But it's been going on as long as humanity has walked the face of this earth. People talk about Australia and New Zealand and such as examples of gun laws working and such. However, these countries are nowhere near the melting pot that the US is and when you get this many cultures/races together there are simply going to be problems and such. Doesn't make it any better as far as people getting killed but you really can't compare apples to oranges like that.
In my heart and mind, I know the answer but I know some of you don't want to hear it. Some of you would scoff at it. It's been mentioned before in these threads.
I do know this, again, you just can't legislate murder/crime away.

CharminTide · Sep 18, 2019

BamaInCummingGA said:
However, I have a slight problem with any law that the gvt passes: "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it, away from the fog of the controversy.". Anyone remember that quote? What's to keep them from doing that in this case, too?

Misleading.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the-bill-to-see-what-is-in-it/

“In the fall of the year,” Pelosi said, “the outside groups … were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million [jobs]. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on.

“So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill, so we can see, so that we can show you, what it is and what it isn’t,” Pelosi continued. “It is none of these things. It’s not going to be any of these things.”

BamaInCummingGA said:
You outlaw steak knives and I use a butter knife. You outlaw butter knives and I use a spoon, etc. Plus, you make guns illegal (which, let's face it, that's what most dyed in the wool liberals want) you just create a whole bunch more criminals and you find that the true criminals with intent to do harm will get weapons from the black market and still do harm.

Lord, I wish these mass murderers were attempting to storm elementary schools armed only with spoons. We should be so lucky.

BamaInCummingGA said:
Yes, killings (whether mass killings or killings of single individuals) is certainly a tragedy. On that I wholeheartedly agree. But it's been going on as long as humanity has walked the face of this earth. People talk about Australia and New Zealand and such as examples of gun laws working and such. However, these countries are nowhere near the melting pot that the US is and when you get this many cultures/races together there are simply going to be problems and such.

In other words, the U.S. only has problems with gun violence because it has more black and brown people than Australia and New Zealand? Interesting analysis. Especially given that most of these mass shooters are very, very white.

Chukker Veteran · Sep 18, 2019

uafanataum said:
I have heard of people not going to the hospital because they were harmed during illegal activity. I could see the policy you are talking about keeping some people from calling the fire department.

Anybody that would let their house burn down because the authorities might find their gun stash might should rethink their attachment to their weapons. Plus, the guns would likely get burned up in the fire anyway.

92tide · Sep 18, 2019

Chukker Veteran said:
Anybody that would let their house burn down because the authorities might find their gun stash might should rethink their attachment to their weapons. Plus, the guns would likely get burned up in the fire anyway.

pshaw, a minimally competent gun afficianado would put out the blaze with his mad belt-loop bump-firing skillz

The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

All-American

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

All-American

TideFans Legend

All-American

Hall of Fame

All-SEC

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

All-American

1st Team

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!