Discussion: The Second Amendment V

[Feenix]

Here is an idea, tag guns like we do vehicles that way we know who rightfully owns any given gun. That way when somebody like the guy in that school shooting gets his hands on a gun like that you can follow the trail where and who it came from. That should cut down the chances of illegal guns being sold(but I am guessing the gun nuts will claim they losing their 2nd amendment rights to go to war with the government)

And yes I know the counter argument that illegal guns will still find a way to be sold(so we shouldn't do anything about it) but my counter argument to that is that while illegal stuff will still be sold you are going to cut a percentage of those sales in the future and that's better then doing absolutely nothing

I should also bring up the argument how much did the lax gun laws in Georgia help in allowing the guy to buy the guns in the first place(which was my main point in the statement you responded to but completely ignored but creating a strawman argument)

^This

 

[mrvlknight21]

Do you realize what kind of slippery slope this is on? The one argument I always hear from the pro-gun group is that criminals have guns, so we should as well. Does that apply to every type of weapon? If criminals had flame throwers, should we be allowed to have those, too? Grenades? Nukes? Rocket launchers? It's ridiculous. More effort should be spent on PREVENTING "criminals" from getting their weapons than on arming untrained citizens to the teeth. From the article I posted, you will read that Australia had similar problems with guns and gun violence in the past. They don't now. Why? Gun control laws.

This is what I mean by a sick, twisted obsession with guns. An American wouldn't give up their gun, even if it meant saving lives.

I certainly would not describe what I said as any type of slippery slope. To compare the amount of available handguns, rifles and shotguns to grenades and flame throwers is a bit crazy. Not to mention, there are practical purposes for firearms which are not applicable to a flamethrower or whatever.

And to that end, what about the slippery slope in the other direction-hammers, knives, baseball bats etc are used in assaults and murders everyday...should those be outlawed?

I agree that more effort should be made to prevent criminals from getting guns and I think the penalty should be very steep for any criminals caught with a gun or using a gun during the commission of a crime.

 

[mrvlknight21]

My point is how much did the lax gun laws in Georgia help in allowing the guy to buy the guns(illegally) in the first place(which was my main point in the statement you responded to but completely ignored by creating a strawman argument)

I am not sure what you are talking about. How did lax Georia gun laws help the guy who went into the DeKalb County school with an Ak47?

According to the reports that I read he either took or borrowed the rifle from an acquaintance who purchased it legally. It is being investigated which of those it was, so how the heck did I create a strawman argument? Your example did not apply.
Strawman =You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

 

[Feenix]

I certainly would not describe what I said as any type of slippery slope. To compare the amount of available handguns, rifles and shotguns to grenades and flame throwers is a bit crazy. Not to mention, there are practical purposes for firearms which are not applicable to a flamethrower or whatever.

And to that end, what about the slippery slope in the other direction-hammers, knives, baseball bats etc are used in assaults and murders everyday...should those be outlawed?

I agree that more effort should be made to prevent criminals from getting guns and I think the penalty should be very steep for any criminals caught with a gun or using a gun during the commission of a crime.

What are these so-called practical purposes for firearms? Other than hunting (which no one does with a pistol), I don't see a reason why people need guns. The only other "purpose" it would serve it for defense, but even that's an argument in itself.

To the second bolded statement, that's not even an argument. If it was valid, Australia would be seeing a flurry of knife and baseball bat related deaths. They haven't. This has no basis behind it whatsoever and is merely picking at hairs.

 

[SV Fan]

According to the reports that I read he either took or borrowed the rifle from an acquaintance who purchased it legally. It is being investigated which of those it was, so how the heck did I create a strawman argument? Your example did not apply.

Where the hell did the guy get the 500 rounds of ammo from? Next question is what the hell does somebody need 500 rounds of ammo. I am guessing many people don't want their 2nd amendment rights infringed and feel that buying 500 rounds of ammo is perfectly normal. Now if Georgia had more restricted laws buying that much ammo might be more controlled.

 

[mrvlknight21]

What are these so-called practical purposes for firearms? Other than hunting (which no one does with a pistol), I don't see a reason why people need guns. The only other "purpose" it would serve it for defense, but even that's an argument in itself.

To the second bolded statement, that's not even an argument. If it was valid, Australia would be seeing a flurry of knife and baseball bat related deaths. They haven't. This has no basis behind it whatsoever and is merely picking at hairs.

Hunting is the obvious one, but you are right, certain guns just are NOT good for hunting (too small, not accurate past a certain range, etc).
Some people do hunt with pistols, but they are typically larger caliber ones and the hunts are usually for hogs, or small game.

Some people take part in various shooting competitions, so to that end, it is a hobby or sport in which a firearm(s) is required. While some may say they could take up chess instead, I dont see any issue with 3 gun competitions, skeet competitions, bullseye stuff, etc. I feel that it is just as valid of a sport/hobby as most others that I have seen and I know a few people who do participate in these events (but I have never done so).

I think the 2nd bolded statement is as valid as your grenade/flamethrower/nuclear weapon argument. In fact, I am absolutely sure that more crimes are committed with the weapons that I named (knives, bats, etc) than the ones that you named. Criminals will use whatever they can get their hands on to commit crimes. Obviously, that includes guns, too. Dont get me wrong, I am not oblivious to the fact that guns are a MAJOR part of criminal culture. My point is that banning all guns and some of the other suggestions that I have heard or read about (not just in this thread) are not good ideas, in my opinion. Locally earlier this year, we had two young men that beat the hell out of a couple with a baseball bat while trying to rob them. The man that was beaten was in critical condition for quite a while. All it takes for criminals to commit crimes is an opportunity, perceived or otherwise. If they have their mind made up to do something, they could use any form of weapon to get it done.

I mentioned this earlier, but the laws need to focus on the criminals. Some argue that fear of punishment is not a valid deterrent, and that may be true. But I still think that states and the federal government needs to take a tougher stand on prosecution of criminals with guns.

In my opinion, there MUST be a shift in morals and culture. If you have teenagers who are willing to kill someone because they are bored or just for fun, then there is clearly an issue there (referring to the Oklahoma shooting of the Australian baseball player). Obviously, we need to learn where these kids got the gun that was used, as none of them was old enough to purchase it themselves.

Where the hell did the guy get the 500 rounds of ammo from? Next question is what the hell does somebody need 500 rounds of ammo. I am guessing many people don't want their 2nd amendment rights infringed and feel that buying 500 rounds of ammo is perfectly normal. Now if Georgia had more restricted laws buying that much ammo might be more controlled.

I dont know where he got the 500 rounds, in the 3-4 reports that I read, plus the live news coverage that day, that was not addressed, only the gun itself was. It is certainly possible that he purchased them (as there is no license required to purchase ammo legally here in Georgia). Or, he may have taken it from the owner of the rifle. Again, I havent seen anything either way on that yet, but I am sure that we will soon. Are you suggesting that the law require that someone purchasing ammo produce a georgia weapons permit? Because keep in mind, you dont have to have that permit to own a firearm.

As far as the round count, clearly, this guy had bad intentions. However, I would argue that 500 rounds is not a lot of ammo, generally speaking. Many people who practice shooting will pick up 100 or more rounds everytime they stop at the wal-mart or local gun store. I personally know individuals who have several thousand rounds of multiple calibers. A full day at the range can easily use up 1,000 rounds.

 

[wiegeabo]

It's pretty simple. You buy 500 rounds of ammo because it's buying in bulk.

That way you don't have to worry about buying ammo next time you want to go shooting. Grab all the rounds you need and head out the door.

Also, if you've ever been to a shooting range, especially with a variety of guns of the same caliber, and with multiple people, you can go through rounds pretty darn quick.

Most of the times we went, the reason we leave the range is not because we've been there for a long time. it's because we've run out of ammo (or at least most of it).

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Looks like we got some a new anti-gunner in here who doesn't seem to understand a thing he's talking about. It helps in an argument when you can see both sides of an issue in a rational manner.

 

[dnno1]

I don't understand what you mean by "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun my eye!"

What does that even mean?

The quote: "The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" is from NRA Vice President, Wayne LaPierre. You can replace "my eye" with "my foot" or "my ass" and it would mean the same thing.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Do you realize what kind of slippery slope this is on? The one argument I always hear from the pro-gun group is that criminals have guns, so we should as well. Does that apply to every type of weapon? If criminals had flame throwers, should we be allowed to have those, too? Grenades? Nukes? Rocket launchers? It's ridiculous. More effort should be spent on PREVENTING "criminals" from getting their weapons than on arming untrained citizens to the teeth. From the article I posted, you will read that Australia had similar problems with guns and gun violence in the past. They don't now. Why? Gun control laws.

This is what I mean by a sick, twisted obsession with guns. An American wouldn't give up their gun, even if it meant saving lives.

Actually, if the other guy has nukes, you're gonna want nukes. So... kind of?

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Actually, if the other guy has nukes, you're gonna want nukes. So... kind of?

And the whole argument of everyone getting of nukes is reductio ad absurdum since no common person is going to use, let alone even get their hands on one. You're basically comparing weapons of mass destruction with hand-held weapons that fire small projectiles, which is just beyond stupid.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well I wasn't being serious.

Though I do believe people have a right to self-defense, and by extension a right to whatever the most common weapon of choice is.

In the 18th century that was a small sword and a flintlock pistol.

Today it's a semiautomatic handgun and a knife.

 

[dnno1]

That's not altogether true, Thundercrack. Although you may have a right to defend yourself, it can only be with that weapon you can obtain. If it is not for sale you cannot obtain it and thus have no right to own it or use it.

 

[dnno1]

Georgia City Backs off on Mandatory Gun Ownership
http://nation.time.com/2013/08/23/georgia-city-backs-off-on-mandatory-gun-ownership/#comments

 

[Feenix]

And the whole argument of everyone getting of nukes is reductio ad absurdum since no common person is going to use, let alone even get their hands on one. You're basically comparing weapons of mass destruction with hand-held weapons that fire small projectiles, which is just beyond stupid.

It was meant to be an exaggeration to show the slippery slope. It's more stupid to think that because criminals can get their hands on weapons, we should be able to, to the extent that whatever they can get, we can get. But thanks for calling the opinion that differs from yours beyond stupid. Nice guy, hey?

 

[Destructus86]

I don't think most people in the governmernt are talking about taking guns away from people...just creating tighter restrictions. Which we should ALL be for if we care at all for the safety of people.

I know one of the latest "Reasons" against this is people always bring up "Well, Chicago has strict gun laws and tons of people still die in shootings" And this is true. But then most places in the country don't have as big a problem with crime syndicates as Chicago does. Also, many of the shootings tend to take place outside of the central areas of cities and more on outskirts, suburbs, etc...

We need tighter restrictions. It hurts no one and it at least helps a little.

 

[Hotwire]

I really don't think this is such a great idea.

The Blind Can Carry Guns In Public

 

[Webfoot Hero]

I really don't think this is such a great idea.

The Blind Can Carry Guns In Public

Yeah, I'm just not that comfortable with the idea either. Seems like a decision that was made more to avoid a lawsuit than one made with good logic. It's like allowing blind people to get driver's licenses.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

So here is what I think. If you're a violent criminal or known gang member or if you have mental health problems then you should be tagged and that tag will prevent any firearm from working.

It will take a few years to get all the guns compatible but it will be worth it.

 

[Destructus86]

So here is what I think. If you're a violent criminal or known gang member or if you have mental health problems then you should be tagged and that tag will prevent any firearm from working.

It will take a few years to get all the guns compatible but it will be worth it.

That just seems like common sense to me.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

So here is what I think. If you're a violent criminal or known gang member or if you have mental health problems then you should be tagged and that tag will prevent any firearm from working.

It will take a few years to get all the guns compatible but it will be worth it.

And who's going to be paying for everyone to get tagged and for all the guns to be made compatible with that technology? Sounds like a good idea, but totally unfeasible and hard to implement nationwide.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

it could be done, with all the money we will save from not being in Iraq and Afghanistan, it could easily be done. We have the technology

 

[wiegeabo]

Sorry, that money we're supposedly be saving will need to be used to keep medicare and social security from going bankrupt.

 

[Destructus86]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...-fatally-stabbed-while-protecting-girlfriend/

This happens a lot in seattle believe it or not.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

And right on cue, Dianne Feinstein wants to push for gun control again.

I mourn those killed today at the Navy Yard in Washington and send my thoughts and prayers to those families grieving the loss of loved ones.

There are reports the killer was armed with an AR-15, a shotgun and a semiautomatic pistol when he stormed an American military installation in the nation’s capital and took at least 12 innocent lives.

This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons—including a military-style assault rifle—and kill many people in a short amount of time.

When will enough be enough?

Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.